Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
by
Gabor Feuer
NOTICE: AVIS:
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive
exclusive license allowing Library and permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives
Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver,
publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public
communicate to the public by par télécommunication ou par l'Internet, prêter,
telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans le
loan, distrbute and sell theses monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres, sur
worldwide, for commercial or non- support microforme, papier, électronique et/ou
commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats.
paper, electronic and/or any other
formats.
While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans
in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu
removal does not represent any loss manquant.
of content from the thesis.
Net generation students and their use of social software:
assessing impacts on information literacy skills and
learning at a laptop university
Doctor of Philosophy 2009
Gabor Feuer
Department of Theory and Policy Studies
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
University of Toronto
Abstract
Social Software is potentially a disruptive technology in Higher Education, because it
proposes changing the instructional paradigm from a formal, structured curriculum based model
The purpose of this study was to explore this potential in the context of participating Net
Ontario. Net Generation students, are broadly characterized as the first digitally native generation
who grew up with information and communication technologies, and that they demand more
technology in all aspects of their lives. The study was interested in the efficacy and pedagogical
The review of the literature highlighted the paucity of empirical studies examining the
utility and value of these software in the higher education environment. This dissertation
explored the participating students’ views and attitudes regarding SSW, their behaviours
regarding the adoption of these tools in the learning environment, and the effects of SSW in their
ii
performance as measured by information literacy test scores and students’ perceptions of their
learning.
experimental design to answer the research questions. A total of eighty students participated, 24
in the treatment group using SSW during the instruction phase, and 56 in the control group, using
a Learning Management System (LMS). A pre-test showed a relatively moderate use of SSW
technologies among the participants, with the exception of social networking technologies –
whose adoption was almost universal. Academic use of these tools was even less pronounced in
the pre-test phase. Students showed moderate willingness to employ SSW for the support of their
Study findings could not demonstrate that the use of SSW would lead to different
information literacy scores, compared with more established technologies such as the LMS.
However, SSW use also formed an undercurrent of student behaviour, and in the aggregate SSW
use was associated with different outcomes. The role of factors contributing to these differences
iii
Acknowledgement
I am indebted the creators of the Community College Leadership program at OISE, but
more importantly to the faculty and my fellow “cohortians” who shaped my truly unique and rich
learning experience over the last three years. Thank you all for your insights, intellect and your
support.
I owe huge gratitude to Dr. Peter Dietsche, my thesis supervisor. Peter, your guidance
was incredibly helpful throughout this project, your suggestions were always very practical, your
Special thanks to my committee members, Dr. Angela Hildyard and Dr. Charles Pascal.
In different ways, you both challenged me during the thesis development and the editing process.
To my family: know that I recognize and appreciate the sacrifices you made over past
iv
Table of contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgement ......................................................................................................................... iv
Table of contents ............................................................................................................................. v
List of tables ................................................................................................................................. viii
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter one - Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Description of problem................................................................................................................ 1
v
Chapter three – Methodology and Procedures .............................................................................. 59
Context of the Study.................................................................................................................. 59
Data collection........................................................................................................................... 79
Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 82
RQ1. What is the nature and extent of SSW use among participating students? ............... 135
RQ2. What are the participating students’ perceptions and attitudes about using SSW for
learning? .............................................................................................................................. 138
vi
RQ3. To what extent do these students utilize SSW for academic tasks in the context of
learning information literacy? ............................................................................................. 141
RQ4. How does the use of SSW impact these students’ scores on the information literacy
test? ..................................................................................................................................... 147
RQ5. How do the perceptions of the students who used SSW compare with those students
who did not use SSW? ........................................................................................................ 154
RQ6. Is there a relationship between the students’ perceptions and attitudes (RQ 2) toward
SSW and academic learning outcomes − as measured by the information literacy test, and
survey questionnaire (RQ 4 and 5)?.................................................................................... 155
Caveats and limitations ........................................................................................................... 157
vii
List of tables
Table 11. Comparison of usage frequency and views regarding SWW tools .............................. 93
Table 12. Past use of SSW and favourable view as a personal learning tool ............................... 94
Table 13. Past use of SSW and favourable view of use in university classes .............................. 95
Table 14. Users and non-users of SSW in the study timeframe ................................................... 97
Table 15. Use of software tools in the class to keep track of course material/content ................. 99
viii
Table 16. Use of software tools in the class for discussions and collaboration with peers ........ 100
Table 17. Reasons for not using SSW in the study..................................................................... 104
Table 19. Paired samples pre-test and post-test ILT scores ........................................................ 107
Table 21. Mean ILT scores by class section and by use of SSW ............................................... 109
Table 22. ILT scores of ONLY SSW users by class sections ..................................................... 110
Table 23. T-test on potential factors explaining performance: all SSW users versus non-users 112
Table 24. Crosstab of SSW users/ non-users and class standing, by class section ..................... 114
Table 26. Average ILT scores by course section and year of study ........................................... 116
Table 27. Average ILT scores by SSW use and theoretical class standing ................................ 117
Table 28. Frequency of use of SSW technologies before the study. .......................................... 118
Table 29. Distribution of SSW skills according to ILT scores (low-medium-high) .................. 119
Table 30. The distribution of SSW users/non-users and gender. ................................................ 120
Table 31. ILT score distribution of SSW users and non-users within gender ............................ 121
ix
Table 32. Perceptions of learning - by class section ................................................................... 123
Table 33. Perceptions of learning – by class sections and by users/non-users of SSW ............. 124
Table 34. Use of SSW technology and course interest ............................................................... 125
Table 35. The dimensions of students’ views of SSW for learning............................................ 126
Table 36. Correlations of learning perceptions and pre-existing favourable view of SSW for
Table 37. Correlations of learning perceptions and pre-existing favourable view of SSW for
Table 38. Correlations of learning perceptions and pre-existing unfavourable view of SSW for
Table 39. Correlations of learning perceptions and pre-existing unfavourable view of SSW for
Table 40. Students view of SSW and final ILT scores ............................................................... 209
x
Dedication
xi
Chapter one - Introduction
Description of problem
The new and emerging technologies commonly named “social software” (SSW) such as,
blogs, wikis, and social networking services, is a set of Internet based, consumer oriented
computer technologies designed to help people to interact, communicate, create, and share
content. Social software represents a potential disruption in higher education, primarily with
respect to the current use of mainstream educational technologies and in formal instructional
environments. The nature of this disruption is only slowly being recognized. However, major
shifts in the use of educational technologies such as SSW could have wide ranging pedagogical
the last decade, two major converging themes characterized the debate over the use of
information technology in higher education. The first theme was the emergence of the so called
“Net Generation”, and the discussion about their characteristics and roles in the higher education
context. Who are these Net Gen students? The definition and emphasis varies somewhat, as does
the generational labels: they have been called “Millennials” (Howe & Strauss, 2000), the term
alluding to the fact that this cohort reached adulthood (and College age) around the new
1
2
Millennium, “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001a) or “Net Generation” (Tapscott, 1998). 1 Much has
been said about the Net Genners’ connections with technology. Born after 1982, they were the
first generation growing up with technology, (i.e., with personal computers and the Internet).
The perceived polarities between the “digitally native” new generation and the previous
generations which included college and university professors, created a lot of unease amongst
educators (Bennett, Maton, & Kervin, 2007). The use of the term “digital immigrant” illustrates
this tension: it refers to those who use “technology with an accent”, as opposed to the “digitally
native” millennials. An example of this “accent” is printing out hard copies of electronic texts for
reading, while digital natives simply tend to read on the computer screen. However, there were
much more serious claims about the digital natives, which gave educators pause. Prensky
differently. This is characterized by multi-tasking, parallel processing, and random access, rather
than by linearity - an approach more prevalent in the traditional field of education (2001a).
The educational discourse that emerged from the theories of Prensky, Tapscott, Howe
and Strauss, cited a host of other generational characteristics which in aggregate contributed to
the perception of a stark divide between this new generation of learners and previous
generations. This raised the questions of whether the higher education system is properly
equipped and prepared to meet the new challenges posed by the perceived needs of the new
generation. The debate that followed on the need for fundamental changes in education could be
1
While other labels also appeared (such as Generation Y, or more recently “Google generation”) these do not denote
theoretical frameworks like the others, perhaps because they are newer terms.
3
characterized as a sign of “academic moral panic” (Bennett et al., 2007). The roles and uses of
The second major theme was the emergence of new Web-based technologies in the new
Millennium. These technologies, collectively called “Social Software” (SSW), and sometimes
referred to as Web 2.0 technologies, quickly achieved phenomenal success: in just a few short
years, everybody (but mostly young people) seemed to use these tools to create and share content
on the Internet, to socialize, and build networks. Suddenly questions were raised about whether
older information technologies such as email, library databases, and other large scale academic
computer systems were still relevant in the face of the perceived new demands for technology.
Incidentally, higher education institutions were heavily invested in these existing technologies
whose relevancy was beginning to be questioned. SSW was generally portrayed as a disruptive
technology that introduces change and upsets the prevailing practices regarding the use of earlier
technologies.
The theory of disruptive technology (Christensen, 1997) was actually postulated based on
a much earlier era of ICT. Christensen convincingly demonstrated how simple, cheap, and
unsophisticated technologies pose existential threats to mature, well established technologies and
businesses - causing them to fail, and eventually supplanting these old technologies. Arguably
this is an ongoing cycle, and there were several iterations of this theme since the seventies. In the
context of higher education there were a few of these cycles − distance education (Gibson, 2000)
and virtual/online universities (Lafferty & Edwards, 2004) are two prominent examples.
However in the last few years Social Software has emerged as the major disruptive technology in
higher education (Conole, de Laat, Dillon, & Darby, 2008; Fiedler et al., 2004).
4
The explanation loops back to the first theme (i.e., the Net Gen and its use of ICT). As SSW
technologies grew exponentially over the last few years, evidence emerged that they play a
central role in today’s Net Gen students’ general computer use - primarily for personal,
recreational use. There is a widely shared general sense that Social Software (at least certain
types of it) are the de facto technologies of the Net Generation (Oblinger, 2003; Lenhart,
Madden, Macgill, & Smith, 2007). The responses to what this means for higher education were
varied, but generally two schools of thought have emerged. There were those who saw this as an
opportunity to leverage the trend and reach students in their “native” technological environment
(e.g., (Blummer, 2007; Bordeaux & Boyd, 2007). Then, there were those who went beyond the
recognition of marketing opportunities and felt that these technologies were better suited to
support contemporary pedagogical principles than the currently used, mature educational
technologies (e.g., Dalsgaard, 2006). This latter school foreboded the disruptive nature of SSW
technology. The literature review in the next chapter will elaborate on the theory of disruptive
technology and demonstrate how social software fits within the theory. For both schools of
thought, social software appeared to be a serious challenger for space in the educational
technology ecosystem.
Innovators and early adopters of the technology have advocated the use of SSW over, or
Management Systems. At the same time, institutions have so far resisted wide scale, formal
adoption of these SSW technologies for instructional support. While some institutions, mostly
those with a strong online focus and a distance education profile, primarily in the United States
and the UK, have sought to accommodate SSW in some (even if limited) form, there has been a
5
tension between the push by early adopters to co-opt these hitherto non-sanctioned tools for the
formal support of teaching and learning, and the perception by the institutions that these would
There is a long list of arguments supporting both positions (e.g., Franklin & Harmelen,
2007; Lowerison & Schmid, 2007; Staley, 2009). Essentially proponents of SSW hold that
because SSW has an open architecture and integrates with the World Wide Web, it opens up new
possibilities for new dimensions of learning, including borderless and informal learning – while
the opposing side says that it lacks the essential elements that are needed to control the
educational process. In spite of the increasing interest to leverage the SSW trend in education,
not enough is known about the utility of these tools in the academic environment, and about their
impact on students’ learning (e.g., Trinder, Guiller, Margaryan, Littlejohn, & Nicol, 2008;
The purpose of this thesis research study is to contribute to the body of knowledge on the
efficacy and pedagogical impact of social software technologies to support students’ learning
experience. Specifically, it aims to fill the gap that I found in the few empirical studies reported
in the literature, by exploring the use of SSW by a small sample of Net Gen students at one lap
How does social software impact the information literacy skills and learning of a sample of Net
Research Questions:
1. What is the nature and extent of SSW use among the participating students?
2. What are the participating students’ perceptions and attitudes about using SSW for
learning?
3. To what extent do these students utilize SSW for academic tasks in the context of
b. What are the barriers (if any) to using SSW in this context?
4. How does the use of SSW impact these students’ scores on the information literacy test?
5. How do the perceptions of the students who used SSW compare with those students who
6. Is there a relationship between the students’ perceptions and attitudes (RQ 2) toward
SSW and academic learning outcomes − as measured by the information literacy test, and
Definition of terms
Net Generation (Net Gen) Students: broadly defined as the generation born after 1982.
Social software: in general sense software that supports group interaction. More specifically it is
a set of Internet based, consumer oriented computer technologies designed to help people to
interact, communicate, create, manipulate, and share content. By virtue of integration with the
World Wide Web, the idea behind SSW is to connect communities based on common interests,
practices, etc., overcoming traditional obstacles of space, time, and technological barriers (Boyd,
2006; Coates, 2005; Shirky, 2003). Another key attribute set of SSW is scalability and open
architecture, resulting in “network effects” - which means the more people use these tools and
services, the more valuable and richer they become. Some of the main examples of SSW tools
are blogs, social networking, bookmarking/tagging software, and wikis. Today’s social software
has another set of key attributes differentiating it from the earlier generation of collaborative
software: low cost, ease of use, individuality, placing the user in the locus of control,
Disruptive technologies: a theory that holds that cheap and unsophisticated, emerging
those are developed for the mainstream, mature market and often cannot anticipate the market
for the new emerging technologies. In the education context, social software applications may be
considered disruptive technologies because they lend support to the notion of changing of the
Academic outcomes: performance and other learning outcomes: Both are key measurements
has been the preferred metric because of its perceived quantifiable nature. Learning outcomes,
the measure of attainments of tasks, are much harder to standardize. Information literacy:
Broadly defined by the Association of College & Research Libraries “Information Literacy is the
set of skills needed to find, retrieve, analyze, and use information.” (Association of College and
Research Libraries). The ACRL developed a set of standards, outcomes, and performance
indicators around these basic functions. The concept of information literacy as a psychological
construct is associated with critical thinking (Jones & RiCharde, 2005 p. 20), and spans a whole
Communications Technology (ICT) in the context of higher education represents a very large
portion of the institutional budget. When managing even the relatively predictable cycle for
mature educational technologies can be challenging for institutions, supporting the students’ own
technologies is often seen as competition for the scare resources. Peer to peer networking and
music downloading are popular illustrations of this tension. 2 However, Social Software is fast
appearing on the radar screen of the systems departments and beyond. Should the institutional
infrastructure be expanded to accommodate this traffic on campus? Should there be limits placed
2
For most higher education institutions it would be quite a luxury to follow the examples of some better endowed
US universities (see: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-125859510.html), which for example obtained campus
wide license to music downloading services like Napster to head off potential liability issues.
9
on it? Should the institutions obtain licenses for, and support local versions of, these new
technologies? These questions have serious financial and other implications in higher education.
Additionally, there are pedagogical and philosophical considerations. Does the current
model of higher education where “learning is made as uniform and controlled as possible (under
the name of ‘standardization’ and ‘outcomes based’ assessments)” (Staley, 2009 p. 40) meet the
needs of the information society, in this era of globalization? Or, should there be a shift in
universities and colleges toward more open and borderless education? Based on new,
proposes a model that he calls “wiki-zed university” or “wikiversity”. As implied by its name,
this model would be built on the same principles as social software: openness, collaboration,
self-organization and self-governance. SSW applications could provide the infrastructure for
such a model, although it would not necessarily operate only in a virtual environment (ibid.
p.42). Even if such future models of higher education lack the traditional “credentialing”
mechanisms, it is conceivable that in the future some kind of reputation-based consensus will
build as indicator of quality in this new model, making it comparable with and a challenge to the
Academy of today.
There is also a growing recognition that more and more of the learning occurs informally,
which can be aided by SSW applications and technologies. Leslie and Landon for example state:
This logic is being extended even within the walls of formal education environments.
The use of SSW in higher education promises considerable benefits. It could also be a
Trojan horse, which by shifting the emphasis on informal learning, eventually poses a threat to
the existence of the formal academy. However, it is too difficult to separate the hype around
SSW from the reality: in my review of the literature, I found very little empirical research that
This thesis contributes to filling this gap in the literature. It aims to expand our
understanding of students’ current use of and attitudes toward using SSW in formal academic
environments, as a critical factor for success for institutional adoption. Further, it hopes to
measure specific impacts of SSW use on learning of the students who participated in this study.
Rationale
The researcher has worked for the study university for six years in a position responsible
for the management of information technology in the library. Among the mandates of the library
IT is to ensure that technology is a true differentiator in research, teaching and learning at the
university. To achieve this mandate, the strategic objective of the library is to identify and
implement innovative technologies that can help achieving this mandate. Thus the research
project both suited the personal interest of the researcher, and offered valuable information for
The study university is a laptop university in southern Ontario. The use of technology in
teaching and learning is a strategic focus of the university. The university sees itself providing
market oriented programs to graduates that help them excel in a knowledge-driven economy. The
university maintains state of the art facilities and information and communication technologies
(ICT) to help achieving these goals. The university provides every undergraduate student a
laptop computer to enable them to learn and study anywhere, any time. These characteristics
form the core of the university marketing strategy – it tries to attract students and faculty
Theoretical Framework
Although the study does not extensively use a theoretical framework, the researcher was
interested to examine how the use of SSW in the learning environment applies to the theory of
technological disruption, elucidated by Christensen (1997). The literature review in the next
section will elaborate on this theory. In this context, there are two somewhat related overarching
themes that form the backdrop of the study: institutional change and the diffusion of innovation
models (Bennett & Bennett, 2002; Salmon, 2005; Franklin & Harmelen, 2007), but these
This case study focuses on the use and impacts of SSW at single university, using a small
purposeful sample of students. The university is unique because of its strong focus on the use of
technology in teaching and learning. Because of the university recruiting efforts, participating
12
students are assumed to be technology oriented. The generalizability of study findings may be
Summary
Higher Education. It described Net Generation students as the backdrop and context of this
disruption. The introduction provided a definition of key concepts in the study. The research
questions, the rationale for, and the significance of the study were explained. Finally, the study
This chapter consists of three parts. The first part provides an overview of the literature
on the Net Generation, to set the stage for the discussion of the role of information technology in
the life and educational activities of this population. The second part discusses the concept of
disruptive technologies, and how the emerging Web 2.0 technologies and “social software” fit in
this framework. This is necessary to understand the background to why students’ views about,
social software as well as their behaviors using SSW has important implications for learning in
Higher Education. The third part provides an overview of the current scholarship on the relation
between these emerging tools and higher education in the context of learning.
Internet as the defining technology at the beginning of the new millennium, the same way as the
Industrial Revolution was a technology driven event. This sets the context for the following
review.
A number of influential works were published (Howe & Strauss, 2000; Oblinger, 2003;
Prensky, 2001a; Prensky, 2001b; Tapscott, 1998) and these works subsequently spawned others
to produce an extensive body of literature about this new generation. Various labels were used to
designate this age cohort: Millennials, Generation Y, Digital Natives, and Net Generation (or Net
Gen for short). The definition of Net Gen varies – but most often it is tied to specific birth years
(e.g., after 1982). Today a commonly accepted understanding is that this generation reached
adulthood around, or after, the new millennium. This has not changed in the intervening years,
14
although some newer forms (such as “Google generation”) of generational labels have appeared
recently (Nicholas, Rowlands, & Huntington, 2007). This literature (e.g., Oblinger, 2005a;
Prensky, 2001; Tapscott, 1998) described the Net Gen age cohort as being radically different
from the previous generations. These supposedly radical attributes provided fuel for opening a
dialog on the future directions of higher education both in pedagogy, and educational policies
and practices. At the same time it also re-ignited a debate on the use of technology in education.
education are far from homogenous (for example Oblinger, 2005a, highlighted the influx of other
“non-traditional” and adult learners) to most observers, Net Gen clearly represented the key
demographics for the future. It has been projected that in the US, this generation would not only
increase participation rates in higher education from 44% in 2002 to 75% in 2012, but more
importantly it would form a new cohort of administrators and faculty (Coomes & DeBard, 2004).
examining the usefulness of the “generational” construct. For example, Howe & Strauss (2000)
defined generation as a cohort group “whose length approximates the span from birth to
adulthood” (p. 60) and which shares “common attitude and behaviour traits and a common
collective identity” (p. 64). Woodall (2004) in his analysis distilled seven core traits of the
special. Other contributors to the Net Gen commentary (Tapscott, 1998) highlighted
environmental influences (such as the impacts of growing up with technology), as well as a host
of additional personality styles and attributes. Oblinger (2005a) summarized the core traits of the
15
Net Gen as follows: digitally literate, connected, immediate, experiential, social (prefer to work
in teams), demand engagement, and visual. Oblinger’s views were clearly influenced by Mark
Prensky, whose writings focused on this generation in the context of information technology.
Prensky even invented a term: “digital natives” to illustrate this intimate relationship he claimed
existed.
Although these labels are quite dramatic when used to contrast this cohort group with
previous ones, they are also fairly broad and generic. It is questionable how such sweeping
generalizations of a wide population can be used to inform specific educational policies, yet the
discussion of the Net Generation that subsequently evolved in the literature trended in that very
direction.
Computer games, email, the Internet, cell phones and instant messaging are integral parts
of their lives. They think and process information fundamentally differently. (p.1). They
like to parallel process and multi-task. They prefer their graphics before their text rather
than the opposite. They prefer random access (like hypertext). They function best when
networked. They thrive on instant gratification and frequent rewards. They prefer games
to “serious” work. (p. 2)
the trends in information technology and user behaviour, had a common sense appeal, the more
dramatic impacts of his theories were his conclusions about the educational implications.
Prensky contrasted digital natives with digital immigrants (teachers), and claimed that the
disparity of IT skills between them presented a significant challenge to the future of education.
He claimed that the old educational paradigm, with its emphasis on structure, and step by step
16
linear approach to teaching, no longer worked. He supported this claim by discussing (2001b) the
unique cognitive characteristics of the Net Gen. Prensky claimed that based on research in
neuroplasticity, the brain structure of digital natives likely was changed. One example of this
change was the characterization of this new generation as “experiential”, rather than “reflective”
emphasizing a second dimension: the social nature of this cohort. This would be particularly
The social nature of Net Geners, as well as their desire for experiential learning, implies
that interaction is an important technique for colleges and universities to employ. […]
Students do best when they actively construct their own knowledge. (2.13)
For most of these changes in the Net Geners lives information technology use provided the
context, and generated the greatest interest, from gaming to research to learning.
thought in the first half of this decade, they have also been increasingly scrutinized and debated.
Siemens (2007) agreed with Prensky that learners were changing, (partially as a result of
technology-infused environment) but he refuted the contention that this change affected the Net
Generation only. Rather, he claimed that technology use was determined by the context. For
3
In a similar sense as in Kolb’s cycle of learning.
17
example, Siemens stated that Net Generation students did seem to prefer using technology in
social interaction (probably because of peer group influence) – but this occurred mostly outside
empirical evidence, inside the school and work environment there is no difference between
digital natives and other generations in preferences for technology. This does not mean that there
the younger generation often understands technology at a utilitarian level (i.e., how to use
a piece of software for its intended purpose, but not much beyond that). Depth of
understanding, social implications, trends, and other more advanced concepts are often
not present. (para. 8)
perceived learning preferences. He claimed that the most important changes affecting higher
education institutions are broad ones, such as globalization, or the fact that society is becoming
more complex. While changing learning styles should be accommodated, the real need is for
preparing students for these broader changes. In this context Prensky’s arguments take a
narrower meaning.
A more systematic review of the “Digital Natives” literature (Bennett et al., 2007)
characterized the debate on the need for fundamental changes in education as a sign of
“academic moral panic”. According to the authors, the characteristics of this phenomenon
included perceived stark divides between technophiles and technophobes, learners and teachers,
and Net Geners and older generations, usually described using dramatic language. In reviewing
the literature on the Net Gen’s relationship with technology and on their perceived learning
18
behaviours and attitudes, the authors did not find much empirical evidence to support these
dramatic claims. However, they concluded that much new research needs to be done to
disentangle the complex relationships of technology and educational use in young peoples’ lives.
The dearth of empirical studies on this topic was also pointed out by other authors
(Bennett et al., 2007; Conole, et al., 2008; Gunter, 2007; Kennedy et al., 2006). A few such
studies have emerged in the last few years. These studies varied greatly both in methodology and
scope. For example, two major large scale research projects originating in the United States were
primarily concerned with surveying the trends of IT uses. Both employed largely descriptive
statistical methods. One of these, the series of ECAR surveys (Caruso & Kvavik, 2005; Salaway,
Katz, Caruso, Kvavik, & Nelson, 2006; Salaway, Caruso, & Nelson, 2007) focused on the use of
technology among undergraduate students. These series isolated technology trends in a few
major categories pertinent to higher education. These range from technology ownership to
general skills to classroom usage. The Pew study (Lenhart et al., 2007) employed similar
methods for a broader population. Outside the US, similar approaches were taken by the
University of Melbourne study in Australia (Kennedy, Krause, Judd, Churchward, & Gray,
2006), and the Planet Edge Project survey of eleven European countries (Synovate, 2007).
Generally all of these studies showed a high level of IT use among the Net Generation.
At the same time they also highlighted various demographical differences and other variations in
the use of specific types and classes of technologies. The different domains in which they were
used (i.e., leisure, education, work, etc.) were also part of the differentiated approach. The
longitudinal ECAR studies for example focused on the higher education environment, while also
highlighting the discrepancies between the high level of technology ownership (98.4% of
19
students reported owning a computer in 2007) and preferences for using technology in courses,
which was only moderate, about 59 percent (Salaway et al., 2007 p. 5).
The Pew study on the other hand highlighted socio-economic differences in access to and
use of technology (Lenhart et al., 2007). A study at the University of Melbourne (Kennedy,
Krause, Judd et al., 2006) emphasized the variance in use and scope of a number of specific
technologies amongst first year students. Differentiation is also apparent in the ECAR data: for
example Salaway et al., (2007 p. 43-44) underscored the highly engaged use of socializing
technologies amongst Net Gen students, compared to other age groups. The 2008 edition of this
series (Salaway et al., 2008) underscored other, differences, such as gender, in both preferences
While these studies contribute to challenging any monolithic view of technology use
along generational lines, they are not nuanced enough to help us form a deeper understanding of
why the differences exist. As Lohnes & Kinzer (2007) pointed out, the problem with these
questionnaire-based surveys is that they tend to de-contextualize the use of technology without
trying to explain the reasons why students use it in certain ways. Gunter (2007) corroborated this
view in saying:
Are new generations evolving that can be defined not just by the extent to which they
access ICTs, but also by the ways in which they do so? To answer this question, we need
to find evidence that demonstrates not only differences in kind according to quantitative
user indicators but also differences in kind according to qualitative usage indicators. (p.
15)
More recently a handful of studies have been published, which aimed to perform a more
in-depth analysis of the complexities of technology usage in the learning environment of the Net
20
Generation. An example of a study using more complex methodologies is a twin project (Conole,
De Laat, Dillon, & Darby, 2006) and (Creanor, Trinder, Gowan, & Howells, 2006) in the UK
examining IT use in the learning environment. This study uses a mixed methodology, employing
surveys, content analysis of audio logs, and interviews, to collect data on students’ experience
with technology, from the students’ point of view. Generally the results were consistent with the
earlier studies in finding that IT use is pervasive in this population, and that it is integrated with
all (including academic) aspects of life. The study particularly emphasized the centrality of
Another UK study, commissioned by the British Library (Nicholas et al., 2007) also
and deep log analyses. Although this study focused on a narrower aspect of the technology use
(i.e. how it impacts on information research behaviour), it offered insights about digital natives’
relationship with technology in a broader sense. In discussing these, the study findings were
contrasted with claims stated in the earlier literature. For example, earlier research was generally
confirmed in the following areas: the Net Gen’s heightened competencies with and expectations
from technology, preferences for interaction and collaboration, and preferences for visual
information over text. At the same time the authors refuted such canonical declarations that this
generation had no tolerance for delay; that they viewed peers as more credible than parents,
teachers, and other authorities; and that they were primarily experiential when it comes to
Another empirical study is currently in progress (Kennedy et al., 2006). This study, in the
later phases, plans to employ more qualitative approaches, including interviews with focus
21
groups. So far only preliminary results have been reported, debunking the myth around the
widespread use of emerging technologies amongst students recently entering higher education
A single case study at a liberal arts college (Lohnes & Kinzer, 2007) utilized
ethnographic/mixed methods to explore students’ use of technology both inside and outside of an
academic setting. The data collection included observations, focus group interviews, and content
analysis of artifacts. The results of this study again challenged the conventional wisdom: students
An interesting approach was taken at the North Arizona University (Garcia & Qin, 2007),
where the researchers attempted to discern generational differences amongst their student
population, in order to understand the implications for learning. They concentrated on three
areas: technical ability, learning beliefs, and learning responsibility beliefs (all self reported via
an online survey). This study seemed to confirm some Net Gen stereotypes, (e.g., that they are
more comfortable with technology than other groups), while refuting others. To illustrate some
examples in the latter category, contrary to expectations, Net Gen students rated both team work
and the importance of the role of peers for learning relatively low. Overall, the only significant
differences between the age cohorts were in the area of perceived technical abilities.
Collectively these studies indicate that some cautious parallels can be drawn between
increased IT usage among Net Gen students, and its potential educational benefits. Although the
first trend in increased IT use can be confirmed, the reviewed literature was less revealing on the
second issue.
22
Software (SSW) in higher education. It explains why SSW has the potential to supplant existing
educational technologies. It will describe what SSW is, outline a functional taxonomy, discuss it
in a broader context of learning theories, and review studies on the efficacy of SSW in
educational settings. These will provide background information, and set the context for the
Technologies, in the sense that Christensen uses the word, may refer to either “hard”
was using a case study with an earlier computer technology (of the disk drive industry in the
1980’s) to illustrate the concept, but the implications are clearly valid today. There is no space
here to describe the case study, but we can summarize the following tenets from the theory:
• Disruptive technologies are often based on simple innovations that are geared toward the
lower end of the market, often for unsophisticated customers, and offer convenience for
these customers.
• The disruptive technology products are limited in functionality and often cheap.
23
• Mainstream companies cannot anticipate disruptive technologies well because the market
Before the emergence of social software and Web 2.0 technologies, there have been other
technologies or technology related phenomena that were considered disruptive in the educational
context. Lafferty (2004), for example, discussed the disruptions by “virtual” (i.e., online)
universities, and corporate universities to both the traditional institutional model in education and
disruption (Gibson, 2000) to traditional pedagogies. However as the following discussion of the
Social Software and Web 2.0 will demonstrate, it should be considered the de facto disruptive
technology in education.
(in the sense of what kind of applications it refers to), defies attempts for concise definition. The
difficulty of definition is explained in the historical treatment (Allen, 2004) of the evolution of
technologies that eventually lead to the emergence of what is now commonly understood as
social software. Social software is functionally too broad, yet the connotations of technologies
are narrow. For example, Clay Shirky, who allegedly coined the term, defined social software as
follows:
24
Social software, software that supports group communications, includes everything from
the simple CC: line in email to vast 3D game worlds like EverQuest, and it can be as
undirected as a chat room, or as task-oriented as a wiki (a collaborative workspace).
Because there are so many patterns of group interaction, social software is a much larger
category than things like groupware or online communities -- though it includes those
things, not all group communication is business-focused or communal. One of the few
commonalities in this big category is that social software is unique to the internet in a
way that software for broadcast or personal communications are not. (Shirky, 2003 para.
1)
Most observers have a problem with such a broad definition, because while it accurately
reflects the fact that it evolved with information and communication technology (ICT) generally
(Allen, 2004), the term as it is understood today denotes a specific approach, feature set, and
functionality. Some of the functional definitions of SSW are more useful but often have narrower
focus. Anderson (2005) for example focused on the use and characteristic of social software in
virtual learning environments: “social software [are] networked tools that support and
encourage individuals to learn together while retaining individual control over their time, space,
interrelated areas:
2. Support for social feedback — which allows a group to rate the contributions of others,
3. Support for social networks — to explicitly create and manage a digital expression of
people's personal relationships, and to help them build new relationships (Boyd, 2006
para. 6).
25
Coates (2005) attempted to combine the broadest functionalities of social software with
Social software can be loosely defined as software which supports, extends, or derives
added value from, human social behaviour - message-boards, musical taste-sharing,
photo-sharing, instant messaging, mailing lists, social networking (para. 2).
A number of authors (Anderson, 2005; Dalsgaard, 2006) underlined the difficulties with a
concise definition. As Dalsgaard pointed out, this is often a reflection of how these technologies
are used: “The term not only includes a wide range of different technologies, but the social
aspect of the technologies often emerges from a combined use of different technologies” (para.
9).
Another difficulty with conceptualizing social software arises from the fact that it is often
used interchangeably with another recently emerged term: “Web 2.0”. Frequently both Web 2.0
and SSW denote the same specific technologies - the differences in the concepts are subtle,
sometimes philosophical.
The term Web 2.0 originated with O’Reilly Media, a Silicon Valley think tank. As it was
pointed out (Anderson, 2007) by proposing this new paradigm, O’Reilly’s intent was to define
the characteristics of a successful business model in a post “dot-com” bust era. According to
• Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use
them
26
The Web 2.0 principles defined by O’Reilly are generic, and they broadly define the
forms of these applications. The different incarnations of SSW adhere to the Web 2.0 principles,
but by no means is it the only type of technology that manifests these principles. The overarching
themes in of the Web 2.0 paradigm such as open architecture, scalability, ease of use (with
particular implications for adoptability), user-centred approach, etc., spawned a whole array of
While the underlying themes in SSW are the same as in Web 2.0, it is easier to make the
distinction that the latter is understood more as a framework, while the former as a genre of
software built on this framework. O’Reilly’s principles also highlight the attributes of SSW
which can be used to define it as a disruptive technology, particularly in the field of higher
education. For example, the open architecture/open source paradigm presents disruption to
traditional software practices. The traditional approach follows a top-down model, where
software developer companies define the market, with input from clients of course, but
ultimately retaining control over the process, and over decisions on the functions and features of
the product. The new open source paradigm represents a much more dynamic relationship
4
In recent years we have also seen “Learning 2.0”, “Publishing 2.0”, “Library 2.0”, etc.
27
between the market and product development. In practical terms this could mean increased
flexibility for educational institutions. Secondly, the user-centred nature of social software – the
view these tools as disruptive technologies, it is also important to examine whether in practice
the processes leading to organizational change in the adoption of these technologies are different
environment exhibited different patterns. Salmon (2005 p. 205) for example characterized this as
a top-down approach where these technologies were considered for adoption to fit institutional,
“policy” aspirations. Bennett & Bennett (2002) also identified administrative pressures as the
main drivers for adopting ICT in the learning environment, while acknowledging that students
may be increasingly insistent in emerging technology use. However, a review of the literature on
learning (CSCL), Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) and other Internet based
technologies, generally confirmed that having largely been originated from a theoretical basis,
the drivers of technology change and adoption in the institutional environment were influenced
more by policy than by grassroots market forces. To highlight the lack of broad market demand,
a number of studies cited inadequacies with those technologies, rendering them hard to adapt to
the learning environment. Lipponen (2002) for example surveyed consumer based technologies
such as discussion boards, and argued for purposefully built educational applications supporting
28
knowledge building instead. Kreijns, Kirschner & Jochems (2003) highlighted that while the
educational promise of these technologies was high, the top-down approach of implementing
representing a paradigm change: the technology is both a driver of online behaviors and is
influenced by those behaviours (Bryant, 2007). Several authors argue that SSW is a potential
game changer in higher education because of their open nature (Fiedler et al., 2004; Leslie &
Landon, 2008) which leads to self-empowerment of users (Bryant, 2007). Gotta (2006)
demonstrated that this consumer driven market already influenced enterprise applications in the
As seen earlier in the discussion of the Net Gen literature, there is some evidence to
support the thesis that students demand increased ITC use in classes, although not as high as
most pundits claim (Caruso & Kvavik, 2005; Salaway et al., 2006; Salaway et al., 2007;
Salaway et al., 2008). Customer (student) demand is, previous to the emergence of SSW and
Web 2.0 technologies, used to be but one of the drivers for institutional change in the ICT
lifecycle. The role of other factors, such as pedagogical considerations and leveraging
efficiencies inherent in technology based approaches has been acknowledged (Bennett &
Bennett, 2002; Percival & Muirhead, 2009; Salmon, 2005; Franklin & Harmelen, 2007).
However these forces of consumer demand appear to gain strength with the new technology
paradigm in SSW where the boundaries of the leisure, work, and learning are increasingly
blurred (Conole et al., 2006). Little empirical research exists to support this today, but if the
29
trend is confirmed SSW is potentially a disruptive force in at least three different areas in higher
education.
• IT management
This literature review focuses on the last two areas. First it will discuss the major SSW
technologies, followed by a functional taxonomy. These main issues around SSW will be
synthesized in the context of contemporary learning theories. The last section of the review will
discuss specific studies that examined the utility of SSW from the point of view of various
learning theories.
a quickly developing area, and rather than attempting to detail specific technologies, the list
• Blogs (a shortened form of the original term: “weblogs”): these are personal tools used
for posting typically short commentary, reflections, journals, etc., online. The control
over content resides with the owner of the blog, however, the ability to add comments to
these postings is usually open to others. This functionality of blogs affords the creation of
a narrative dialogue over time. In this sense blogs have both a communicative and
documentative function (McGee & Diaz, 2007). Additionally, blogs can be linked to
other blogs via various additional technologies (track-back protocol, and other
30
aggregation services, called “blogrolls”). Essentially what this means is that comments
made about an entry in blog A by blog B can be automatically displayed within blog A.
This adds another dimension to blogs (this is sometimes called “network effects”).
• Social networking: online services that foster the self-organization of groups based on
shared interests, goals, demographics, etc. These services are often highly evolved, and
often integrate other Web 2.0 technologies, such as instant messaging, file sharing,
collaborative content generation, etc. Because of this multifaceted feature set, social
networking applications have been considered for adaptation for both corporate and
• File/media sharing: this area is quite broad, and includes the creation and sharing of a
wide variety of media, (e.g., videos, photos, and audio) through online services (e.g.,
YouTube 5 and Flickr 6) which enable organizing, classifying, and sharing of material. The
use of these services often results in the blurring of the boundaries between creator and
consumer, which has been cited as one of the most significant features of the Web 2.0
subset of file and media sharing (above). Podcasting originally meant distributing
5
http://www.youtube.com
6
http://www.flickr.com
31
recordings (talks, commentary, and lectures) in audio format for use on a variety of
devices, ranging from portable players to computers. Because of the narrative nature of
the content, parallels have been made with blogs (Anderson, 2007). The potential impact
of podcasting in education has been recognized for some time (Boulos & Wheelert,
2007). Newer technologies in podcasting include video formats. Podcasts too, tend to
converge with other Web 2.0 technologies, primarily via syndication of content (see
• RSS: standing for “Really Simple Syndication”, and a similar technology called “Atom”
are technologies supporting aggregation and syndication of electronic content via the
Internet. Using open data standards (xml), and a variety of software applications and
services, this technology facilitates the interchange of content by allowing users to select
what they want to receive from the World Wide Web, and to aggregate all this content.
This is then accessible via RSS software or a web browser using an online service. In a
strict technical sense RSS is not social software in itself, but acts as a conduit for other
• Wiki: a web based technology for creating and editing web pages and sites. The most
famous wiki application is the Wikipedia 7. However, a large variety of specific wiki
of the wiki are their open nature, and ease of use. Wikipedia for example illustrates the
first feature: it can be edited by anyone without restrictions – although many other wiki
7
http://en.wikipedia.org
32
applications do employ techniques to limit spam. The ease of use aspect of wikis is
perhaps best demonstrated by the fact that no knowledge of programming languages and
other web technologies is required to edit them in the web environment. Additional
features such as the ability to track the history of changes, discussion, and notification
tools are also often part of wikis. Wikis have been widely used in corporate knowledge
• Social bookmarking tools (SBT), tagging, and “folksonomies”: collectively these are a
set of resource sharing tools, practices, and protocols. The main purpose of these is to
aggregation of data. For example, an online resource can be tagged, labeled and classified
by users as they see fit. Unlike traditional cataloguing and database systems, SBT do not
impose any classification standards. These resources and tags are usually maintained
through online services. Both the resources that have been classified and their labels/tags
are visible to everyone. As people use the same classification terms, they are
automatically aggregated, and the systems often display visual clues to indicate popular
terms, (e.g., more frequently used terms appear in proportionally larger text size).
Another technique used by SBT is the addition of semantic attributes, with the use of “tag
clouds”. These are tags that can be clustered based on similarity of concepts. The use of
1. users can see what resources were tagged others with the same or similar
classification terms they are interested in. This is the core function of any
bookmarking
2. because the user can see who else tagged the same resource as she, it is possible
to connect to that user’s profile and see her tags. It has been pointed out (Boulos
& Wheelert, 2007) that this process is very “social” in nature: people learn from
The discussion of Social Software would not be complete without mentioning one other
broad category: instant messaging (IM), although the categorization of this is more problematic.
IM is a de facto social software technology, and one of the earliest. However, while it has
some of the characteristics of Web 2.0, (ease of use, simplicity), technically it is not Web 2.0.
The mainstream IM applications are traditional software: most were developed by major
commercial software companies, using the old “developer to the user” paradigm. These tools are
often bloated with features users do not need. However, the usage characteristics of IM (i.e., how
people actually use them) are very similar to the other Web 2.0 technologies.
34
consciousness, and many have achieved mainstream status among current Internet technologies.
While it is difficult to capture definitive statistics because the numbers are constantly changing,
it is without argument that social networking, file and media sharing, blogging, and instant
messaging constitute major online activities worldwide (Alexa, 2008; Klamma, Spaniol, Cao, &
Jarke, 2006). The ECAR (Caruso & Kvavik, 2005; Salaway et al., 2006; Salaway et al., 2007;
Salaway et al., 2008) and Pew surveys (Lenhart et al., 2007) mentioned earlier are consistent
with this also. The Pew report for instance estimated the penetration of these technologies
broadly at over half of all the population: instant message 68%, file and media sharing 57%,
social networking 55%. Only blog usage was rated lower at 28% (Lenhart et al., 2007 pages 8
and 26). The SPIRE project (White, 2007), while methodologically less sound, confirmed the
same general trends. The British Library commissioned study (Gunter, 2007) rated social
networking and user-generated content (somewhat smoothing over the differences in the
underlying technologies) as the two most dominant success stories of Web 2.0.
It is understandable that the dynamic growth in the technology adoption cycle amongst
the younger population highlighted by these studies, and the new “digital generational” models
discussed earlier have created a great interest amongst educators. It seems logical that the
perceived psychological and cognitive needs and abilities of this population, and the social
software technologies used by them, could be married to adapt for pedagogical goals. Over the
last few years there have been a number examples (Anderson, 2006; Beldarrain, 2006; Blummer,
2007; Bordeaux & Boyd, 2007; Chen et al., 2005; Gunter, 2007; Hall & Davison, 2007; Klamma
35
et al., 2006; Klamma et al., 2007; Minocha & Thomas, 2007) of educational applications of
social software. Leslie & Landon (2008) claimed that these phenomena were already past the
early adoption cycle. However, most of the literature on social software use in education is
theoretical and exploratory in nature. The next section is an attempt to distill these into a
functional taxonomy.
software technologies would be helpful, particularly as they are aligned with pedagogical and
learning theories.
McGee & Diaz (2007 p. 32) offered a broad, functional approach to the classification of
communicative tools included blogs, podcasts and instant messaging applications. The main
The examples were social bookmarking, and virtual communities (social networking was not
mentioned specifically, but it could have been slated here.) Collaborative functions serve the
creation of content in a shared environment. Examples would be group writing tools 8, and wikis.
Documentative functions were illustrated by tools that are suited for collecting and presenting
artifacts. Blogs would be the best example of this in the Web 2.0 context. Finally, “mashups”
8
Google Docs would be a good illustration of this type. See http://docs.google.com
36
were examples of generative tools. Mashups refer to an approach where various web services
(typically data) are combined from disparate sources to create a new application.
The functional approach of this taxonomy is appealing, because it is placed in the context
of the teaching and learning environment: “instructors (…) communicate, assess, observe,
present information and organize activities. Learners read, present a point of view,
search/collect/analyze information, create and respond” (p. 36). The limitation of this approach
becomes evident, however, when we consider that there is a range of other technological tools
Instead, a better approach would be to outline, distilled from the literature, the major
themes of how social software offers support for learning. These are below.
SSW supporting reflective learning. Reflective learning is considered a very effective technique.
Chen et al., (2005) described how reflection increases students’ awareness of what is learned,
and underlined the connection of this awareness with students’ self-regulation. Blogs and wikis
have been cited as primary SSW vehicles to support reflective learning. In contrast with, and
beyond the capabilities of traditional learning journals, blogs also offer mechanisms for peer
SSW supporting resource discovery. The ability of social software (particularly social
bookmarking) to introduce a new paradigm for collaborative information discovery has been
noted (Alexander, 2006; Boulos & Wheelert, 2007). There are implications not only for students’
learning, but for broader activities within academia, such as for scholarly communication via
SSW supporting motivation. Students engage in learning activities for different reasons, ranging
from strategic ones (to get better grades), to meeting social obligations (meeting expectations of
their peers), to intrinsic ones, for example the “use value” of learning (Rogers, Liddle, Chan, &
Isom, 2007). A number of different theories are offered to highlight the role of social software in
Various theories on “social ties” provide insight into a critical element of motivation in
the SSW context (i.e., what motivates knowledge sharing behaviours). Both strong and weak
social ties have been identified as drivers of how and with whom information gets exchanged
(Anderson, 2005; Benson & Gresham, 2007; Boulos & Wheelert, 2007). Social software is seen
as a novel means to control the dynamics of this exchange. Several types of SSW offer
mechanisms (ranking, rating, and reputation management) which support the creation and
The motivational aspects of peer support and how SSW plays a role in this (primarily by
support from social networks in the online environment may also have positive impacts on
9
student retention (Fisher & Baird, 2005).
The “power law of participation” (Bryant, 2007) is yet another theory that offer
explanation for what may compel students to engage in collaborative activities in an online
environment. This theory holds that social software tools have low thresholds for involvement
9
Even if no impact on students’ learning was demonstrated in this study
38
with certain individualized activities such as reading, tagging, and subscribing. At the same
time, they also contain built-in drivers and nodes that engender new norms of online behaviours,
pushing users toward more collaborative activities such as sharing, networking, etc. This is
almost a deterministic view. It would suggest that by introducing these tools in the (educational)
environment, an increase in collaboration would be observed. This theory has yet to be validated
empirically.
The positive role of social software in the control of learning. There are different aspects of
control. The interaction between various actors in the learning environment is the central concept
in the transactional control theory of learning (Dron, 2006a; Dron, 2006b). This holds that
control is a continuum with teacher control on one extreme, and learner control on the other.
There are problems with both extremes: learners are not sufficiently knowledgeable to take full
control. At the same time they can be turned off when the teacher takes full control. Social
software can offer a solution by facilitating a “negotiated control”, or dialogue. This can be done
at least two different ways, either through tight linear control, based on text (wikis are a good
example) or looser, less prescriptive ways. Blogs, tagging, social navigation, and bookmarking
Both blogs and wikis are perceived to be offering more freedom and flexibility in this
process in contrasted with traditional software (Beldarrain, 2006). At the same time these Web
2.0 tools would not serve the needs of administrative controls (e.g., legal requirements) well in a
Control may be considered in a broader environmental context also. This involves seven
major areas (Anderson, 2005): control of a) space, b) time, c) pace (of one’s learning), d) control
39
over media (or choice of learning medium), e) access, f) content (subject and style of learning),
and g) relationships (choice of who learners engage with in the course of learning). Social
software can be utilized for the management of these issues in novel ways. Virtual “presence
tools” in social networking for example can not only substitute physical presence and address
problems of space and time, but also offer help with issues of relationship and the subject of
learning.
Dalsgaard (2006) held a more skeptical (or agnostic) view on the issue of control. He
claimed that learning cannot be managed, only facilitated. Admittedly from a social
constructivist’s point of view, Dalsgaard stated that learning can only be effective if it is a self-
governed process, and social software empower students to engage in this activity (p. 5).
concept in explaining success in students’ approaches to learning (Entwistle, 2000). Blogs and
wikis have been used to facilitate these processes in collaborative settings (Chen et al., 2005;
Fisher & Baird, 2005). SSW tools were found to have positive influence on students’ self
regulation, in that they helped students take responsibility for their learning.
SSW supporting knowledge (content) creation. Content creation is one of the big themes of the
Web 2.0, as was mentioned before. The blurring of lines between consumer and creator is one of
the most striking phenomena of the Internet. The critical factors that made this possible were the
ease of use of Web 2.0 technologies, and the resulting large scale network effects. The
phenomenon has been both scorned as “mass amateurization” effect (Keen, 2007), and praised
40
(the “wisdom of the crowds” effect). Scholars and theorists of education generally tend to exhibit
a positive bias in this regard, at least from the point of view of constructivist theory. Ferdig
(2007) cited a practical example, describing how the creation of learning artifacts via SSW can
reinforce students’ learning, as these objects offer further opportunities for reflection or
discussion via SSW techniques. On the negative side, well-known issues with plagiarism and
These major themes in SSW above are also discernible among the core concepts of a number of
some kind of a constructivist framework. Ferdig (2007) cites four distinct models:
SSW can be useful to support these models in a variety of ways: social networking tools are
suitable to support both the process of “scaffolding” central to the ZPD model, and the learning
community model. Collaborative authoring tools (such as wikis) mesh perfectly with the
pedagogical approach of active participation, while blogs are the best examples of SSW suited
One problem with constructivism is that the term can be vague and blur distinctions
between “deeper” and “shallower forms” of constructivism (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003). The
authors held that most of the constructivist learning approaches (inquiry or learning community
based) fall somewhere in between these two extremes. The theory of knowledge building
proposed by the authors distinguishes between learning (viewed as an internal process), and
knowledge building. The latter is defined as advancing the knowledge of the community, and
this considers truly deep forms of constructivism. Social software technologies therefore are an
dimension of learning (Ebner, Holzinger, & Maurer, 2007; Rogers et al., 2007). Ebner claimed
that this social dimension is manifested through conversations and interactions, and that Web 2.0
technologies play an important role. Rogers et al. (2007) underscored the social/participatory
nature of learning along lines of the Lave & Wenger model. Specifically, learning is viewed as a
dynamic process of discovery where learning outcomes are contextualized and situated in
authentic settings. Web 2.0 principles thus inspire a 21st century learning model, called e-
learning 2.0. The objective of this model is lifelong learning. Key characteristics of this model
are collaborative teaching approach, curriculum dominated by community generated content, and
points out. He emphasized that social software, particularly blogs, wikis and podcasting can be
integrated to support these frameworks, such as situated learning and anchored instruction (the
latter is a form of problem based instruction, with emphasis on interaction). Other theories such
42
as Bandura’s social learning theory have limited applicability because its core concept, that of
recognition that technology impacts learning in a fundamentally new way. The core tenet of this
theory holds that learning can occur outside of people, for example in organizations or databases,
(i.e., the knowledge created by people is “stored and manipulated by technology”). Contrary to
social constructivist theory that holds that learning happens by people engaging in meaning-
making tasks, the theory of connectivism maintains that the challenge is to recognize the patterns
of “meaning” which exists. One way to do this is by maintaining the capacity to know and to
connect ideas in the universe of knowledge. Technology, specifically that which supports social
Other conceptions of learning expand the traditional boundaries of formal learning. Leslie
& Landon (2008) for example claimed that learning in organizations happens mostly informally
and that this requires a paradigm change in the instructional efforts toward a more open,
borderless approach. Social software is particularly suited to support this because of its attributes
of openness and scale. While institutions will still need to address some of the issues social
software presents, like those of privacy and intellectual property, the use of these technologies is
anyway. It is argued that the academy is no longer closed hermetically, because communities of
practice consisting of teachers, learners, researchers, etc., emerge through the affordances of
social software tools, spanning across the boundaries of institutions. Thus the traditional time
43
and space-bound educational environment - characterized by the triad or teacher, content, and
By combining the affordances of social software with the conditions of openness and
freedom that help them succeed, we have a chance to help learners become lifelong
learners, embedded in a real-life network that doesn’t disappear at the end of term or stop
at the ‘corporate firewall.’ (p. 21)
The notion that education can be defined in the traditional, formal framework was
challenged by Dalsgaard (2006) also. His approach is rooted in social constructivist theory, and it
views learning as a self-governed but primarily collaborative activity. Social software (wikis, file
sharing and blogs) it is argued, have the qualities to help the building of a true student-centred
learning model. For example, even though these are personal tools, they enable students to work
collaboratively, by supporting sharing of context and content, and connecting people with similar
fields of interest. While traditional tools, such as the learning management systems offer
The theories describing the role of social software in learning parallel the broader
discussions taking place about whether learning is more about content or process. Sfard (1998)
described this dichotomy with two metaphors: The acquisition metaphor (AM) is grounded in the
more traditional conception of learning, with the notion of the transfer of knowledge in the
centre. The participation metaphor (PM) stresses the centrality of experience, and places the
process of discourse and communication in focus. For example, when mapping base concepts of
learning to the two metaphors in the AM, the goal becomes individual enrichment, and in the PM
community building. In the AM learning simply means acquisition of content, and in the PM
becoming a participant. The student: the recipient (consumer), constructor in the AM, and
peripheral participant (apprentice) in the PM. The teacher: provider, facilitator in the AM and
44
While Sfard argued for the need of a unified approach, educational theorists evaluating
social software tend to emphasize its qualities that are closer to the participation metaphor. The
In the medium term, we can expect to see social tools being used to help develop critical
skills such as networking, search and assimilation of new topics, sense making, pattern
recognition and decision making, as well as in the development of shared values. These
tools are about connections and context not content, in contrast to previous generations of
e-learning that were obsessed with ‘delivering’ ‘learning objects’ – an approach we now
understand is useful only for repetitive training. They are also highly contextual and
personal – they support learning as a process, not an outcome, and encompass a more
diverse range of learning and behavioural styles than perhaps any previous generation of
technology (Bryant, 2007 p. 18).
the academy have been thrown wide open. The exponential growth and shrinking half-life of
knowledge 10 means that the learning paradigm needs to change, that learners need to transform,
and become lifelong learners. This has two implications. One is regarding learning itself: what it
means, how it happens, and what is worth pursuing – in other words what should be the goals of
education? The other implication concerns the educational institutions. If so much of learning
now happens informally, often outside of traditional organizational structures, both in terms of
10
Varying estimates exist, depending the specific discipline or industry. Kapp & McKeague (2002) cited the general
rate of doubling at18 month.
45
space and time – how can higher education institutions respond to these challenges? These
problems are exacerbated by the impacts of technology. Even managing mature “sustaining”
technologies, which are designed for the formal educational framework, can be challenging. But
what happens when competing, vaguer, yet popular “disruptive” technologies start becoming
Following the theory of technological disruption illustrated earlier, social software could
be considered a de facto disruptive technology in the current educational context. For example
blogs are an illustration of the ease of use and low cost, low barrier to entry paradigm. They
enabled web publishing without the user needing to learn more complex web technologies and
languages, which were previously required for such tasks. Media and file sharing tools, instant
messaging, and social networking are all developments responding to user needs for greater
control over the use of technologies. The market dominated by traditional educational
technologies (e.g., learning management systems) could not identify such needs.
The disruption of Web 2.0 has been implicitly acknowledged by several authors
(Alexander, 2006; Bryant, 2007; Leslie & Landon, 2008). Alexander highlighted the low barrier
to entry characteristics of the new technology, Bryant pointed out threats to sustainability in the
existing technological model in education, while Leslie & Landon emphasized the strains on the
formal instructional model. There are more specific examples as well. Dalsgaard (2006)
addressed the issues with the LMS. Specifically, he discussed how compared to social software
tools the LMS is unsuitable for the self-governed activities demanded by social constructivist
approaches to learning. Others pointed out how collaborative content tools (prime example is
46
Wikipedia) and search engines 11 change information behaviours (Conole et al., 2008). This is
also confirmed in the study sponsored by the British Library (Nicholas et al., 2007), which
warned about the difficulties and challenges in simply trying to co-opt these technologies:
building a presence in MySpace and Facebook […] there are clearly dangers in trying to
appear ‘cool’ to a younger audience. In fact, there is a considerable danger that younger
users will resent the library invading what they regards as their space. There is a big
difference between ‘being where our users are’ and ‘being USEFUL to our users where
they are’. ( p. 16)
Based on the body of literature about the qualities in social software and Web 2.0
technologies, it appears there is a solid ground to make a case for their potential for education,
specifically higher education. Research on technology use in e-learning (Conole et al., 2006;
Conole et al., 2008) confirms that social software and Web 2.0 tools already form a huge
technologies because they view themselves in ownership, and because of the affordances of these
developments in information and communication technologies have had a major impact on the
changing conceptions of learning in the twenty first century. At the same time, relatively few
studies have been devoted to the examination of the specific effects of these technologies
11
Not technically in the Web 2.0 realm, although Google does employ Web 2.0 techniques such as factoring in link
popularity into its ranking algorithm.
47
1. treat SSW as part of broader information technologies (Salaway et al., 2007; Salaway et
al., 2008)
3. focus on a single SSW tool and/or on specific learning environments (Sandars et al.,
2008)
The limitation of these approaches is that they make it hard to assess the value of social
software as a whole new breed or technology in the educational context. Very few studies ask
pertinent questions about the efficacy of these tools. Those studies that do however, are fraught
Anderson (2006) described an online distance education course (n=12 students, who were
dispersed throughout the world). The author experimented with introducing several pieces of
traditional technologies and social software tools. The use of these technologies was optional –
students could freely opt in or out. At the end of the course, they were asked to describe how
frequently they used them, and to rate them for usefulness. Traditional tools like email, web
conferencing and Skype (VOIP) 12 were ranked ahead of wikis, blogs and collaborative
bookmarking. Anderson consequently saw the main value of social software tools in informal,
personal learning environments. It is interesting to point out that the main ranking criteria used
12
Voice Over IP – internet telephony application.
48
by students were costs (i.e., long distance telephone charges) and familiarity with the tools. Ease
of use and low costs are supposedly important attributes of Web 2.0 technologies, yet the former
The paper by Windham (2007) using case studies proposed a number of different working
models for the educational usage of blogs. Several possible outcomes were suggested: personal
growth, community building, and the enhancement of reflective and active learning processes.
While the cases are convincing, the paper does not discuss the qualitative differences (if any)
between the blogs and other more traditional tools. For example, Windham listed a number of
benefits of blogging, for example helping students to practice writing skills, interact with other
students, and controlling time. However, the paper does not offer any insights into how these
play out differently in the SSW environment from one supported by existing and accepted
An article by Hall & Davidson (2007) proposed looking into the blog technology's potential
for supporting interactions between students, and its consequences for peer learning and support.
The research was conducted in a hybrid learning environment implemented at a single UK based
institution. The study participants were recruited from a third year undergraduate class. Students
were mandated to use blogs: they had to keep learning journals using the technology. These
artifacts were content analyzed for three dimensions: degree of reflective nature of entries; the
propositional stance (agreement/disagreement with others students’ entries); and affective tone
(positive/negative). The authors’ theory was that in an ideal collaborative learning environment
the quality of reflective entries would be higher in the presence of positive affective tone and
higher if the content of blogs revealed evidence of peer support and critical thinking. The content
analysis of the entries shows mixed results. For example entries that scored higher on the
reflective content dimension actually manifested low level of affective tone (peer support
dimension), although the challenge (critical thinking) dimension was high. Thus the authors’
conclusion that “the blog environment encourages positive and productive exchanges” (p 183) is
somewhat suspect. The second conclusion of the study was that the analysis of blogs did not
generate enough evidence of its value as the tool for reflective learning, but this lack of clarity
The issue of student/peer support is also a centerpiece of the research by Fisher & Baird
(2005), this time in the context of a wider range of social software technologies. The authors
proposed to examine if there is a relationship between the sense of community created by what
they call “social media”, and self-regulation, retention, and student motivation. Based on the
reviewed literature, the hope was that in the social software supported environment these three
outcomes increase, and thus better learning will result. The authors used a mixed methodology -
a qualitative study and a case study. The study was the synthesis of the authors’ two years
experience of running online courses in a graduate level educational technology program. The
technologies employed included both traditional and social software: course management
systems, news groups, blogs, IM, and wikis. The courses were designed to induce technology
based collaboration, and the course goals, structure, and activities were aligned with this
objective.
The authors performed some content analysis on the artifacts produced during the course, but
they did not discuss this in detail. They primarily use students’ reflective entries to validate their
50
theoretical model, citing evidence of increased motivation and self regulation in particular. The
authors also cite evidence of self-organized peer support: students identified technology or
subject experts, and subsequently relied on them to help with their activities. 13 Some of the key
course outcomes cited were heightened levels of individual motivation (self regulation) and
accountability to the group. However, the authors acknowledged that increased social motivation
in itself is not an indicator of learning. This paper offered very little empirical data – except some
Minocha & Thomas (2007) set out to explore the pedagogical effectiveness of the wiki 14.
They wanted to determine whether or not it facilitates collaborative learning in general, and
whether it is a “good medium” for collaborative learning in the specific educational context of a
distance education course (p. 197). They used qualitative research methodology, primarily based
on the content analysis of the artifacts produced during the course. The study was successful in
confirming the first research hypothesis, that wiki did facilitate collaboration.
For the second research question (i.e., whether wiki is a good medium) four supporting
themes emerged, around four qualities of the wikis: availability (synchronous and
asynchronous), facilitative, costs savings, and traceability. There were however limiting qualities
also: inappropriateness for discussion, no support for social presence, and no support for
management of tasks in the asynchronous environment. The authors’ conclusion was that the
13
This is analogous with the processes described in the theory of social ties.
14
The particular wiki tool was part of the Moodle open souse courseware system
51
wiki tool would need to be further developed or augmented with the inclusion of other
The paper by Chen et al. (2005) is the description of a research project that used wiki and
blog tools in order to facilitate reflective approaches, and to promote deeper learning. To this
end, the authors were interested to see if such approaches would be evident, based on both the
students’ awareness and articulation of what was learned. The research methodology included
the use of both qualitative and quantitative data, which was collected from interviews, surveys,
classroom observations, and artifacts. The study claims that students became more aware of their
learning, both in terms of knowledge gained and skills acquired. It also cites additional course
outcomes, such as increased student motivation and self-confidence. The authors however do not
discuss in detail the connections between the specific technologies and the reflective pedagogical
The studies reviewed illustrate the difficulties in measuring the efficacy of social software
technologies. Direct measures of learning were only attempted in the Hall & Davison (2007)
study. The majority of the studies were concerned with qualities that could be considered indirect
indicators, or proxies for learning, for example: peer support (Fisher & Baird, 2005; Hall &
Davison, 2007), motivation (Chen et al., 2005; Fisher & Baird, 2005), retention (Fisher & Baird,
2005), self confidence 15 (Chen et al., 2005), or collaborative qualities (Minocha & Thomas,
2007).
15
Itself contested measure: valued positively in Bandura’s social learning theory, but not supported by many
empirical studies (Gross & Latham, 2007; Maughan, 2001)
52
Based on these studies, social software and Web 2.0 technologies promise some efficacy
to support students’ academic experience and learning. However, further studies are needed to
Information Literacy
Information literacy is an evolving concept, which has many implications for learning in
today’s educational environment. The literature that examines and use of this concept promises
that measures of information literacy attainment are generalizable to other areas in academic
learning, cutting across narrower disciplinary boundaries (Jones & RiCharde, 2005).
The ever accelerating pace in the creation of human knowledge and the need to cope with the
information overload, has underscored the importance of preparing students to meet these
challenges. Historically, this realization has been around for over thirty years (Maughan, 2001)
but it has particularly gained momentum since the 1990s, parallel with – perhaps not accidentally
afforded an unprecedented growth in the amount of information. At the same time, they also
contributed to the fragmentation of information, which meant that access to the “right”
Committee on Information Literacy, 1989). While the challenge of the “information age” is
universal and broad, the ALA definition highlights its importance for education:
Ultimately, information literate people are those who have learned how to learn. They
know how to learn because they know how knowledge is organized, how to find
53
information, and how to use information in such a way that others can learn from them.
They are people prepared for lifelong learning, because they can always find the
information needed for any task or decision at hand.(1989 para. 3)
This recognition led the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) to
develop a set of information literacy standards for higher education. The aim of ACRL was to
define information literacy in the educational context, and to create criteria against which
students can be measured (Association of College and Research Libraries). In its definition of
information literacy, the ACRL emphasizes the universality and broad application of the
concept:
education. It enables learners to master content and extend their investigations, become
more self-directed, and assume greater control over their own learning. An information
• Understand the economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information,
which can be used to for the development of learning objectives. For the purpose of
literacy skills at most higher education institutions in North America. While these standards were
developed by libraries, it is important to recognize that they are not library specific standards,
neither do they belong only in the domain of libraries. Rather, information literacy covers
universal concepts and it touches most aspects of higher education. This is illustrated by the
following quote:
The construct of information literacy can only be captured if it is treated as a broad set of
skills for the information-intensive society that most college campuses have become. It
includes skills across all psychological domains (cognitive, affective, psychomotor, and
conative), and the breadth of possible outcomes touches every curriculum and discipline.
(Jones & RiCharde, 2005 C-2)
Nevertheless, it was the library community, although often in partnership with other
disciplines in higher education institutions who generally became the custodian for the
methods for the assessment of information literacy. Assessment can serve dual functions: support
skills acquisition and learning (Gross & Latham, 2007 p. 334) and accountability measures via
internal and external benchmarking (Dunn, 2002; Ury, Park, Baudino, & Ury, 2007).
These needs pre-date the ACRL standards (Maughan, 2001) but since 2000, most studies
devoted to the assessment of information literacy generally adhere to the ACRL framework. The
few that deviate from it do it for either pragmatic or philosophical reasons. Fiegen & Cherry
(2002) for example found it too complex and onerous to implement the ACRL framework to
measure the effects of instruction, and developed their own instrument more closely mapped to
course outcomes. Dunn (2002) on the other hand argued that the ACRL standards create a
tendency toward a more quantitative, more abstract bias, and that relying on them would not
necessarily reveal the complete picture. Schilling & Applegate (2007) certainly demonstrate
information literacy is both sufficient for measuring competencies, and helpful for the purpose of
instruments available that are at least partially based on these standards. Jones & RiCharde (2005
C2-15) describe eleven such instruments, with particular emphasis on three, as perhaps the most
complete ones: the Texas Information Literacy Tutorial (TILT); the Information Literacy Test
(ILT) developed by James Madison University; and the Standardized Assessment of Information
56
Literacy Skills (SAILS) by Kent State University. Of these three the ILT is the only one that both
provides individual student level information and has documented reliability and validity16.
students’ information literacy competencies at the university according to the ACRL standards.
This standardized instrument was later modified for wider application outside the university
(James Madison University). The ILT is a multiple choice test administered online. It currently
measures four out of the five ACRL information literacy standards. The developers of the
instrument found that standard four (which is about students using information effectively)
would be difficult to measure in a multiple choice format (Cameron, Wise, & Lottridge, 2007 p.
231). Of the remaining four standards, greater emphasis is given to standards two and three
(respectively: access information effectively and efficiently and evaluate information critically).
About two thirds of the sixty items on the test measure these, while the rest is devoted to
standards one (determine the nature and extent of information needed) and five (understand the
economic, legal and social issues surrounding the use of information). Overall the test has a
reliability coefficient of 0.88. In addition, during the development of the instrument both its
content and construct validity was tested, and supporting evidence is presented (ibid. pp. 232-
233). The ILT is used by a number of universities and community colleges both in the United
States and internationally, in the UK and Hong Kong (Gross & Latham, 2007). In most
institutional settings ILT is simply used as an instrument for instructional assessment. Two
16
The SAILS tool is based on the concept of item-response theory and only provides aggregate level data. The
TILT combines a tutorial with assessment and does not have documentation on reliability and validity.
57
studies however, describe the use of the ILT tool as a research instrument. Gross & Latham
successfully demonstrated the application of the test in a research study investigating the
relationship of information literacy skills, students’ self assessment of competencies, and library
anxiety. Ury et al., (2007) described a pilot study at Northwest Missouri State University. One of
the purposes of this pilot was to determine if the ILT “could serve as a durable and
interdisciplinary measure of student information literacy competence” (p. 256). The study
demonstrated that the ITL yielded useful data to compare the performance of students
Summary
In this chapter I reviewed the literature regarding the scholarship and research related to
of SSW
58
Chapter 3 describes the research methodology and procedures used in this case study.
59
southern Ontario. The University strongly mandates the use of technology to support teaching
and learning in all its programs. With the learning management system (LMS) 17 at the core,
laptops and ubiquitous wireless access form the basic infrastructure of the learning environment.
The use of the LMS is mandated in all courses, typically to anchor a hybrid (or blended) learning
model 18, but the LMS is a central tool in the growing number of fully online courses as well.
Blended learning places emphasis on online interactions to augment and extend face to face
The institution tries to attract both students and faculty interested in technology enhanced
learning and devotes considerable resources to support teachers and students to succeed in this
environment. This is a strategic focus of the University. To achieve these goals, the university
has programs in place which include mentoring faculty to support learning innovation,
learning, and ubiquitous Internet connectivity. The University views the centrality of ICT in
teaching and learning as a key differentiator. For this reason, the faculty and students who are
17
Currently WebCT Vista, by Blackboard Inc.
18
Hybrid model refers to the use of ICT in both synchronously, in-class setting, and asynchronously where students
and faculty do not share the same time or space.
60
attracted to this university will have a high level of acceptance of the use of technology in
education.
Since the literature often places the locus of use of SSW in distance learning/virtual
environments, the University provided an ideal location to extend these boundaries and to study
the potential of social software in a full featured university campus setting. The researcher is
affiliated with the institution and his familiarity with the innovative culture of University offered
reasonable assurances that he can secure support for the proposed research methodology.
Finally, two assumptions were made which justified the choice of this University as the
setting for the research. The first one considered the quality and skill set of the student body.
This assumed that due to its marketing and recruiting efforts, the university generally attracts
technology savvy students, whose skills and qualities are fostered in the teaching and learning
environment at University. The second assumption was that access to the technology was
virtually barrier free. While technology ownership has been steadily improving in most higher
education institutions across North America − for example Salaway et al. cite an average laptop
University promised to minimize the interference from the lack of these qualities. In other words,
in a pure technology oriented learning environment the analysis and comparison of the use of
The choice of the environment is also a limitation of the study. This research needs to be
viewed the context of this University, and the settings described herein. Also, the study
participants were a purposeful sample of students enrolled in one course that included the
teaching of Information Literacy skills. As a result, the applicability of the study findings may be
61
limited to such contexts. However, the findings do provide a deeper understanding of the use of
SSW in education in a similar environment, and they provide insights into the factors involved in
was on the impacts of SSW on students’ information literacy skills. To this end, the experimental
model was used (i.e., to compare the impact of the use of SSW in information literacy
instruction with that of a traditional technology such as the learning management system). As
Creswell (2008, p 299) states, the use of an experimental model is justified when researchers
“want to establish possible cause and effect between independent and dependent variables” (in
the case of this study, the use of specific technologies and the information literacy scores). The
unique environment of the study institution provided an opportunity for such a design. However,
the particular situation did not support a true experiment. Creswell (2008. p 313) differentiates
between true and quasi-experiments. The latter “include assignment, but not random assignment
of participants to groups”. This is the only major aspect in which the two types of experimental
designs differ. The study situation required to use the quasi-experimental model, as will be
described in the following sections. In addition, two questionnaire surveys were used to collect
information on the participants’ views regarding the use and impact of SSW.
How does social software impact the information literacy skills and learning of a sample of Net
Research Questions:
1. What is the nature and extent of SSW use among the participating students?
63
2. What are the participating students’ perceptions and attitudes about using SSW for
learning?
3. To what extent do these students utilize SSW for academic tasks in the context of
b. What are the barriers (if any) to using SSW in this context?
4. How does the use of SSW impact these students’ scores on the information literacy test?
5. How do the perceptions of the students who used SSW compare with those students who
6. Is there a relationship between the students’ perceptions and attitudes (RQ 2) toward
SSW and academic learning outcomes − as measured by the information literacy test, and
The course selected for the study was a social science writing course at the University. This
course was an elective one, typically taken by students during their first year of studies at the
university, although a number of senior students take the course in higher years. The course is a
collaboration between the library and the social science faculty, and has a strong information
literacy component. In this research study, information literacy and its attainment measures
offered the foundation for the research design. This was justified because of the following
factors:
• Information literacy is about digital technology skills also. Critical examination of both
skill sets helps us understand and place in proper context the claims about the Net
Generation and examine the actual roles SSW can play in their learning.
64
• Information literacy is about skills to manage (find, retrieve, evaluate, use) information.
• Information literacy encompasses many different levels of learning, from simple recall of
for the cognitive processes that constitute learning – thus lending validity to the
The course had two sections. This offered a natural fit for a quasi experimental design model.
Because of logistical reasons the random assignment of participants was not a viable option.
Instead, section one as a whole was designated as a treatment group and section two as the
control group. Students were assigned to their respective sections by the university scheduling
department. While the different instructional treatment applied to the whole class, only students
who volunteered to participate in the study were eventually included in the study. The details of
the recruitment and consent process are explained later. The study focused on the information
literacy component of the course, taught by library staff in the form of a series of five
consecutive sessions. These sessions were a combination of lectures and labs. This component
model, although Power Point slides containing the lecture materials were accessible through a
19
Admittedly in the absence of a true experimental model, this would be limited. As well, it should only be
considered in the context of the University.
65
dedicated website. The librarians (both very innovative and technology oriented) were interested
in the increased the use of ICT for the study and in a blended learning model. They were asked to
modify the instructional design so the treatment group would use a set of SSW tools to enhance
the learning experience. The control group was to use only the LMS as the institutionally
sanctioned technology tool. The researcher had no direct involvement with the course design or
delivery. The integration of ICT tools employed the following mechanism: after every class, the
librarians posted review materials, questions and assignments using the respective designated
technologies of the two sections. The details of these technologies are provided in the next
section of this chapter, titled “using the technologies”. Table 1 illustrates the mapping of
Online resources accessed using SSW (class Online resources accessed via WebCT
Online activities via SSW (class wiki, blog – Online activities via WebCT
While the online tools were invoked during the classes, the completion of activities,
review questions and assignments were optional, and these were to take place between and after
66
classes. Because the technologies used were interactive technologies, this approach fit the
Before the information literacy class sessions commenced, the researcher sent an
invitation to students to participate in the study. A copy of this letter is in Appendix A. At the
first class, students were asked to consent to participating in the study via an online
questionnaire. A copy of this is in Appendix B. The consent process is detailed later in this
chapter.
Following, a base line standardized information literacy test (ILT) was administered to all
students. Students received participation marks for this test for a total course value of 5%. Phase
one of the study started in the middle of October with the first lecture, and ended in early
Phase two consisted of a student self-study period. The goals, the structure, tools, and
activities of this second phase were explained to the students during the first phase. At the end
of November a second ILT test was conducted. Students were graded on the second ILT, and this
Students who volunteered to participate in the study were asked to complete a second
online questionnaire, at the end of phase two. A copy of the second questionnaire is in Appendix
C. The pre and post-test questionnaires were designed to collect data to answer the research
questions.
The course is described in detail in the next section. At the request of the researcher, the
librarians agreed to use SSW in one section of the course and the LMS in the other section. The
67
researcher had no involvement in the development or delivery of the course material. As well,
the eventual instructional design was autonomously developed by the librarians who taught these
students. The researchers’ involvement included the selection and implementation of specific
technology tools for the Treatment group. By offering technical support only, the researcher
collaborated with the librarian/instructors in the setup of SSW tools for the classroom
environment.
instructional librarians at the University. The structure of these was built on the AACRL
information literacy standards framework (Association of College and Research Libraries, 2000).
The format of the classes employed a number of instructional strategies: mini lectures, in class
exercises, discussions, etc. This had been the format in previous years for this course.
For the current year two new strategies were introduced in addition to the methods used
in previous years. After each class, group review assignments were posted, which while not
graded, were hoped to spur peer collaboration through the technologies that were to be deployed.
Secondly, an assessment tool, the Information Literacy Test (ILT) (James Madison University),
was introduced. Assessment can be an important factor in learning - it influences students’ self
regulation and approaches to learning (Entwistle, 2000). In addition to being a pedagogical tool
in the course context, the ILT served as a key instrument in the research. The ILT (reviewed in
detail in chapter two) is a multiple choice test administered online. It currently measures four out
of the five ACRL information literacy standards. The test has a reliability coefficient of 0.88.
This test is widely used in higher education to measure students’ information literacy skills. 20
For this study, the use of the ILT instrument was therefore assumed to be a reliable tool
four. Both the ILT and the course used the ACRL framework for information literacy standards
20
The ILT test contains proprietary information and the researcher does not have permission to provide a copy of
the actual test.
70
in higher education, and beyond this no subsequent attempts were made to analyze the “fit” of
the ILT instrument within the specific course context. The ILT was used in both the Pre-Test and
Post-Test, offering a reliable means of measuring quantifiable changes (if any) in information
literacy scores.
mandated. For the course, the LMS served mostly administrative functions: posting class
announcements, grade book, syllabus, and other course materials. In addition, the LMS was used
For the information literacy portion of the course these functions of the LMS could be
easily replicated using a variety of social software tools. Thus section one of the class was
designated to utilize SSW for the information literacy instruction portion of the class. Section
two was to continue to use the LMS. In designing this portion of the class the librarians
acknowledged that both the LMS and SSW tools were better technologies than the ones used in
previous years’ classes. Those were limited to using web pages to post copies of Power Point
presentations.
The script of lectures followed the same pattern for both sections of the course. The same
librarians would hold the same lectures for both sections. Lectures 1,2 and 5 were to be delivered
by one librarian, 3 and 4 by the other one, in both class sections. Following the classes, lecture
materials and the review/discussion assignments were posted using the respective technologies.
Four major types of social software were considered for the treatment group of class:
blogs, wikis, social networking, and social bookmarking/tagging. To economize the amount of
involvement required from the librarians, it was decided that two of these, a blog and a wiki,
were used for librarian-mediated collaboration and discussions, while social networking and
tagging were unmediated, but monitored by the librarians. The main feature of a wiki is that it
collaboratively come up with a shared answer to the posed review questions, thus continuously
improving on the quality of the answer. A blog was to allow for a dialog on the posted issues,
presented in chronological order. Additionally, the specific “social” features of both wiki and
blog tool could provide added value to the course. These features are described in detail in the
next section.
PBwiki offered an advantage because it was openly accessible. The literature widely identifies
openness and the resulting network effects (i.e. the more people use it the more valuable the
content becomes) as one of the key advantages of SSW. A “silo” approach using a localized
version would have detracted from the authentic SSW experience (Leslie & Landon, 2008)
21
http://pbwiki.com/
72
The core features of the wiki included collaboration (collaborative page editing, file
sharing, complete audit trail, commenting, email & RSS notifications), security (access controls,
page / folder-level access, IP whitelisting & blacklisting), ease of use features (quick setup,
search facility, point and click editor, tags & folders) and customization features (including
User support was offered through both online help on PB Wiki and through the wiki
A wiki on PB Wiki can be completely hidden from search engines, or it can be visible. In
either case, several levels of access control are possible. For the course, the base version of the
service was sufficient to balance the diverging needs for both openness and security. While paid
versions would offer page level security, it was sufficient to lock the security settings for the
3. anyone could contact the wiki administrator for access to edit the wiki
Wiki Setup
Classroom accounts were generated and distributed in the first class. This afforded a
balance of anonymity and security. Student accounts followed the format “student1, student2,
etc.” If a student wanted to leave a personalized mark, they were instructed to sign their edits
73
with their initials, or first name. Otherwise the system would leave the audit trail in the generic
form of the name of the account. Each page had a page history button offering the ability to trace
versioning. To help with this process, users could subscribe to notifications (as frequently as
hourly) of changes to any page on the wiki. These notifications could be delivered via email, or
A course home page set up containing links to each lecture, and discussion
questions/assignments. Help pages and contact form to the administrator were created, as well as
outbound links to the other three social software tool implementations for the class. This method
of self-referential linking to the complementary SSW technologies was used on blog and the
Class blog
General features of the blog
The selection of the blog tool for the class purpose involved using the same approach as that
of the wiki. It was important that this tool resided on an openly accessible system. WordPress 22
is one of the most popular blogging tools, offering both locally installable versions of its
installed version had been deployed and available at the University, this course opted for the
22
http://www.wordpress.com
74
hosted version. In the fall of 2008 over 4.6 million blogs were hosted on wordpress.com. This
1. A blogging community: conversations can continue from one blog post to another and
through the comments. Aided by the “tag surfer feature”, this makes it easy to find
likeminded bloggers interested in the same topics and connect with them.
5. Privacy options: a) completely public blog, b) a blog which is public but not included in
search engines or our public listings, or c) a private blog which only members can access.
Blog setup
The privacy settings for the class blog were set to be visible to everyone, including search
engines. Writing and posting pages was restricted to instructors, but students could use the
because Wordpress offered a relatively simple mechanism to allow users to comment. The user
was required to supply an email address for his/her first posting. This post needed to be
approved by the moderator (instructor), after which the system would recognize the email and
allow subsequent posts, without further intervention by moderators. The class blog, similarly to
the wiki, featured posts after every lecture, with links to the PowerPoint slides and discussion
questions. The blog also featured outbound links to the other three SSW tools, a help/about page,
75
contact features, and a Delicious (social bookmarking) widget which brought the most popular
sites tagged “information literacy” right within the blog. Users of the class blog were also
connected to the wider blogging community via tags and links to other blogs with similar topics
(“blogroll”).
Social bookmarking software typically combines two key functions. Using a unique
personal account that is accessible via a web browser these services a) allow the user to save
URLs to internet based resources and b) offer the ability to share these URLs with other users of
the service.
Sharing and resource discovery is achieved through a variety of mechanisms. The most
typical example of this is the “tagging” feature: a user has the ability to freely classify an internet
resource based on her specific needs. The aggregation of these and other users’ tags is visible
across the network, and following these additional relevant resources can be found.
The second type of discovery route is user-based rather than classification-based. Once
likeminded users are identified via tag use, social bookmarking services enable these users to
For the class, Delicious 23 was selected as the social bookmarking tool. This service is the
pioneer of, and today one of the most mature of the social bookmarking services. It is a free
online service offering the key features discussed earlier. Once the user creates an account, a
personal area is created where the user is able to save URLs, tag them, annotate them, organize
them in folders, etc. There is a search facility to locate the users’ own tags, or to search across
the entire Delicious database. Tags can be bundled (by creating hierarchical categories) or
displayed by popularity/frequency of use (these are represented by visual cues, e.g. larger font
size). Delicious also offers a subscription feature to tags: rather than manually searching for
certain categories, this feature automates the process, similar to the mechanisms of an RSS feed.
Another feature is enriched networking capabilities: not only can network of people be created,
but reputational (rating) characteristics can be assigned to them. This is done by flagging people
(as “fans” or “mutual fans”). Bookmarks can be designated as private or public. Emphasizing the
social nature of the service, Delicious by default uses the public settings for new bookmarks.
In libraries the most typical application of Delicious is the creation of online reading
lists/resource lists. These are shareable via a simple URL syntax e.g. “delicious.com/library-
specific-name/folder-name”. The resources listed in this folder can be accessed by anyone with a
simple click. Additionally, once the user logged in to the service, these links can be saved in their
personal area, further annotated, tagged etc. This method demonstrated was during class lectures,
and students were encouraged to sign up for the service and start creating their own lists.
23
http://www.delicous.com
77
An alternative approach was considered but rejected. This would have involved the
creation of a shared class account. Here resources could be added and managed collaboratively.
The librarians however did not want to take on additional account management tasks. There were
some concerns about equity also. The instructors felt that unlike in the cases of the wiki or the
blog, students in the control group did not really have access to an equivalent functionality in the
LMS. Therefore the decision was made to make the use of Delicious completely optional and
unmediated by the librarians. The class wiki and blog tools however contained prominent
Social networking.
General features
Social networks are probably the most popular and widely used services among all social
software applications. The history of Facebook is instructive in this regard. Originally created
for college students in 2004 (initially users had to have an “edu” email address to sign up for the
service), in 2006 the service was opened up to anyone. Students however, remained the core
group of users (Ellison, 2008) . The core functionalities in Facebook are typical of most social
networking sites: these are built around personal profiles, which serve as a nucleus for forming
personal “social networks” as well as discovering and joining additional ones based on shared
For the class, Facebook was chosen as the specific social networking technology. As a
popular and open computing platform, Facebook offers many extensions to other applications
ranging from games to productivity, or to library specific ones such as library catalogues.
78
Another popular library use of Facebook is creating book clubs, or other groups organized
For the class, the use of library extensions was eschewed based on similar grounds as in
the case of the social bookmarking tool. Because of account management, equity concerns, etc.,
Facebook was marketed as an optional tool for collaboration for the students in the treatment
group of the class. To facilitate this, an open study group was created for the class. The “groups”
feature in Facebook allows the creation of ad hoc communities, for usually a single purpose. At
the beginning of the classes students in the treatment group were invited to join this Facebook
group via links on the class blog and wiki. The group privacy features allowed it to be visible
and accessible on the entire Facebook network. The librarians were monitoring this group, but
The LMS
WebCT was used by section two, the control group students. They were provided with
the same lecture material as section one. This was done the LMS “course material” feature,
which essentially serves as a repository of digital content. Additionally, the same review
questions/assignments were posted as for section one. This was done via the “discussion groups”
tool in the LMS. This tool resembles a classical bulletin board system where topics are organized
The librarians provided an introduction to the software technologies for both class
sections during the first lectures. Support was offered throughout phases one and two of the
study. There were no deadlines for the review assignments: these could be completed either
during the classroom phase, or in the self study phase. These review assignments were
enrolled in the classes, to introduce the study and invite students to participate (Appendix A -
Invitation to participate in a study). The researcher visited the first classes to explain any
questions students had about the participation. The consent was part of the pre-test survey
questionnaire. Students who agreed to participate were provided with a link to complete the
Data collection
Initially, 67 students were enrolled in section 1 of the class and 142 students in section 2.
For the study, 37 students consented to participate from section one and 78 from section two.
However, only 24 section one and 56 section two students completed the study, resulting in a
participation rate of 36 and 38 percent participation rate respectively. The blended participation
Two questionnaires were designed by the researcher to collect data. The pre-test
questionnaire was developed to gather data for research questions 1,2, and 6 (partially). This
80
questionnaire was issued to students before the first information literacy class. The second
questionnaire was designed to collect data for research questions 3 and 5. This questionnaire was
The copies of both questionnaires appear in Appendix B and Appendix C. The questions
were pilot tested by students at the University prior to the academic year. The questionnaires
were implemented using the online survey tool by SurveyMonkey24. This online tool had
several advantages, one of which was that it utilized a technique called “skip logic”. Depending
on the specific answer to certain questions, the student would be directed to the next logical
question. For example if in the post-test survey, the student answered “no” to the “did you use
social software since the classes started” question, they would be directed to the question about
what barriers they experienced, while those answering “yes” would skip this question. The
survey tool also utilized certain automatic error correction features, such as text validation, or
allowing only one choice on the ranking questions. While SurveyMonkey can use “force
answers”, the ethical review protocol did not allow the use of this technique: students could
This resulted in missing data in a number of cases. The most serious was the omission of
students’ IDs which were necessary for the collation of information from the two surveys and the
two ILT tests, therefore a number of cases had to be excluded from the data analysis. The results
24
http://www.surveymonkey.com
81
of the two ILT tests for the consenting participants and the two questionnaires were collated. The
While 115 usable cases were initially recorded from the first questionnaire, the final
number was reduced to 80. This was due to mortality (not all students who initially agreed to
participate in the study completed the second survey). As well, I excluded 8 cases where students
indicated on the questionnaire that they participated in classes in both course sections -
essentially switching between classes during phase one. 26 The final set of 80 represented 24
students from section 1 (36% of all students) and 54 from section two (38% of all section 2
students).
The data were imported in SPSS 16.0, and were cleaned to eliminate duplicate cases,
invalid response values, or formats. On a few occasions follow up email was sent to participants,
25
Following the Ethical Review protocol, the student IDs were replaced with random numbers to ensure anonymity.
As well, the data was kept with the researcher in a secure location.
26
I cannot exclude the possibility that contact was made between members of the two class sections either in phase
one or phase two. (The data collected suggest that there may have been such cases, particularly in phase two.)
I need to note also that the Ethical Review Board at the University, based on their opinion that this would infringe
on students’ freedom would not grant me permission to ask my study participants to refrain from class switching
during the study period. I did not consider random assignment of participants to class sections for logistical reasons,
but it would not have cleared the ERB, based on the same principle. Therefore my study design can only be
considered quasi experimental at best.
82
Limitations
The study consisted of a purposeful sample of students at a unique technology focused
University where this case study was conducted. Therefore the research findings should be
considered in this context. The issues of the small sample size, the quasi-experimental design for
part of the study, along with other limitations of the study will be discussed in detail at the end of
Chapter 5.
83
Eighty students completed the study. 24 students were in the treatment group and 54 in
the control group. Forty-seven of students were eighteen years old, and thirty-three were older
students (Table 2). The mean age of students in both groups was nineteen with higher variability
T 19.00 24 1.383
C 18.98 56 1.711
Sixty one percent (n=49) of students were female and thirty nine percent (n=31) were male. The
ratio of females to males was four to one in the treatment group. The distribution of data is
presented in Table 4.
Section Gender
T n 19 5 24
C n 30 26 56
Total Count 49 31 80
Research question 1
What is the nature and extent of SSW use among the participating students?
Students were asked to indicate how frequently they use various social software
technologies. Table 5 summarizes the responses. The labels here are shortened, but on the
questionnaire these technologies were described using generic terminology: for example
As seen in Table 5, the majority of respondents (90 percent) indicated frequent (i.e., daily
or weekly) use for Facebook or other social networking technologies (SNT). Wikis followed
with 33%, blogs 28% and social bookmarking tools (SBT) 17%. It is notable that 40% of the
respondents were not familiar with this latter concept. The high percentage of students (48.1)
who never used blogs was also somewhat unexpected, considering that this is one of the “older”
These findings are consistent with the numbers reported in large scale surveys, such as
the series of PEW Internet Studies and the ECAR longitudinal survey of undergraduate students,
Also notable is the almost universal adoption of Facebook and other social networking
technologies. This widely observed phenomenon has made this technology a focus of special
inquiry 27
n % n % n % n %
1
including other social networking technologies
2
including social bookmarking tools
The literature considered these SSW technologies primarily as personal tools, in the
consumer/recreational sphere. I felt it was important to assess whether the students had any
27
Major longitudinal surveys, such as the ECAR series of undergraduate students and technology study recently
devoted several chapters to the phenomenon of social networking technologies in students’ lives (Salaway et al,
2008).
87
experience with them in an academic context. Generally about 20-25% of respondents reported
using SSW for academic purposes. As seen in Table 6, the use of wikis stands out at 59 percent.
Overall, it appears that among the study participants, the dominant use of SSW falls
outside of the academic sphere, although there is a moderate amount of academic use reported.
SSW type n %
Wikis 46 59.0
Blogs 20 25.3
Students were asked to rate their skills with the various SSW technologies. Students’ self
reported skills with the technologies rank Facebook and other social networking sites first, as
most students reported they were very skilled with the technology. Facebook was followed by
wikis, blogs, and social bookmarking tools. This is the same rank order as the one reported for
Note. Skills rated on a 5 point Likert scale: 1 = not skilled at all with the technology and 5 = very skilled
Students were asked about how they used SSW technologies. This is summarized in
Table 8. Most students (87.5 percent) reported that they have a profile on Facebook - 40 percent
have a profile on more than one social networking site. Reading content on wikis was also
frequently checked – this is probably due to students including Wikipedia, which was not
explicitly excluded in this question. Just a little over half of respondents checked “reading
blogs”. A somewhat higher order interaction with this tool (commenting on blogs), was
indicated by 38.8 percent of students. However, only 12.5% of the students had their own blogs.
More involved/creative use of wikis such as content creation and editing was minimal. The
majority of the 24 students (20) who indicated ever using social bookmaking tools in the past
were using this technology to maintain their own links, as opposed to passively browsing other
peoples’ links.
89
n %
The distribution of different types of SSW usage counts is illustrated in Table 9. From the
nine SSW activities on the questionnaire, two students indicated no usage at all, while two
students indicated engagement with all nine SSW activity types. The most frequently occurring
0 2 2.5
1 9 11.2
2 12 15.0
3 24 30.0
4 15 18.8
5 11 13.8
6 3 3.8
7 2 2.5
9 2 2.5
Total 80 100.0
In summary, students exhibited a moderate level of familiarity and skill level with SSW
technologies. From the four main categories of SSW, social networking technologies stand out
on their own. These are ubiquitous in students’ lives. Students are very comfortable using social
networking, but they are using it mostly in their private lives and not as much for academic
purposes. Social bookmarking on the other hand was the least adopted/known technology.
91
Research Question 2.
What are the participating students’ perceptions and attitudes about using SSW for
learning?
I asked students to rate four statements, which I derived from the literature. These
Table 10 illustrates these by grouping the attitudes toward the use of SSW for learning. As can
be seen from the table, social networking (Facebook) clearly stands out as category type of SSW
which the majority of students (87.3 percent) see as dominantly consumer oriented. Facebook
also ranked highest (59.7 percent) in the category where students are opposed to institutional
adoption. Wikis, on the other hand are viewed the most favourably as being capable of
supporting personal learning (64.6 percent), and for institutional adoption (52.6 percent). 28With
the only exception of the wiki technology, a greater proportion of students appear to be view the
28
A relatively low number of students provided answer for the SBT option
92
Item Responses n % n % n % n %
suitable for my PERSONAL use to Don't know 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
help with studying and learning
Disagree 37 48.1 15 19.0 34 43.6 20 36.4
suitable in university classes to help Don't know 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
with studying and learning
Disagree 38 48.7 27 34.6 48 61.5 23 39.7
should NOT be used as teaching tool Don't know 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Table 11 illustrates that with the exception of social networking, predispositions for the use of
learning of specific SSW tools is related to the past use of these technologies.
Table 11. Comparison of usage frequency and views regarding SWW tools
% agreed that the tool is suitable for my PERSONAL 31.2 64.6 32.0 34.5
use to help with studying learning
% agreed that the tool is suitable in university classes to 37.2 52.6 20.5 34.4
help with studying and learning
Independent sample T-tests highlighted a number of differences between past users and non-
Table 12 and Table 13 illustrate the significant associations. Past blog users had a more
Past Facebook and other SNT users had a more favourable view of the suitability of Facebook
Past Delicious and other SBT users had a more favourable view of:
Table 12. Past use of SSW and favourable view as a personal learning tool
Suitability for
Blogs Wikis Facebook Delicious
personal use to help
with studying and
Past n Mean n Mean n Mean n Mean
learning
use
Table 13. Past use of SSW and favourable view of use in university classes
recognition of these tools for the support of learning was also in evidence (particularly regarding
the user of wikis), and generally corresponded with students’ past experiences with the same
specific technologies.
96
Research question 3
To what extent do these students utilize SSW for academic tasks in the context of learning
information literacy?
b. What are the barriers (if any) to using SSW in this context?
Both class sections indicated that they used SSW during the study timeframe (phases one and
29
two). All types of SSW use, both academic and non-academic, were included in this question.
As seen in Table 14, the proportion of SSW users in the control group (section 2) was much
higher than in the treatment group (section 1). Eighty percent of the control group users used
29
This timeframe was strongly emphasized in the questionnaire.
97
Section n %
Total 24 100.0
Total 56 100.0
While I expected SSW use in the control group, the high usage rate was unexpected,
particularly in contrast with the treatment group. However, the responses to the SSW use
question included both academic and recreational usage. The questionnaire included a set of
questions pertaining to the use of four SSW types (blogs, wikis, SNT, SBT) for two types of
academic tasks: tracking course content, and collaboration. Using the responses to these
questions, it was possible to filter the cases in the control group that indicated the use of at least
one SSW tool for academic tasks. There were 31 such students (69 percent) in the control group.
This underscores that SSW use in the control group was still relatively higher than in the
treatment group. However, we do not know what specific SSW tools were used by the control
group, and the overall percentages do not tell about the extent or intensity of academic use of
The questionnaire was designed to capture whether SSW and/or the LMS was used for
academic activities. It was anticipated that academic use of SSW (if any) in the treatment group
98
would involve the class tools on one hand, and other generally available SSW for the control
Students in both sections were asked to indicate academic specific activities, using a
1. I used the following software tools in this class to keep track of course
material/content
2. I used the following software tools in this class for discussions and collaboration with
peers
The options for these two questions were generic: i.e., “blog”, “wiki” “Facebook”,
“Delicious”, and “WebCT “(rather than “class blog”, “class wiki”, etc.). This generic approach
was designed to capture SSW use (if any) from members of the control group, as it was plausible
that they could have been using other kind of blogs, wikis, etc., to support their learning. As
seen in Table 15 and Table 16, students from both sections indicated both SSW and WebCT use.
99
Table 15. Use of software tools in the class to keep track of course material/content
n % n % n %
Table 16. Use of software tools in the class for discussions and collaboration with peers
n % n % n %
As expected, the ratio of SSW users was generally higher in the treatment group than the
control group. One exception to this was “using blogs for collaboration”. However, according to
the Pearson chi square, this difference was not statistically significant.
Overall, a series of Chi-square tests revealed that most differences between the two class
sections were not statistically significant. The only exception to this was “using wikis for
tracking course content”. Here the higher usage reported by the treatment group was
significantly different from the control (Pearson Chi Square 10.908, df = 2, p = .004 level). Thus
the only difference between the treatment and control groups was in the use of wiki tools. This is
not surprising, considering that the class wiki was the most feature-rich in functionality and the
content was duplicated on the blog. I suggest students would have naturally gravitated toward the
ii) The only exception to this was “Facebook use for collaboration”. Use and non-use
The high use of LMS for the treatment group is likely explained by the fact that WebCT was
the “go to” product in the larger course framework. Phase two of the study would have
overlapped with the LMS use. Conversely, the low SSW use could be explained by the fact that
In summary, the data provided some evidence that if students were exposed to using
SSW in the instructional environment, they tended to adopt it for academic tasks to a degree.
RQ3a.To what extent do they leverage the distinguishing features of these tools?
Among the key distinguishing features of social software is the ability to connect people
across the boundaries of space and time, based on users’ “profiles”. These profiles offer
affiliations, etc. The literature (Leslie & Landon, 2008) emphasizes the global nature of SSW
Two questions were asked to assess the extent to which these features were leveraged
among the study participants. One of these questions asked students to rate the degree to which
the technologies helped them to connect with other students in the course, and the other one
asked them to rate the degree to which these tools helped to connect them with other resources
and people beyond the course context. In addition, students were asked to rate the general utility
The analysis of the data suggested a trend of higher rating of two aspects of these features
amongst students who did not report SSW use during the study. These students tended to feel
that the software tools used helped to manage their time better, and that they helped to connect to
other resources, people or material beyond the course. None of the differences were significant
There were no statistically significant differences when the ratings of these four aspects
of the technologies were compared for SSW users and non-users in isolation within the treatment
and control groups. In the treatment group, SSW users appeared generally more appreciative
than non-users on one distinguishing SSW feature. The mean rating difference on the “software
enabled to make connections with others” was 0.8 but the p value (.086) in not low enough to be
significant. In the control group, the tendency appeared to be the reverse, with non-users rating
distinguishing SSW features nominally higher. However, since these differences were not
statistically significant, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the data is that students who
were SSW users did not leverage the distinguishing features of SSW - or at least did not
(1) SSW users may have used SSW in a superficial manner. This has been mentioned
in the literature (Siemens, 2007). Such narrow use could have resulted in these
(2) Non-users of SSW might have been happier with the technology, essentially with
the LMS, and this may have biased their ratings on features of software that was
In summary, I conclude that students did not utilize the distinguishing features of SSW
which would have expanded their horizons beyond the class context. For example no network
RQ3b. What are the barriers (if any) to using SSW in this context?
Twenty-two students (11 in each section) indicated no SSW use in phases one or two of
the study. They were asked to check the main reasons. Table 17 below summarizes the results.
Students were able to check more than one option and a total of 46 options were selected.
%(n) %(n)
3. don’t believe they were appropriate tools for this class 18(2) 45(5)
Notes. 1, 2. Percentages calculated for n=11 students not using SSW in this group
A high number of SSW non-user students (seventy-three percent) within the treatment
group said this was not a requirement. This is consistent with the earlier observation that in the
absence of making use of these tools mandatory, students might not be inclined to use SSW,
Thirty-six percent of the non-SSW users in the treatment group indicated a general dislike of
these tools, and the same percentage felt that it took too much time and effort to use them. Lack
of skills and technical difficulties were less of a factor. The appropriateness of the tools for the
class was questioned by eighteen percent of students in the treatment group and forty-five
percent of non-SSW users in the control group. This suggests that once students were exposed to
SSW in the class context, they viewed this as less of a barrier than their counterparts in the
control group. However, according to the Pearson chi-square test this difference was not
statistically significant (p=.170), which was no doubt influenced by the small sample size. A
series of chi-square tests performed on the other options did not reveal any difference between
the two sections either, confirming that in terms of barriers to SSW use, there was no difference
30
There were only three open format comments, one indicating privacy concerns, one basically restating option 3, and one option 4)
106
Research question 4
How does the use of SSW impact these students’ scores on the information literacy test?
No difference was found between the treatment and the control group in either the pre-
test information literacy (ILT) scores or the post-test. As illustrated in Table 18, the difference
of the means of the pre-tests scores was less than a half percent in the pre-test, and while the
score gap widened in the post-test in favour of the control group, this was not statistically
significant. This suggests that the different instructional treatment for the two groups did not
score
C 56 64.14 12.40
C 56 75.29 9.87
Both groups, however, improved their respective test scores from the pre-test to post-test.
As illustrated in Table 19, which compares the pre-test and post-test scores of the Treatment and
Control groups respectively, the differences are statistically significant (Mean differences of 8.96
and 11.5 percentage points for the two groups respectively, p=.000). This suggests that the
instruction itself and/or students’ self-study played a positive role in academic achievement as
Table 19. T-test of paired samples of pre-test and post-test ILT scores
The score gain (from pre-test to post-test) of 8.96 points in the treatment group was not
significantly different from the gain of 11.15 points in the control group.
When all SSW users were compared with non-users regardless of class sections, they
achieved 6.3 percentage point higher scores on the post ILT test, which is statistically significant
(t-3.048, p=.004). The pre-test scores for these two groups of students were no different. These
score
** p<.01
The gain (11.9 point) in scores of SSW users was also significantly different from the gain (6.7
It was surprising however, to find that SSW user students in the control group contributed
more to this outperformance. As illustrated in Table 21, when the class sections were split based
on whether or not they reported using SSW in the study period, the 7.6 percentage point mean
difference in the control group between the post-test scores of SSW users and non-users was
statistically significant (t-2.383, p=.021). While SSW users in the treatment group also had on
average 3.8 points better scores than non-users, this difference was not statistically significant.
This is corroborated when comparing the point gains from pre-test ILT scores to post-test: SSW
users gained more in both groups than non-users. In the treatment group, the gain of SSW users
was eighty percent more than non-users (gain of 11.26 versus 6.24), and sixty-eight percent
109
higher in the control group (12.11 versus 7.21). However, this was statistically significant only in
Table 21. Mean ILT scores by class section and by use of SSW
use score
*p<.05.5
It must be noted that the outperformance of SSW users in the control group is relative to
the non-users of SSW within their own class section. When SSW users in the treatment section
are compared with the control section, there is no statistically significant difference (Table 22).
110
Score
C 45 64.67 13.039
C 45 76.78 9.674
In summary, the treatment of using institutionally sanctioned SSW in the course did not
result in evidence of different test scores in the post-ILT test, relative to the control group. Only
slightly more than half of the treatment group students confirmed that they submitted to the
treatment, resulting in a very small sample of 13 students on which the analysis could be based.
SSW use was associated with significantly better scores for the population overall, and in the
control group. While the performance of students submitting to the treatment was not better than
those in the control group, it was not worse either. Non-sanctioned SSW use however in the
The data were analyzed to determine if there were any variables and factors that show
variance between groups, and explain why the SSW users in the control group had higher scores
From the data collected, a number of demographic and other factors were considered for
seen from this, independent sample t-tests comparing all SSW users with the non-users, revealed
the following:
a) Studying after the class ended (frequency measure): SSW users studied more frequently
c) Self reported skills with social networking tools (pre-test)—SSW users reported higher
d) Students’ age — SSW users were older (mean difference of 0.861, t= 3.135, p= .002)
e) A fifth factor, gender, while not statistically significant, also showed variances
The studying after the class ended variable was statistically significant also when only the
treatment group users and non-users were compared. The frequency of social networking use,
skills with social networking and students’ age were statistically significant also when only the
Table 23. T-test on potential factors explaining performance: all SSW users versus non-
users
Note.
a
4 point frequency scale – higher number indicates higher frequency
1
Pearson Chi-Square=8.25, df=3, p= .041
b
5 point frequency scale – lower number indicates higher frequency
2
Pearson Chi-Square=23.13, df=4, p= .000
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001
113
Age
The nearly one year difference in students’ age could be important: higher year university
students should have a distinct advantage over first year students in terms of information literacy
skills and computing skills. Theoretically, those participants who were from higher years, and
had been attending previous university classes, would have been exposed to tasks involving
Unfortunately the questionnaire did not ask for students’ grade level. While the majority
of students in the course were freshmen, anecdotally I knew that there were students in later
years of university taking the course. Assuming that students who were eighteen years of age
came straight from high school, I recoded age to two proxy measures for grade levels: 18 year
olds were coded to “1st year” and all other students to “other” (assumed higher years). This
reclassification in itself did not explain students’ choice of using (or not using) SSW during the
study period. The Pearson chi square (2.446 df=1, p =.118) showed no difference between these
The same is true when looking at class sections in isolation. As illustrated in Table 24 in
the control group, among those who did not use SSW a high proportion were 1st year students
(82%) 31. The same metric for the treatment group showed a somewhat more balanced
31
Earlier it was shown that differences between ILT scores of SSW users and non-users were the most pronounced
in the control group.
114
distribution: only 64% of 1st year students were in the non user group. However the Pearson Chi
Square did not find these differences statistically significant. The P values were .392 and .114
respectively.
Table 24. Crosstab of SSW users/ non-users and class standing, by class section
T No n 7 4 11
Yes n 6 7 13
Total n 13 11 24
C No n 9 2 11
Yes n 25 20 45
Total n 34 22 56
The actual ILT scores of theoretically higher class standing students were higher when
compared with first year students overall. Both pre and post-test scores were higher; in the case
of post-test the difference was statistically significant. (Mean difference -4.234043, T -2.059352,
This pattern is the same when the comparison is isolated within the respective class sections
(statistically significant on the post-test, in the treatment group (mean difference = -7.252, t -
The pattern is also the same when SSW users and non-users are isolated. (Statistically significant
in both pre and post ILT tests, amongst non-users. The pre-test mean difference was -9.757, (t -
2.606, p=.017), and the post-test mean difference was -8.146, (t -2.348, p=.029) Table 27
The analysis of the data revealed that the differences in information literacy skills of the
eighteen year olds and the other students in the study were pre-existing, and that these
differences stayed about the same at the end of the study. There was a slight performance gap in
score gains in the treatment group (7.8 percentage gain of the eighteen year olds versus 10.3
percentage gain of older students) but this difference was not statistically significant.
116
score
Note. *p<.05
Table 26. Average ILT scores by course section and year of study
Table 27. Average ILT scores by SSW use and theoretical class standing
used SSW Test Year of study n Mean Mean Difference Std. Deviation
Score
Note. *p<.05
SSW skills
While the study did not actually measure SSW skills, data which can be used as a proxy
were collected. The pre-test questionnaire asked students to self-rate their skills with the four
different generic SSW technologies that were used in the study later. As was demonstrated
earlier in Table 23, when grouped on their use of SSW in the study period, the data showed one
statistically significant difference: students who subsequently used SSW during the study period
118
rated their skills with social networking technologies significantly higher than those who did not
This difference was significant in the control group. Students eventually using SSW in
this group rated their skills with social networking technologies on average 1.25 higher than
those students who did not use SSW (t -2.386, df = 11.038, p.036) No differences were found
between other groups of skills. While this difference was significant with only one of the four
SSW technologies considered for the class (Facebook), this technology is the most dominant one
n Mean a n Mean a
Note. a Five point frequency scale, lower number indicating more frequent usage.
To test whether skills with SSW technologies could be an important factor in academic
success, the post-ILT scores were re-coded to three categories: low, medium and high scores
(low 0-69, medium 70-80, and high 81-100). The cut-off values were determined according to
the distribution of scores (using the 33, 66, and 100 percentiles). While this is method is
119
somewhat arbitrary for the determination of proficiency levels on ILT, the actual score values
generally align with those previously used in the literature (Gross & Latham, 2007; Ury et al.,
2007).
After the ILT scores were recoded to the three proficiency bands, a one-way ANOVA
test was performed. However, this revealed that there is no relation between self-reported skills
with SSW and eventual ILT scores, as the differences were not statistically significant. Table 29
illustrates that in fact in some cases the average rating of skills was higher for students who
Gender
Chi square statistical tests were performed to analyze whether there was any variability
between genders in the choice of utilizing SSW. The cross tabulation of the data is presented in
Table 30.
Although an overwhelming majority of males (84%) used SSW versus females (65%) the
difference was not statistically significant (Pearson Chi square value 3.282, df=1, p .070)
No Yes Total
Female n 17 32 49
Male n 5 26 31
Total n 22 58 80
There was significant variability between genders however in another important aspect.
The mean difference in the final ILT scores (8.8 percentage point) between male SSW
users and non-users was significant (t-2.277, p=.03). The difference in female SSW user and
non-user scores was not statistically significant. The underlying data is represented in Table 31.
Table 31. ILT score distribution of SSW users and non-users within gender
score
Note. *p<.05
122
Research question 5
How do the perceptions of the students who used SSW compare with those students who
To collect data to answer this question, students were asked to rate the degree of their
a) My understanding of the concepts and topics covered in the library classes has increased
b) I feel better prepared to research topics, and present findings in future university classes
Table 32 shows that the largest mean differences were between the treatment group and the
control group on the “collaboration furthered my understanding” (d) question, and Table 33
highlights a large mean difference within the treatment group, between users and non-users of
SSW on the “my understanding increased” (a) question. However, the p level was not significant
123
in either case (p=.067 and .188 respectively). While the differences are not statistically
significant, it must be noted that the SSW users in the treatment group consistently rated all four
C 53 4.08 1.071
C 52 3.98 1.321
The use of technology made the course more interesting T 23 3.48 0.898
C 52 3.88 1.060
Collaboration with others furthered my understanding of the topics in this course T 23 3.09 1.164
C 52 3.62 1.123
The use of technology made the course more interesting No 10 3.40 0.843
The use of technology made the course more interesting No 10 3.60 1.174
somewhat or strongly agreed with the four statements were categorized as having positive stance,
versus those with neutral or disagreeing stance. Comparing the learning perceptions using this
scale revealed one statistically significant difference, between all SSW users and non-users. The
Pearson chi-square test (4.979, df = 1, p.026) showed that SSW users viewed the “technology
made the course more interesting (question C)” aspect of their learning more positively. The
non-users were more evenly split on this. The distribution of opinions is provided in Table 34.
Research question 6
Is there a relationship between students’ views (RQ 2) regarding SSW use and academic
learning outcomes as measured by information literacy test and survey questionnaire (RQ
4 and 5).
Students’ perceptions were recorded in four dimensions contrasting the personal and
institutional spheres of using SSW for learning or recreational use. This is illustrated in Table
35. Each of these dimensions was measured individually for the four SSW types used in the
1) personal tool suitable to support learning 2) acceptance for institutional use to support
learning
final ILT scores. No significant correlations were found. The same battery of tests was
4. Essentially the bivariate correlation tests suggested that there were no correlations
This is was consistent with another set of tests I performed. One-way ANOVA
confirmed that there were no differences between students’ attitudes and ILT scores, when this
latter were banded by proficiency level. Interestingly, and unexpectedly, some metrics showed
that the positive predisposition toward learning were higher for the lower performing groups
(and conversely by some metrics the negative opinion of SSW’s learning suitability did not
prevent students achieving higher performance). However, these differences were not
These findings were repeated when I segmented the data, grouped by users and non-users
of SSW technology.
In conclusion, although there were differences between SSW users and non-users in their
final ILT scores, these could hardly be attributed to their predisposition for using SSW in the
32
Out of the total 48 correlation test only two showed statistically significant correlation. Among students who did
not use SSW during the study, the perception of wikis as a recreational tool (Pearson R=.487) and among treatment
group SSW users, the perception of blogs as a suitable tool in university classes (Pearson’s R=-.561), were
correlated with the final ILT score.
128
suitability in the academic environment and students’ eventual perceptions of learning at the end
of the study period revealed some interesting patterns. Table 36, Table 37, Table 38, and Table
The first observation is that for the group of students who opted not to use SSW in the
study period (Table 36 and Table 38), there were very few significant correlations. This paints a
picture of consistency: since these students did not use SSW, their opinion about SSW would not
33
be a meaningful factor influencing their perception/assessment of learning anyway. The fact
that there were no correlations in this group, while several correlations existed amongst the
The second observation is that most of the correlations fell within the dimensions where
academic roles for SSW are viewed favourably (Table 37). Students who viewed their learning
in the course positively also tended to have a pre-existing favourable view of the suitability of
The third observation is that Facebook is generally the SSW type which shows no
significant correlation with perceptions of students’ learning. While attitudes regarding Facebook
33
Of the two significant correlations found here one was negative: those who tended to view SNT as a primarily
recreational tool viewed their learning unfavourably, in terms of students’ confidence in future preparedness. The
view of SBT as a primarily recreational tool correlated with the favourable view of the collaborative aspect of
learning.
129
have been generally strongly skewed 34, the correlation methodology using Spearman’s rho tends
The correlations that are statistically significant are also relatively moderate (ranging
34
This was discussed earlier (see details in Table 10),
130
Table 36. Correlations of learning perceptions and pre-existing favourable view of SSW for
B1 W2 F3 D4 B1 W2 F3 D4
The use of Correlation 0.072 0.342 -0.249 0.059 0.205 0.227 -0.383 0.222
technology made Coefficient
the course more
interesting Sig. (2- 0.77 0.14 0.304 0.856 0.414 0.349 0.106 0.425
tailed)
n 19 20 19 12 18 19 19 15
Collaboration Correlation 0.034 0.233 -0.149 0.065 0.046 0.141 -0.123 0.19
with others Coefficient
furthered my
understanding Sig. (2- 0.89 0.322 0.542 0.841 0.856 0.564 0.615 0.498
of the topics in tailed)
this course
n 19 20 19 12 18 19 19 15
Understanding of Correlation -0.074 0.216 -0.266 0.038 -0.075 0.021 -0.145 0.24
topics increased Coefficient
Sig. (2- 0.75 0.335 0.243 0.898 0.755 0.93 0.531 0.353
tailed)
n 21 22 21 14 20 21 21 17
Feels better Correlation -0.311 -0.073 -0.333 0.101 -0.399 -0.211 -0.36 0.2
prepared for Coefficient
future classes
Sig. (2- 0.195 0.761 0.163 0.743 0.101 0.386 0.13 0.458
tailed)
n 19 20 19 13 18 19 19 16
Note.
1. Blogs
2.Wikis
3.Facebook or other social networking tool
4. Delicious or other bookmarking/tagging tool
131
Table 37. Correlations of learning perceptions and pre-existing favourable view of SSW for
B1 W2 F3 D4 B1 W2 F3 D4
The use of Correlation 0.385** 0.352** 0.234 0.281 0.271* 0.363** 0.255 0.347*
technology made Coefficient
the course more
interesting Sig. (2- 0.004 0.009 0.089 0.083 0.045 0.007 0.063 0.03
tailed)
n 53 54 54 39 55 54 54 39
Collaboration Correlation 0.239 0.175 0.125 0.332* 0.229 0.19 -0.077 0.132
with others Coefficient
furthered my
understanding of Sig. (2- 0.084 0.204 0.367 0.039 0.093 0.169 0.581 0.423
the topics in this tailed)
course
n 53 54 54 39 55 54 54 39
Understanding of Correlation 0.258 0.274* 0.255 0.172 0.279* 0.186 0.233 0.209
topics increased Coefficient
Sig. (2- 0.062 0.045 0.063 0.295 0.039 0.178 0.09 0.201
tailed)
n 53 54 54 39 55 54 54 39
Feels better Correlation 0.258 0.327* 0.15 0.209 0.258 0.318* 0.102 0.391*
prepared for Coefficient
future classes
Sig. (2- 0.062 0.016 0.277 0.207 0.057 0.019 0.465 0.015
tailed)
n 53 54 54 38 55 54 54 38
Note.
1. Blogs
2.Wikis
3.Facebook or other social networking tool
4. Delicious or other bookmarking/tagging tool
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
132
Table 38. Correlations of learning perceptions and pre-existing unfavourable view of SSW
B1 W2 F3 D4 B1 W2 F3 D4
The use of Correlation 0.21 0.124 0.183 0.244 0.069 0.036 0.27 -0.029
technology made Coefficient
the course more
interesting Sig. (2- 0.389 0.614 0.439 0.38 0.771 0.879 0.249 0.918
tailed)
n 19 19 20 15 20 20 20 15
Collaboration Correlation 0.14 0.2 0.079 0.592* 0.219 0.211 0.392 0.35
with others Coefficient
furthered my
understanding Sig. (2- 0.567 0.412 0.739 0.02 0.353 0.371 0.087 0.201
of the topics in tailed)
this course
n 19 19 20 15 20 20 20 15
Understanding of Correlation 0.015 -0.103 -0.351 -0.162 -0.146 -0.175 -0.079 -0.052
topics increased Coefficient
Sig. (2- 0.95 0.656 0.109 0.534 0.516 0.437 0.726 0.844
tailed)
n 21 21 22 17 22 22 22 17
Feels better Correlation 0.156 -0.013 -0.528* -0.155 0.013 -0.133 -0.117 0.124
prepared for Coefficient
future classes
Sig. (2- 0.524 0.956 0.017 0.581 0.957 0.576 0.624 0.648
tailed)
n 19 19 20 15 20 20 20 16
Note.
1. Blogs
2.Wikis
3.Facebook or other social networking tool
4. Delicious or other bookmarking/tagging tool
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
133
Table 39. Correlations of learning perceptions and pre-existing unfavourable view of SSW
B1 W2 F3 D4 B1 W2 F3 D4
The use of Correlation 0.101 0.011 -0.11 0.263 0.1 -0.266 -0.189 -0.113
technology made Coefficient
the course more
interesting Sig. (2- 0.467 0.939 0.43 0.11 0.48 0.057 0.18 0.498
tailed)
n 54 54 54 38 52 52 52 38
Collaboration Correlation 0.169 -0.074 0.014 0.213 0.058 -0.356** 0.009 -0.203
with others Coefficient
furthered my
understanding Sig. (2- 0.222 0.596 0.918 0.193 0.684 0.01 0.948 0.215
of the topics in tailed)
this course
n 54 54 54 39 52 51 52 39
Understanding of Correlation 0.068 0.001 -0.125 0.039 -0.141 -0.132 -0.236 -0.122
topics increased Coefficient
Sig. (2- 0.624 0.997 0.369 0.818 0.317 0.35 0.092 0.464
tailed)
n 54 54 54 38 52 52 52 38
Feels better Correlation -0.011 -0.083 -0.051 0.118 -0.056 -0.238 -0.042 -0.187
prepared for Coefficient
future classes
Sig. (2- 0.936 0.546 0.714 0.474 0.691 0.089 0.768 0.254
tailed)
n 54 55 54 39 53 52 52 39
Note.
1. Blogs
2.Wikis
3.Facebook or other social networking tool
4. Delicious or other bookmarking/tagging tool
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
134
In summary, amongst SSW users, positive pre-existing attitudes toward the utility of
SSW to support learning were associated with a favourable view of their learning (post-test).
This correlation was largely absent in the non-SSW user group 35. The correlations however do
35
Arguably the SSW attitudes are not relevant when compared with learning outcomes, since this group of students
did not use SSW.
135
Summary of findings.
RQ1. What is the nature and extent of SSW use among participating
students?
1. Among the study participants students report a moderate amount of SSW use, with the
2. The dominant use of SSW falls outside of the academic sphere, although there is
3. Students view their SSW skills as moderate except social networking technologies which
The first finding is consistent with the results reported in large scale surveys, such as the
series of Pew Internet Studies and the ECAR survey of undergraduate students (in particular, the
2008 version of this latter offers a very similar picture). This is also consistent with other
smaller scale studies (Kennedy et al., 2007; Margaryan, Nicol, Littlejohn, & Trinder, 2008) .
This finding is important because it tempers the concerns of those in academia who fear that the
Net Generation students’ perceived demands for ITC in their lives, i.e., “always on”, “always
connected”, “plugged in”, and to “create” and “share” content (Educating the Net Generation),
require radically changing the institutional environment in order to mimic and support this
supposed modus operandi. Even if there is some observable increase in these trends, students’
use of technologies is widely diffused and extends beyond just one class of “social”
136
technologies. Of the SSW technologies, only one, social networking seemed to fulfill the
promise of reaching near ubiquity in students’ lives. Engagement with other, formerly hyped
technologies such as blogging might have reached a plateau on a relatively modest level. This
study cannot offer an analysis for reasons of the divergence. This would be an important area of
further study.
As it will be discussed in detail in the next section, compared with the other SSW
technologies used in this study, students have very different attitudes about social networking.
Specifically they tend to view it belonging within their private domain more than any other SSW.
These hardening of attitudes toward being more open to other types of activities (like formal
learning) could be symptomatic of the success of the pervasive reach of these social networking
It is unclear why social networking has such a distinct place in students’ lives, compared with
other types of SSW. It could be that for the Net Generation, the recreational aspects of
socializing afforded by these technologies are more appealing activities than ones that demand,
or have connotations of more “serious work” and “effort” (Woodall, 2004) – such as content
creation in blog and wiki environments. Maybe it is that Net Geners – Prensky (2001b)
highlights that they are visual learners – have less affinity with the text centric nature of these
latter technologies. Maybe it is that social networking technologies centred on the person, the
individual scale up better in a network environment than the content based ones like blogs, wikis,
or even social bookmarking. The latter, even if linked, require a conscientious effort to continue
to add value to the system. As well, wikis, blogs, and social bookmarking sites are a step
These are just some of the hypotheses that are should be tested in future research. The results
would have many implications for the educational environment, ranging from the role of rich
media in teaching and learning to the role of content knowledge. For institutions of higher
learning that subscribe to the notion that ubiquitous technology on campus is a necessary
ingredient for achieving success in the teaching and learning mandate, the main point to consider
from these results is that students are still not the main drivers of technology usage. Maybe they
welcome the technologies more than previous generations, maybe they are more comfortable or
skilled with them than previous generations, but the technology use in the formal educational
environment still seems to be dictated by the traditional issues of efficiencies, access, and
control. This appears to somewhat weaken the purely technology based instructional paradigm
The low to moderate academic use of SSW for formal or informal learning 36 among the
participants before the study is also generally consistent with the previously published literature
(Salaway et al., 2007; Salaway et al., 2008; Trinder et al., 2008). The study results did not show
any increase in the trends, relative to earlier studies, for using these tools to support students’
learning. This should certainly temper the concerns that SSW represents a major technological
disruption for higher education, at least in the realm of instructional technology. The
“disruptive” characteristics of these technologies, such as low costs, ease of use, and that they
cater to a market of newly emerging needs hitherto undefined, have not translated to increased
frequency or pervasive usage patterns. Neither do major SSW technologies, such as blogs, wikis,
36
The study did not differentiate between these
138
and social bookmarking tools appear to be “owned” by the Net Generation, to the extent implied
This in itself does not mean that institutions can or should dismiss the potential of social
software for facilitating teaching and learning, knowledge management, as well as open and
borderless learning in higher education. The important distinction is that there appears to be no
single driver for effecting such changes: to date, neither the Net Generation students’ approach to
SSW, nor the technologies themselves have shown characteristics which, put together, would
reach a critical mass to effect a paradigm change in the use of instructional technology.
However, institutions can also be drivers, and should consider doing so when the particular
RQ2. What are the participating students’ perceptions and attitudes about
using SSW for learning?
1. Among Net Generation students, the degree of positive attitudes toward using SSW to
support learning corresponds to the extent they are already using these technologies. As
2. Specifically, if a student used a particular type of SSW in the past, its potential for
These findings parallel the diffusion of innovation model described in the latest of the ECAR
surveys on students’ use of technologies (Salaway et al., 2008). Although SWW was not
discussed separately in the ECAR survey, the model as a whole can be generalized to this
emerging segment of ICT. According to this, about 10% of students consider themselves
37
innovators (first to try new technologies) and another 25% are early adopters (p.54).
In this thesis research, the patterns emerging from the data suggest that there is strong
likelihood that attitudes toward adopting SSW for learning could be influenced by students’ pre-
existing experience with, and own independent assessment of these tools, in the broad context of
learning. These patterns were not identified previously and therefore the researcher did not
formulate any hypotheses to investigate any aspect of them, but it could be important for future
technologies in a formal education environment could act as positive reinforcement for the
While the thesis research did not specifically investigate this aspect, there is some indication
in the data that students’ experiences with SSW within formal instructional environments act as a
positive reinforcement. For example, at the conclusion of the study, members of the treatment
group exhibited a clear pattern of higher interest in using SSW in future classes, although the
37
The patterns in the adoption also closely track students’ reported skills using IT across the technology spectrum.
140
The second clear pattern was the close match of past use (previous to the study) of a specific
SSW tool and the acceptance of the very same technology for learning. While this logic seems
trivial, the analysis of the data also showed that the majority of students, including even avid
users of the technologies, often fail to recognize the potential of these technologies for
supporting their learning, or they resist to the idea of using them in the learning domain.
This is corroborated in the literature. Even those scholars who strongly believe that SSW
should have a greater role in higher education have some concerns about whether the way Net
Generation students currently use SSW can be reconciled with proposed models of use in the
instructional environment. For example Anderson (2007) hypothesizes that “entrenched” peer
communities within social networks will challenge established hierarchies within academia. This
seems to be supported by the data in the ECAR survey (Salaway et al., 2008 p. 28), which
showed that only a small number of students communicated with instructors via social
networking, contrasted with much higher peer-to peer usage. The “friending” process -a term
used by Ellison (2008), at the core of social networking tools for example can make both
students and teachers uncomfortable, since they appear to break down some of the institutional
hierarchies. There have also been a number of examples 38 where the peer to peer context of these
social networks was seized by the “official establishment” and used for disciplinary action or
other type of censure. These can certainly cause some hardening of attitudes by the “grassroots”
users of technology, the Net Gen students, who view social networking tools as their own.
38
These range from an Australian court decision (Australian court approves Facebook for serving lien notice.), to
community organizations policing behaviours of their member. Perhaps the most relevant example in the context of
this dissertation is the one at Ryerson University where content posted on Facebook prompted the university to
launch an academic misconduct investigation (Brown, 2008b)
141
Social Networking tools are the most frequently cited examples of this conflict between the
personal/private use of SSW technologies and the officially sanctioned one. However, other
types of social tools tend to converge on the same end of the spectrum of the technology
ownership domain. Regardless of whether these technologies can be defined as fully owned by
students, as Dalsgaard (2006) tends to see it, or ones where this ownership is dynamic and
negotiated between individuals and institutions (Dron, 2006b), the prevailing view today
(supported by the data in the thesis research) squarely puts the locus of use on the private sphere.
Consequently, if institutions aim to increase the role of SSW in the instructional environment
over time, introducing them carefully, and ensuring that students have positive experiences with
them, could be an effective strategy to effect positive students’ attitudes, which could be
leveraged further. Measuring the degree and influence of positive experiences in detail could be
RQ3. To what extent do these students utilize SSW for academic tasks in
the context of learning information literacy?
1. When students encounter SSW in an instructional environment, to some degree they tend
2. The rate of adoption is not high in the absence of mandating and/or measuring use
3. When students use SSW for academic purposes they tend to use it in the narrow
4. Familiarity and skills with technology (including SSW, and particularly social
networking tools) seem to play a major role in the extent to which students adopt it for
academic tasks
142
There was only a limited amount of direct institutional control available to force students in
the treatment group to use SSW. The methodology eschewed conventional techniques such as
awarding credits, or tying grades closely to the use of these tools. At the same time techniques to
ensure student motivation included more vaguely defined but equally compelling methods such
as constructing the course narrative in the SSW framework to encourage the use of these tools.
As well, such extrinsic rewards as the final course grades implied that students needed to align
their learning with the instructional structure. This design allowed for testing the notion that
learning is best understood as a self-governed and autonomous activity (Dalsgaard, 2006) and
SSW inherently supports this process. To the extent this was true, SSW use would have been
detected amongst the control group participants. This indeed proved to be the case.
The results are in line with the data reported by Trinder et al. (2008). That study reported
students’ willingness (cited at 45%) to consider SSW for “formal learning”. While the results of
the two studies are similar, the methodologies differed: Trinder et al. (2008) obtained data from
Looking at the data, what immediately stands out was the relatively lower overall SSW
adoption rate in the treatment group, compared with the control group. When looking at the
course-and task-specific aspects of the SSW however, the adoption rates were equally low in
both groups. There were both direct and indirect indicators built into the research design to
explain any variability of this aspect. Direct indicators were the variables pertaining to specific
barriers to the use of SSW. The indirect indicators were the factors indicating the in-depth use
Both types of indicators suggest a certain lack of understanding by the students of the
roles and potential of SSW in the learning ecology. Even when engaged with these tools in the
learning environment, the grasp of the capabilities in the technology seemed relatively
superficial.
This observation is corroborated by both Siemens (2007) and Trinder et al. (2008), based
on both anecdotal practitioner observations, and qualitative research respectively. One specific
example cited by Trinder et al. indicated that students may not fully understand the capabilities
Finally, the dissertation research provides some evidence that the above dynamic works
in the opposite direction also. Thus, if students have a deeper understanding of SSW and the use
of technologies, this will lead to a greater degree of engagement in the academic context. This is
illustrated with the use of social networking technologies (Facebook). Although the examination
of pre-existing attitudes suggested the greatest resistance to use this particular SSW tool for
learning, it ended up being the most pervasive in the course. The fact that students have a deeper
understanding of the capabilities of these tools and comfort with this technology is a likely
5. When the same basic functionalities exist in both types of technologies, students prefer to
use LMS over SSW, if the mandate of the LMS is more overarching
144
Students in both groups appeared to have valued the learning management system more than
SSW in many dimensions in the study. The LMS was used more frequently and widely, and
students rated it higher than any other technology used during the course.
The literature on social software offers some possible explanations as to why this might have
happened. Lohnes and Kinzer (2007) for instance highlight the Net Generation’s respect for
authority (the teacher in the academic environment) and their reliance on barrier free access to
this authority. Technology, generally speaking, can act as a barrier, as it takes away from the
technologies in this regard can be meaningful: students are likely to associate the hierarchically
oriented LMS more with the teacher-authority than the nebulous, self-governing tools such as
SSW. Consequently the injection of the latter into the learning environment could act as a greater
barrier to access to teachers. It is unclear whether the study participants could be broadly
classified as respecting authority under the Net Gen theory (Howe & Strauss, 2000; Howe &
Strauss, 2003) or that they were more likely at a personal developmental stage where the teacher-
authority plays an important role in their approaches to learning. This latter would be closest to
the “basic duality” stage in Perry’s cognitive development theory (Evans, Forney, & Guido-
DiBrito, 1998). In this stage students tend to defer to the teacher as the “knower” of knowledge,
and they are less likely to question the absoluteness of truths. This is the first stage in Perry’s
model, and considering the low average age (19 years) of participants, they could be in this early
aspect of learning such as the LMS (Dalsgaard, 2006), would be more fitting for this
145
developmental stage than ones that are unstructured, and based on self-organization for the
discovery of “truths”.
Regardless of whether we accept the Net Gen theory or Perry’s model, in the context of
this study, the overwhelming preference for the LMS indicates that students indeed needed to see
the control of learning technology handed to the teacher. This is contrary to Dron (2006a; 2006b;
2007) who sees the control of learning a much more nuanced and dynamic process. The
experience of this study was markedly different. In future studies, it would be important to
isolate the factors (possibly maturity, learning styles, etc.,) which could influence the dynamics
of control in a technology enhanced learning environment. If we knew more about these factors,
the appropriate technologies could be tailored to these student characteristics, and/or deployed
more selectively.
There are additional, developmental factors less general in nature, which could influence
students’ preferences for specific technologies for learning. A study by Lowerison & Schmid
(2007) for example suggests that students seem to benefit from “nonlinear” SSW technologies if
they have domain knowledge and or if they have higher level of familiarity with the
technologies. Those who do not have these skills, prefer more linear technologies “like LMS” 39.
This is something of a Catch-22: if those who already have greater domain knowledge, or higher
39
The limited data collected in the thesis study does not support the argument put forward by Lowerison and
Schmid. Using Pre-test ILT scores as indicator of domain knowledge (cut off point @ 64 percent – the average)
there were no differences in the rating of LMS, measured either by perception of it in the current course
environment or interest in future use. Similarly inconclusive were other grouping methods: self rated skills on the
four SSW technologies, using the cut-off point of 4 (rating scale of 5)
146
technology skills benefit more from the use of these technologies in the institutional learning
environment, increased reliance on SSW may adversely affect those students who have lesser
skills. Extending the logic of this theory, this latter group could benefit from it, if they reached a
threshold – but designing instructional strategies to reach this threshold would require a careful
approach.
6. Intrinsic factors such as students’ motivation to learn and /or to achieve on tests seem to
play a role in SSW adoption, even if SSW is not explicitly offered in the instructional
environment
7. Conversely, some students may have felt that prescribed the self-directed activities
(reviewing the material and collaborating on the questions) did not help them to prepare
8. The main barriers to adopting SSW in the study context were the lack of clear
mandate/enforcement, and the negative perception of these tools. Skills (lack of) while
seeming to figure positively in the adoption of SSW, were not among the main barriers.
Only a small proportion of the study population (22 students), indicated outright that they did
not use SSW during the study. These students saw few real barriers to using SSW. Clearly one
of the major issues was that these tools were not marketed properly to the students in the
treatment group. A small percentage of students were also simply not engaged with or inclined to
use these emerging technologies. This is representative as far as it is reported by other studies.
For example the ECAR survey (Salaway et al., 2008p. 96) cites “just not interested” as one of the
top 3 most typical comments on reasons for not getting involved with these technologies.
Interestingly however, students seemed confident in their technical abilities or at least were
147
reluctant to admit the opposite. Lack of skills or perception of these did not act as a deterrent.
This means that better marketing and better instructional design of these tools, could translate to
Beyond the direct measures employed by the questionnaire to determine the reasons for not
using SSW question, the data contained indicators which suggested that the SSW tools were not
always used extensively (if at all) for academic tasks. A future study would be needed to
RQ4. How does the use of SSW impact these students’ scores on the
information literacy test?
1. No difference was found between the treatment and the control group in either the pre-test
information literacy (ILT) scores or the post-test ILT scores. The different instructional
treatment in the two groups did not result in different academic performance as measured by
2. Instruction itself and/or students’ self-study played a positive role in academic achievement
3. While it could not be demonstrated that the differences in instructional treatment played a
role in achievement, SSW use itself was positively correlated with it, as per below
a. regardless of instructional treatment, students who used SSW performed better on the
b. there was no difference in post-ILT scores when the SSW users of the control and
4. Skills with SSW, student engagement, maturity, and academic outperformance appear to be
correlated
The overall conclusion is that SSW as a disruptive technology in the academic context is
negligible but its value as a niche tool for social engagement has been proven. The study could
not demonstrate differences in learning outcomes (as measured in test scores) between the group
of students subjected to institutionally sanctioned, instructional SSW strategies and the control
group. The experimental model, however, was loosely structured and a pattern of SSW use
emerged which was associated with higher test scores. From the study design, we can only say
that the different instructional technologies as implemented in the specific course context did not
make a difference in ILT score outcomes. This “black box” method of using disruptive
technology yields two somewhat contradictory types of conclusions. The first one is that simply
injecting supposedly popular technologies in the formal learning environment does not
automatically guarantee a return in either uptake in use, or in efficient use of these technologies
− in the absence of additional strategies such as tighter integration of these tools with the
pedagogical framework and the instructional model. The second conclusion is that emerging
pedagogical value and utility. “Stepping out of the way” (Leslie & Landon 2008) and letting
students independently employ these technologies could still yield learning benefits.
Secondary findings
149
This second consequence is, however, much weaker. What we can draw from the results
of this study is that SSW use and academic achievement is associated, but that there are a host of
other factors which can play important roles, and causality could not be determined from the data
collected. Clearly, the inter-relation of these factors with social software use and academic
Factor 1. Engagement
The study highlighted the prominence of factors that have been traditionally proven to be
associated with academic achievement, such as engagement factors, particularly “time on task”
(Astin, 1999). It is unclear, however, whether SSW use spurred students to devote more energy
to academic tasks, or whether highly engaged students were likely more willing to employ SSW
in their learning toolset. Other significant factors emerged in this study that fit with the
involvement theory also. According to Astin, time on task is a key determinant of a range of
the degree of their cognitive development, the study highlighted the positive correlation of these
There was one aspect of social software use however that contradicted an element of
Austin’s involvement theory, which holds that academic involvement is inversely related to
social engagement with the students’ peers. This is clearly not the case with social software, and
particularly social networking, which are foremost about peer engagement. This could merely be
a gap in Astin’s theory: when it was first developed, ITC use was marginal, at least for social
purposes. It is difficult to speculate why these dynamics of academic and social involvement
easier to reconcile these two types of activities. Since in this context both types of activities use
Internet based technologies, it would be easy for multi-tasking Net Generation students (a
supposedly generational trait) to switch back and forth between these two domains. It may be
also possible that the Net Generation is more “social” than the students were when the
involvement theory was developed. Certainly there are a number of authors (Oblinger, 2005a;
Woodall, 2004) who claim this “social aspect” as a generational trait. It may be that social
involvement on a virtual level is not the same as in the “real world” environment. Nevertheless,
since the value of collaboration, peer learning, is well recognized in higher education, social
software could be a game changer because it does not seem to detract from academic efforts,
while at the same time it augments peer collaboration. While anecdotally, generally the opposite
view is held, that is that SSW is more of a distraction in the academic environment (Brown,
2008a; Grabmeier, 2009), this finding in the study refutes those concerns.
Factor 2 Gender
Gender differences in the use of emerging technologies amongst the Net Generation have
been observed in previous studies (Lenhart et al., 2007). The mandate of the dissertation research
did not include detailed study of these differences. Generally there was no statistically significant
difference between the two genders in the overall use of SSW during the study phases, although
a greater proportion of males than females were engaged. However, there was an indication in
the data that male students seemed to benefit more from using SSW technologies as evident in
their test scores. This was not the case with females. One possible explanation is that females in
this study could have utilized additional and/or different strategies from those afforded by SSW,
for example when collaborating with peers (e.g. more face to face contact). This is an area that
151
would need further study. Also, because of the very small sample in the study, this would need to
The performance gap between female and male users of SSW grew at the end of the
study, suggesting that females generally would benefit less from using SSW than males,
although this difference was not statistically significant. There was no previous indication in
studies that SSW could prejudice gender academic achievement. This should be studied further.
Possible factors influencing this are the particular learning environment and choice of SSW
Gender differences in previous studies (Lenhart et al., 2007; Salaway et al., 2008)
highlighted aspects of technology that were not present in the current study. For example, males
are a more dominant demographic group in video creation and online gaming. They also seem to
be “early adopters” of emerging technologies to a larger extent than females (Salaway et al.,
2008). This latter aspect appears consistent with this study, insofar as the use of SSW indicated.
Overall, females performed lower in the ILT at the end of the study (while pre-test scores
were equivalent).
Factor 3. Age
The ECAR series of studies indicates that there is a variance in students’ age and their
relationship with technology, specifically that the younger students preferred less technology in
courses - although this seems to have leveled off for the last installment of this longitudinal
study (Salaway et al., 2008). The same survey suggests that other differences also exist: for
152
example, a higher rate of use and intensity with social networking software amongst the
In higher education, there is also an observable correlation between higher class standing and
increased level of information literacy skills. This was confirmed by Project SAILS, an
information literacy assessment tool used in eighty three North American universities (Kent State
The findings in the thesis research suggest that age (and perhaps more likely, class standing)
could play a role both in students’ involvement with SSW tools and information literacy skills
attainment. The nearly one year difference in students’ ages observed between the non-users and
users of SSW could be important, since higher year university students might have a distinct
advantage over first year students in terms of information literacy skills and computing skills,
since these students would have been exposed to tasks involving research, writing papers, in
The analysis of the data suggests a pre-existing gap in the information literacy skills between
students just entering university and those with potentially more university experience. This gap
stayed about the same overall, but widened slightly in the treatment group. Neither the
instructional treatment differences nor social software use itself had a leveling effect to close this
gap. In fact, in some cases the opposite seems true: younger students may have struggled more
with the demands of the learning environment in the treatment group. Due to the limitations of
the small sample size it is hard to discern any patterns that would explain this variance. It would
Unfortunately the research design did not include a reliable instrument to determine class
standing, and only age could be used as a proxy. Age variance between students who used SSW
during the course and those who did not was a statistically significant demographic factor in ILT
performance. However, age in itself does not offer much insight into how or if it may have
played a role in students’ adopting (or not) SSW for learning in the study context.
The role of skills with technology was explored to test the notion that higher level of
skills with SSW would explain higher level of use. While this is a fairly trivial proposition, it
was important to investigate it in the study context. The literature suggests that one of the main
potentials of SSW technologies is that it enhances students’ digital literacy skills (Salaway et al.,
2008). Consequently, if higher SSW skills can be observed within one group, then it is
reasonable to expect that these students have higher digital literacy skill, and would be likely at
an advantage in performing on the ILT test as well, since general computer and digital literacy is
The data revealed that indeed higher skill levels with SSW (specifically skills with Social
Networking technologies) are a reasonable indicator of future use (adoption) in the academic
environment. However, the analysis of the data also revealed that these skills in fact would be
1. The use of self reported skills is not reliable to measure actual skills. Salaway (2008 p.49)
for example states that self assessment is not a good proxy for actual skills (for example
males tend to overrate their skills). Nevertheless, this is a frequently used assessment
154
method, as there are no reliable methods to measure specific computer skills, particularly
2. Computer literacy, while a necessary ingredient for student success in the increasingly
digital world, does not substitute for the cognitive and moral/ethical developmental
Finally, this dissertation research only focused on basic, self-reported SSW technology
skills as a proxy indicator for students’ future academic success. Net Generation students’
self-confidence measures should be treated with some caution. For example, several studies
point out that students tend to have an overly inflated view of their own information literacy
skills (Gunter, 2007; Maughan, 2001; Nicholas et al., 2007). Moreover, this miscalibration
has a stronger effect on less proficient students, who are then less likely to recognize the
RQ5. How do the perceptions of the students who used SSW compare with
those students who did not use SSW?
• No difference was found between perceptions of learning between SSW users and non-
users, although SSW users appeared to be more satisfied with the level of technology
This research question was proposed for the study to gain insights on academic outcomes
from a different angle than the one used in research question 4 (i.e. strictly scores-based test
approach). Students’ perceptions of aspects of their learning such as collaborative learning, the
155
role of technologies, their overall assessment of learning, and confidence in their abilities to
apply what they learned in the future – would be all useful indicators of these outcomes.
The data did not demonstrate meaningful differences between SSW users and non-users,
except in one dimension, satisfaction with the level of technology used during the course.
However, out of the four dimensions examined, this is probably the weakest indicator of quality.
It may simply mean that SSW users were already committed to higher levels of technology use
and they were satisfied that this condition was met during the course.
This indicates a certain polarity within the student population and presents a dilemma for
institutions of higher learning. Students highly engaged with digital technologies (such as SSW)
appear to demand and/or are receptive to a high level of technology use in courses, while less
engaged students are less interested in ICT use in the classroom. In such environments,
institutions, particularly the technology oriented ones, cannot eschew using high level of ICT in
teaching and learning. However user demographics would need to be considered, and less
engaged students need to be supported with the particular technologies that are deployed. When
these include emerging new technologies such as SSW, additional factors should be taken into
• amongst SSW users, positive pre-existing attitudes toward the utility of SSW to support
learning correlated with these students’ favourable views of their learning (post-test)
The purpose of this RQ was to investigate whether students’ biases regarding their view of
SSW influenced learning outcomes (measured both quantitatively by the ILT, and using
students’ perceptions as an indicator). The analysis of the data showed that this was not the case
with respect to the final information literacy scores. It seems that the students’ performance on
the test was not related to pre-existing attitudes towards Social Software. As discussed earlier,
On the other hand, these attitudes were correlated with the students’ view of their learning.
Specifically, students who were generally accepting of the notion that SSW is suitable to fit
academic roles either informally or formally, had a correspondingly positive view of their
students’ overall assessment of learning, and confidence in their future abilities. These
correlations existed largely only among students who actually used SSW during the study.
Logically, this makes sense since the non-SSW users’ views about SSW would not be as
relevant. 40
40
Incidentally, the data also showed that largely there were no differences between the two groups regarding the
SSW learning attitudes themselves.
157
What this means for higher education is that assigning formal roles to SSW in the academic
context could have wider ranging implications. Ideally, the goal should be to create a learning
environment where the students’ view of technologies is (or changes to) a positive one, which
can reinforce other learning outcomes. This theory needs to be tested in future research. This
study did not measure any change in SSW attitudes post-test. Without this, it is difficult to
determine causality between these factors, even though the attitudes that were measured reflect
an earlier state.
2. SSW offers support for modern pedagogy: it conforms to a number of learning theories,
as well as with general Net Gen characteristics such as “demand for engagement”.
disruptive nature are: low cost, ease of use, and creating a market for needs previously
management, networking and socializing, and rich media. Another set of attributes of
these emerging needs were outlined in the theory of “wikinomics” (Tapscott & Williams,
4. Learning happens informally, even within organizations (Leslie and Landon, 2008). This
means a need to shift toward lifelong, borderless education, expanding the traditional
As an extension of the above logic, the researcher was interested to examine the validity of a
“black box” model – that is to investigate whether the injection these technologies already
popularly used among Net Generation students into the instructional environment results in
different outcomes. Leslie and Landon (2008) made a number of recommendations and
scenarios to underscore the feasibility of this model. The following ones were considered in this
study:
• Educators need to just “step out of the way”, and let SSW do its job
• Educators need to “convince users”, for example mandate SSW use if students do
not see enough incentive to use the ones offered by the institution (Leslie and
Landon suggests that personal motivation and the students’ sense of ownership of
the technologies is the key to success for the application SSW, and as such a
The research model needed to fit the somewhat conflicting requirements demanded by
these three recommendations. The last two of these could more easily fit within a prescribed
model, but would ignore the possibility that SSW use for academic purposes also occurs “in the
A true experimental research model calls for clear delineation of the treatment conditions
so the effects on treatment variables could be compared with the control group (Creswell, 2008).
159
When the researcher was setting up the research design for the study, initially there were some
concerns about “how much” treatment was going to be “enough”. However, ensuring that the
treatment was effective turned out to be an even greater challenge. So while the first set of
conditions according to Creswell (i.e., that the treatment conditions were entirely different from
those in the control group) were satisfied in the study design, the challenge was in executing the
treatment.
• By extensive and pervasive use of the technologies (utilized both during classes,
• By designing the learning environment so the specific technologies employed in the two
respective models are tightly integrated and fit the learning tasks
However, the ultimate control over the instructional design did not rest with the researcher.
This will be discussed later. Hence it proved to be difficult to create the above conditions. In the
absence of these, it was hoped that introducing students’ own technologies would hold intrinsic
rewards, and that this was going to be a motivating factor in getting the students to perform these
tasks. Assigning 30% of the course value to the final ILT served as the main extrinsic motivator.
Thus the treatment was less extensive than the researcher initially had hoped, but it
represented a compromise. The factors leading to this compromise are addressed below, under
methodological challenges. Nevertheless, the use of SSW technologies extended beyond simply
delivering course content. This included collaboration and collaborative creation of content,
160
together with personalization features which helped students to form their own meaning – central
1. Student motivation
In prior years, this was a “pass only”, elective course, and students exhibited low levels of
engagement, particularly in the case of the section offered by the library. The librarian-
instructors primarily concentrated on the delivery of content (the teacher centred learning model)
The use of strategies to ensure a high level of ongoing student participation was less in evidence.
There was however one major change: for the year of my study, the chief instructor modified the
requirements and made it a graded course. The expectation was that this would increase student
motivation and self regulation, and that students will employ more strategic approaches to
learning.
The information literacy instruction classes were allocated one block of time in the course
schedule. This had implications for the research design. There were some concerns that the span
of five classes, over approximately three weeks, was going to be too short to meaningfully
measure any sort of learning outcomes. Because of this concern, and because the technology
tools were able to support asynchronous (i.e. outside of the classroom) learning, the initial plan
was to hold the information literacy instruction at the very beginning of the course and to
administer the final test at the end of the semester. This would have afforded the maximum
161
amount of formal and informal learning time in the course. Thus the study design included two
phases by adding a self study period (phase two) to the formal instructional phase. This had an
advantage in that it simulated a realistic real life model of SSW use. Because of a number of
scheduling conflicts, the study had to be compacted to a period of about seven weeks, which still
allowed for about three weeks of preparation time for the ILT, after the series of lectures ended.
Some questions could be raised about whether the results can be assumed to be reflective of
the formal learning that took place in the model, or merely indicative of informal learning. This
Although the technology tools were ubiquitous in both phase one (the formal, classroom
instruction part) and phase two (the informal, student self-study period, after classes), some
questions might be raised about whether they were appropriately used in the first phase, given
that their use was essentially optional, while classroom teacher interaction was a constant. On the
other hand, a number of authors (Leslie & Landon, 2008; Margaryan et al., 2008) identified the
informal learning as an important modality even within the formal academic environment.
Oblinger (2005b) defines informal learning as a self-directed and internally motivated activity,
(ICT), that support both synchronous and asynchronous interaction, are thought to be well
The researcher used the definition proposed by Trinder et al. (2008) which holds that any
sense, both phases of the course can be considered in the context of formal learning.
External constraints
4. Librarians’ “limitations”
The librarian-instructors were facing two somewhat related challenges. The particular
software versions selected for the treatment group (SSW users) required a relatively steep
learning curve, particularly when considering the condensed timeframe of the actual class
delivery period. This in itself acted as a barrier in getting full buy-in on the use the technologies.
The other barrier was that the instructors had limited experience in complex instructional design
Finally, as will be discussed under ethical issues, from an equity standpoint it was difficult to
predict the impacts of the two different sets of technologies on the two respective class sections,
that is whether either group might be disadvantaged by getting different toolsets. There was not
enough time to answer these lingering questions and the final instructional design used the
lowest common denominator approach. Rather than moulding the course material to the specific
technologies, the librarians decided that they would use the technologies to the extent that these
The researcher’s affiliation with the University in a role responsible for information
The library’s strategic plan is aligned with the broader strategic plan of the University.
Making technology a true differentiator is one of the strategic goals. To support this objective,
the role of the library IT department is to identify, acquire and maintain innovative technologies
to support the research, teaching, and learning needs of the University, on and off-campus. The
library is also part of a shared culture of Ontario based university libraries, often working
collaboratively toward the furthering of technology innovation in libraries. Web 2.0 technologies
had been considered in this context. University libraries, not unlike their parent institutions, have
been facing the same challenges with respect ICT, which include high costs, little control over
the changes in technology (this is driven by the technology industry), and the struggle to fit and
mold these library technologies to meet user expectations. These expectations in turn have been
shaped in no small part by the simplicity of emerging, web-based consumer technologies. Thus
researching SSW’s impacts on campus suited both the personal interest of the researcher and
held the promise of gaining valuable insights for the benefit of the University and the broader
community.
The researcher’s potential biases, for example his close affiliation with the library were
assessed by the Ethical Review Boards of both the University of Toronto and the University,
where the research was conducted. Both Boards were satisfied that the researcher acted at arm’s
length in the instructional processes in the study, i.e. no reporting relationship existed between
the researcher and the instructors. The researcher had no control over the course design,
instructional methods, etc. (As it will be discussed later, this in some respects proved to be an
impediment to the execution of the experiment.) As well, no conflict of interest was present with
Equity was a major ethical consideration from the instructional design standpoint. The
librarians did not want to utilize functionalities of SSW that they saw lacking in the LMS. For
example they were averse to integrating Facebook for the in-class treatment because of the
perception that the control group would be disadvantaged. Similarly, the librarians rejected the
idea of creating a class space on the social bookmarking service, since there were no
equivalencies provided by WebCT. This type of approach watered down some of SSW features
Other ethical issues included constraints on the researcher’s ability to ask study participants
to refrain from switching course sections during the study. This constraint was placed by the
Ethical Review Board at the University, out of concerns that such restrictions would infringe on
students’ freedom. While the questionnaire included an item that was later used to filter and
exclude cases where participants may have received mixed treatment, one cannot rule out the
possibility that students from the two sections did talk to one another about the techniques and
methods in their respective sections, even if they did not actually participate in the opposite class
sections. As Creswell (2008p. 309) points out, “the diffusion of treatments [...] for the control
group and the experimental groups need to be different.” Otherwise this would present a threat to
the internal validity of the study design. It was not possible for the researcher to keep the two
Finally, it should be noted that the LMS use was mandated in the larger course framework.
As soon as the library instruction ended, the treatment group students needed to revert to using it
165
immediately, in order to continue with the remainder of the course. This meant that the treatment
group was exposed to the LMS during phase two of the study. Although the LMS was not used
for the information literacy instruction in case of the treatment group, it still proved to be a
Among the likely explanations for the primacy of LMS are the following factors
c. students used it in other courses, and students were conditioned to the procedures and
routines of the LMS (always the same authentication, familiarity with interface and
functions, etc.)
1. To understand the divergence on the uptake of various social software tools amongst Net
Generation students. Both the literature and this research agree that the penetration of
technology can be defined as fairly homogenous, students clearly show preference toward
certain sub-types of SSW (such as social networking). The utility of different SSW tools
beyond SNS seems appealing for education, but this is not yet evidenced convincingly in
students’ behaviour. Understanding the factors behind this divergence would enable
166
2. To evaluate whether properly supported and mandated use of various SSW in the formal
Recommendation:
learning, they should consider mandating social software selectively. This should
include instructional support for faculty to properly design courses to mesh with
technologies by students.
3. To validate and further expand our understanding of the correlations between students’
experience with SSW and their willingness to adopt these technologies for learning. We
also need to understand the degree to which positive experiences with SSW can be
Recommendation:
mutual learning process by both the educational institution and the students. This
is still an emerging area of technology and a clear gap exists between the
stakeholders’ views regarding the mandate of these tools in the learning context.
This gap should be closed by instituting more extensive evaluation of the learning
167
experience with these technologies than in the case with traditional, mature
technologies. Faculty and students have to have a more active dialogue and
recognize the importance of proper assessment of SSW and support these efforts.
4. To understand the factors influencing the dynamics of control pertaining SSW use in the
instructional context. This study highlighted potential factors such as students’ maturity,
technology skills, or factors inherent in the specific technologies. Other factors such as
learning styles should be explored. The question of controlling technology has important
utilitarian lens as it affords greater efficiencies and control. However, this view is being
outcomes when they have greater control of their own learning process. Social software
promises the affordance of such control, although there are some disparities between
previous research and this research study on the factors influencing students taking
Recommendation:
Institutions using SSW in instruction should pay special attention to students with
lesser technology skills. While generally this is true for any technology enhanced
teaching and learning environment, in the case of SSW both the negative and
5. To understand the extent to which intrinsic factors, such as motivation, play in the
adoption of SSW in formal learning environments. This study found some clues that
members in the non-SSW sanctioned control group sought out the use of the sanctioned
SSW tools. While the study clearly proved that the lack of mandating of these
technologies was the major impediment to their successful integration in teaching and
learning, there were other intrinsic factors (possibly students’ motivational factors) which
Recommendation:
6. To further explore the gender differences in the extent of engagement with SSW, and
how males and females might employ alternative strategies for collaboration in a
Recommendation:
technology in the learning environment. Males can potentially benefit more from
SSW. However, not enough is known about the factors contributing to this gap.
169
7. To explore how students’ age and previous university experience influence their use of
emerging technologies in the academic context. The dissertation research suggests that
Recommendation:
younger students. Faculty should make sure that these technologies are introduced
judiciously and selectively so they do not overwhelm students. Faculty may need
8. To further explore the interrelationship of students’ digital skills, particularly with the
various types of SSW technologies, and the academic experience with these technologies,
including the usage patterns and outcomes. This research should attempt to measure
Recommendation:
technologies such as social software in the learning ecology, should take extreme
care that
170
• Both instructors and students are supported in using the technology and that
no assumptions are made about the “ease of use” of these technologies, or the
proficiencies of users.
• These tools are aligned with the pedagogies and instructional strategies, so
• The introduction of these tools is selective and takes into consideration the
9. To explore whether changes in students’ attitudes toward technology use in the classroom
indeed correlate with better learning outcomes. The current research only measured pre-
existing attitudes.
171
References
Alexa. (2008). Alexa top 500 sites. Retrieved 3/30/2008, 2008, from
http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_sites?ts_mode=global&lang=none
Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: a new wave of innovation for teaching and learning?
Allen, C. (2004). Life with alacrity: Tracing the evolution of social software. Retrieved 3/8/2008,
http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/whitepapers/presidential.cfm
Anderson, P. (2007). What is web 2.0? ideas, technologies and implications for education. No.
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/services/services_techwatch/techwatch/techwatch_ic_repor
ts2005_published.aspx
Anderson, T. (2005). Distance learning – social software’s killer ap? Paper presented at the 17th
Biennial Conference of the Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia, Adelaide.
http://www.unisa.edu.au/odlaaconference/PPDF2s/13%20odlaa%20-%20Anderson.pdf
172
Association of College and Research Libraries. ACRL information literacy website. Retrieved
http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues/acrlinfolit/informationliteracy.cfm
http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/informationliteracycompetency.cfm
Australian court approves Facebook for serving lien notice. Retrieved 2/16/2009, 2009, from
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/12/16/australia-facebook.html
Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance Education Trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student
Bennett, J., & Bennett, L. (2002). A review of factors that influence the diffusion of innovation
when structuring a faculty training program. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 53-
http://resolver.scholarsportal.info.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/resolve/10967516/v06i0001/
53_aroftiwsaftp
173
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2007). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x
Benson, D., & Gresham, K. (2007). Social contagion theory and information literacy
Blummer, B. (2007). Opportunities for librarians: Experiments with social software. Journal of
Bordeaux, A., & Boyd, M. (2007). Blogs, Wikis and Podcasts: Social software in the library.
Boulos, M. N. K., & Wheelert, S. (2007). The emerging Web 2.0 social software: An enabling
suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education. Health Information and
Boyd, S. (2006). Are you ready for social software? Retrieved 1/26/2008, from
http://www.stoweboyd.com/message/2006/10/are_you_ready_f.html
Brown, L. (2008a, Dec 8). Putting Facebook before exams: Social networking sites, live-
blogging, email have Web-addicted students struggling to hit books. Toronto Star, pp. 2.
Brown, L. (2008b, March 6, 2008). Student faces Facebook consequences. Toronto Star,
Bryant, L. (2007). Emerging trends in social software for education. Emerging technologies for
http://partners.becta.org.uk/index.php?section=rh&&catcode=&rid=13904;
http://partners.becta.org.uk/page_documents/research/emerging_technologies07_chapter1.p
df
Cameron, L., Wise, S. L., & Lottridge, S. M. (2007). The Development and Validation of the
Information Literacy Test. College & Research Libraries, 68(3), 229-236. Retrieved
1/29/2008, from
http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlpubs/crljournal/backissues2007a/crlmay07/cameron07.pdf
Caruso, J. B., & Kvavik, R. B. (2005). ECAR Study of Students and Information Technology,
Chen, H. L., Cannon, D., Gabrio, J., Leifer, L., Toye, G., & Bailey, T. (2005). Using wikis and
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms
http://www.plasticbag.org/archives/2005/01/an_addendum_to_a_definition_of_social_softw
are/
Conole, G., De Laat, M., Dillon, T., & Darby, J. (2006). JISC LXP: Student experiences of
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/LEX%20Final%20Report_August06.pdf
Conole, G., de Laat, M., Dillon, T., & Darby, J. (2008). ‘Disruptive technologies’, ‘pedagogical
innovation’: What’s new? Findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perception
Coomes, M. D., & DeBard, R. (2004). A generational approach to understanding students. New
Creanor, L., Trinder, K., Gowan, D., & Howells, C. (2006). LEX: The learner experience of e-
learning – final project report Glasgow Caledonian University; The Open Learning
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/LEX%20Final%20Report_August06.pdf
European Journal of Open and Distance Learning, (2006/II), Retrieved 1/26/2008, from
http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2006/Christian_Dalsgaard.htm.
Dron, J. (2006b). Social software and the emergence of control. Proceedings - Sixth
Dron, J. (2007). Designing the undesignable: Social software and control. Educational
Dunn, K. (2002). Assessing information literacy skills in the California state university: a
Ebner, M., Holzinger, A., & Maurer, H. (2007). Web 2.0 technology: Future interfaces for
technology enhanced learning? Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4556 LNCS, pp.559-
568
Educating the Net Generation In Oblinger D., Oblinger J. (Eds.), Educause. Retrieved
(Eds.), The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2008
177
(Volume 8 ed., ). Boulder, CO.: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved
10/22/2008, from
http://connect.educause.edu/Library/ECAR/TheECARStudyofUndergradua/47485
teaching and assessment. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), From higher education: handbook of theory
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (Eds.). (1998). Student development in college:
Theory, research and practice (1st edition ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fiedler, S., Reinmann, G., Mittendorfer, H., Sharma, P., Paquet, S., Efimova, L., et al. (2004).
Introducing disruptive technologies for learning: Personal webpublishing and weblogs, part
Fiegen, A. M., & Cherry, B. (2002). Reflections on collaboration: learning outcomes and
30(4), 307-318.
Fisher, M., & Baird, D. E. (2005). Online learning design that fosters student support, self-
Franklin, T., & Harmelen, M., van. (2007). Web 2.0 for learning and teaching in Higher
Garcia, P., and J. Qin. (2007). Identifying the generation gap in Higher Education: where do the
distance. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 20(2), 69.
Gotta, M. (2006). Trends in social software No. Version 1). Midvale, UT: Burton Group.
Grabmeier, J. (2009). Study finds link between Facebook use, lower grades in college. Retrieved
Gross, M., & Latham, D. (2007). Attaining information literacy: An investigation of the
relationship between skill level, self-estimates of skill, and library anxiety. Library &
TRENDS, work package V. London: University College London. Retrieved 3/19/2008, from
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/resourcediscovery/googlegen.aspx;
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/reppres/ggworkpackagev.pdf
179
Hall, H., & Davison, B. (2007). Social software as support in hybrid learning environments: The
value of the blog as a tool for reflective learning and peer support. Library and Information
Millennials rising: The next greatest generation. New York: Vintage Books.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2003). Millennials go to college. Washington, DC: American
http://www.jmu.edu/assessment/wm_library/ILT.pdf
Jones, E. A., & RiCharde, S. (2005). NPEC sourcebook on assessment: Definitions and
reasoning, and quantitative skills. National Center for Education Statistics. Jessup, MD
Kapp, K. M., & McKeague, C. (2002). Blended learning for compliance training success
http://www.astd.org/NR/rdonlyres/456DB5F7-D0FE-49B8-AE38-
78167D308C7B/0/blendedlearning.pdf
Keen, A. (2007). The cult of the amateur: how today's internet is killing our culture. Toronto:
Doubleday/Currency.
180
Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Gray, K., Judd, T., Waycott, J., Bennett, S., et al. (2007). The net
generation are not big users of web 2.0 technologies: Preliminary findings. Paper presented
from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/kennedy.pdf
Kennedy, G., Krause, K., Gray, K., Judd, T., Bennett, S., Maton, K., et al. (2006). Questioning
Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Ascilite Conference: Who’s Learning? Whose Technology?
Sydney. , 23 413-417.
Kennedy, G., Krause, K., Judd, T., Churchward, A., & Gray, K. (2006). First year students’
experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Melbourne: The University of
http://www.bmu.unimelb.edu.au/research/munatives/natives_report2006.pdf
Kent State University. (2008a). Profile of the SAILS benchmark June 2007. Retrieved 3/7/2009,
Kent State University. (2008b). University of Guelph project SAILS 2008 report Retrieved
3/7/2009, from
http://www.lib.uoguelph.ca/services/information_literacy_&_instruction/information_literac
y_testing/
181
Klamma, R., Chatti, M. A., Duval, E., Fiedler, S., Hummel, H., Hvannberg, E. T., et al. (2006).
Social software for professional learning: Examples and research issues. Proceedings - Sixth
Klamma, R., Chatti, M. A., Duval, E., Hummel, H., Hvannberg, E. T., Kravcik, M., et al. (2007).
Social software for life-long learning. Educational Technology & Society, 10(3), 72-83.
Klamma, R., Spaniol, M., Cao, Y., & Jarke, M. (2006). Pattern-based cross media social
Berlin.
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction
Kuh, G. D. (2003). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual Framework and
Lafferty, S., & Edwards, J. (2004). Disruptive technologies: what future universities and their
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Macgill, A. R. & Smith, A. (2007). Pew internet: Teens and social
Leslie, S., & Landon, B. (2008). Social software for learning: What is it, why use it? London,
http://www.obhe.ac.uk/products/reports/
Lohnes, S., & Kinzer, C. (2007). Questioning assumptions about students' expectations for
web-based tools for learning. Paper presented at the Proceedings of World Conference on E-
Margaryan, A., Nicol, D., Littlejohn, A., & Trinder, K. (2008). Students’ use of technologies to
support formal and informal learning. Paper presented at the Proceedings of World
the literature and the University of California-Berkeley assessment experience. College &
McGee, P., & Diaz, V. (2007). Wikis and podcasts and blogs! Oh, my! What is a faculty member
http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/WikisandPodcastsandBlogsO/44
993
Minocha, S., & Thomas, P. G. (2007). Collaborative learning in a wiki environment: experiences
from a software engineering course. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 13(2),
187.
Nicholas, D., Rowlands, I., & Huntington, P. (2007). Information behaviour of the researcher of
the future - executive summary. London: University College London. Retrieved 3/19/2008,
from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/resourcediscovery/googlegen.aspx;
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/reppres/gg_final_keynote_11012008.p
df
Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, Gen-Xers, and Millennials: Understanding the" New Students.”
Oblinger, D. G. (2005a). Is it age or IT: First steps toward understanding the Net Generation. In
D. G. Oblinger, & J. L. Oblinger (Eds.), Educating the Net Generation (pp. 2.1-2.20)
O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
Percival, J., & Muirhead, B. (2009). Prioritizing the implementation of e-learning tools to
http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/47/836
Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Retrieved
immigrants - part1.pdf
Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants: do they really think differently? On the
part2.pdf
Rogers, C. P., Liddle, S. W., Chan, P., & Isom, B. (2007). A Web 2.0 learning platform:
1/26/2008.
Salaway, G., Caruso, J. B., & Nelson, M. R. (2007). The ECAR study of undergraduate students
and information technology, 2007. Boulder, Co.: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved 3/8/2008, from
http://connect.educause.edu/library/ers0706
185
Salaway, G., Caruso, J. B., & Nelson, M. R. (2008). The ECAR study of undergraduate students
and information technology, 2008 (8). Boulder, CO.: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied
http://connect.educause.edu/Library/ECAR/TheECARStudyofUndergradua/47485
Salaway, G., Katz, R. N., Caruso, J. B., Kvavik, R. B., & Nelson, M. R. (2006). The ECAR Study
http://connect.educause.edu/Library/ECAR/TheECARStudyofUndergradua/41172
Salmon, G. (2005). Flying not flapping: a strategic framework for e-learning and pedagogical
http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/09687760500376439
Sandars, J., Homer, M., Pell, G., & Croker, T. (2008). Web 2.0 and social software: the medical
Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed., pp. 1370-1373). New York: Macmillan Reference.
http://ikit.org/fulltext/2003_knowledge_building.pdf
186
Schilling, K., & Applegate, R. (2007). Evaluating library instruction: Measures for assessing
educational quality and impact. ACRL 13th National Conference Proceedings, Baltimore,
MD. 206-214.
Secker, J. (2007). Social software, libraries & distance learners: draft literature review
http://elearning.lse.ac.uk/blogs/socialsoftware/2007/07/draft-literature-review-available
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one.
Shirky, C. (2003). Social software and the politics of groups. Retrieved 3/30/2008, 2008, from
http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_politics.html
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved 10/11, 2006,
from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
http://connectivism.ca/blog/2007/10/digital_natives_and_immigrants.html
Staley, D. J. (2009). Managing the platform: Higher Education and the logic of Wikinomics.
Synovate. (2007). Leisure time: Clean living youth shun new technology. Retrieved 3/22/2008,
living-youth-shun-new-technology.html
187
Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw
Hill.
Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2006). In Williams A. D. (Ed.), Wikinomics: How mass
Trinder, K., Guiller, J., Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Nicol, D. (2008). Learning from digital
natives: Bridging formal and informal learning. UK: The Higher Education Academy.
new1.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/LDN%20Final%20Report.pdf
Ury, C. J., Park, S., Baudino, F., & Ury, G. (2007). Taking flight--pilot testing the information
literacy test. ACRL 13th National Conference Proceedings, Baltimore, MD. 256-263.
Weibel, S. L. (2007). Social bibliography: A personal perspective on libraries and the Semantic
White, D. (2007). Results and analysis of the web 2.0 services survey undertaken by the SPIRE
http://spire.conted.ox.ac.uk/;
http://spire.conted.ox.ac.uk/trac_images/spire/SPIRESurvey.pdf
Windham, C. (2007). Reflecting, writing, and responding: Reasons students blog. Retrieved
http://connect.educause.edu/Library/ELI/ReflectingWritingandRespo/39344
188
Dear …student.
You are invited to participate in a research project conducted by me, Gabor Feuer, as part of my
doctoral thesis through the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.
Please review the following information and I will personally come to your first class to explain
and answer any questions you may have.
I am conducting research on students’ use of emerging technologies, such as social software (e.g.
blogs, wikis, social networking sites). I am particularly interested in aspects of these tools that
promote learning. I hope that the data collected will help me achieve a better understanding
about students’ use of social software technologies and the factors that impact on their use for
academic purposes. It is hoped that this investigation will yield implications for the appropriate
implementation and use of technologies in our higher education system.
All students in the “… Course” are invited to participate in this study. Participants will be asked
to complete two online surveys: one at the beginning and at the end of the course. These surveys
will require about twenty minutes each of your time. Both surveys will ask about your
experience with and use of technologies. In addition, I would ask you to grant me access to your
information literacy test scores, and to examine the content (if any) produced by you using the
technology tools during the course. From this information, I will compare your responses to the
other students in this study.
Should you have any questions prior to the first class, feel free to contact me. My contact
information is [deleted].
Gabor Feuer
190
Blogs-suitable for my PERSONAL use to help with studying and learning low 23 2.52 1.344
Wikis-suitable for my PERSONAL use to help with studying and learning low 23 3.57 1.161
Facebook suitable for my PERSONAL use to help with studying and learning low 24 2.83 1.341
Delicious or other bookmarking/tagging tool suitable for my PERSONAL use low 17 2.82 1.468
to help with studying and learning
medium 20 2.65 1.387
Blogs-PRIMARILY for my PERSONAL use and for fun low 23 3.35 1.402
Wikis-PRIMARILY for my PERSONAL use and for fun low 24 2.79 1.382
Facebook -PRIMARILY for my PERSONAL use and for fun low 24 4.62 .875
Delicious -PRIMARILY for my PERSONAL use and for fun low 20 3.15 1.725