Creative Education
2013. Vol.4, No.7A2, 53-93
Published Online July 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.47A2010
The Perception of Web 2.0 Technologies on Teaching and
Learning in Higher Education: A Case Study
Stacia Ann Zelick
School of Business and Technology, Capella University, Minneapolis, USA
Received June 7th, 2013; revised July 7th, 2013; accepted July 14th, 2013
Copyright © 2013 Stacia Ann Zelick. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons At-
tribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.
The purpose of this study was to examine faculty members’ perception of Web 2.0 technologies on
teaching and learning in higher education compared to traditional classroom teaching methods in pro-
grams at a higher education institutions to establish if relationships prevailed in their delivery of courses
through the use of Web 2.0 technologies compared with traditional classroom delivery of courses; their
overall satisfaction; the level of faculty development programs available; and their perceived effective-
ness and impact of faculty development and issues and barriers affecting technology integration. This
study also examined the influence of gender, age, and employment status on faculty members’ percep-
tions of Web 2.0 technologies on teaching and learning in higher education compared to traditional class-
room teaching methods. This study used a nonexperimental, quantitative descriptive research design to
investigate faculty members’ perception of Web 2.0 technologies on teaching and learning in higher edu-
cation compared to traditional classroom teaching methods. Participants for this study included full-time
and part-time faculty members teaching at a public university in the United States. The results indicated
that there is a relationship between faculty members’ perception of teaching college courses utilizing Web
2.0 technologies versus traditional classroom method; there is a relationship between faculty members’
gender and perception regarding their use of Web 2.0 technologies in their courses; and there was a rela-
tionship between faculty members’ age and perception regarding their use of Web 2.0 technologies in
their courses.
Keywords: Web 2.0 Technologies; Higher Education; Blogs; Facebook; Podcast; Second Life; Skype;
Twitter; Wiki; YouTube
Introduction
There are a number of institutions that influence information
technology innovation, including government authorities, inter-
national agencies, professional and trade and industry associa-
tions, research-oriented higher education institutions, trend-
setting corporations, multinational corporations, financial insti-
tutions, labor organizations, and religious institutions (King et
al., 1994). Institutions of higher education, being one of the
institutions that have influenced information technology inno-
vation, have gone through a dramatic change over the past sev-
eral years (Sibbet, 1997).
In today’s economy, organizations must constantly produce
at the highest human and technological levels in order to remain
competitive (Fillion, Limayem, Laferrière, & Mantha, 2006).
Schools, colleges, and universities are increasingly turning their
traditional classrooms into digitized technology rooms (Weyant
& Gardner, 2010) and it is becoming a “a transition from aca-
demic broadcasting to collaborative facilitation, from linear to
student-directed teaching delivery” (Barnatt, 2008: p. 47). From
blogs to virtual worlds, and wikis to interactive technology,
students are now learning through a number of new channels,
and it is up to the faculty members to infuse this technology
into their curriculums (Chuang, 2004). With technology dou-
bling every 18 months (Sibbet, 1997), just keeping up with it
can be a daunting task in itself, let alone trying to figure out
how best to leverage information technology into an organiza-
tion. Robey and Boudreau (1999) state that “each new genera-
tion of technology and each major technological advance has
been accompanied by energetic claims that organizations as we
know them will be radically and fundamentally altered” (p.
167).
In order for faculty members to remain competitive and sus-
tainable in this digital age, professional development on the use
of technology and how to infuse technology into course curric-
ula is a requirement (Alsaady, 2007). In higher education, as
the significance on technology increases, so does the require-
ment for technologically educated faculty members (Chuang,
2004). Chuang posits that “the major concerns in educational
technology have moved away from hardware- and software-
related issues; instructional strategies, professional develop-
ment, and continuity of administrative support have emerged as
the new issues” (2004: p. 1). Hemmi, Bayne, and Land (2009)
argue that “the technology infrastructure of ‘Web 2.0’ and its
associated applications provide the higher education commu-
nity with authoring and community-building capabilities, the
pedagogical implications of which are still largely unexplored”
(p. 19). Identifying the aspects of effectiveness and potential

S. A. ZELICK
54
impacts of faculty development will recognize areas of success
and failure and will contribute to improving the content of fac-
ulty development (Al-Washahi, 2007). The results are expected
to empower the faculty members to actively infuse technology
into their curriculum and classroom, thus providing a state of
the art experience for the student community at institutions of
higher education.
Institutions of higher education are now playing to catch up
because the students already have more knowledge about con-
tent sharing and Web 2.0 technologies than their professors do
(Barnatt, 2008). The traditional college students, aged 18 - 25
years old, grew up in the digital world of computers are used to
this technology (Weyant & Gardner, 2010). In order to get the
faculty members up to speed on these technologies so they are
not only knowledgeable of the technology, but able to infuse
the technology into their curriculums, and faculty development
programs are critical. Rich (2008) proposes the following five
competencies that faculty members (as well as students) must
acquire in order to take full advantage of the various Web 2.0
technologies. These competencies include accurate searching
skills through a variety of search tools, judging authoritative-
ness to be able to acknowledge bias and appropriate use of
citing materials, use of a range of channels to harmonize infor-
mation, structural understanding of how Web 2.0 content is
formed, and positive engagement (Rich, 2008).
Background of the Study
For the past thirty years, information technologies have revo-
lutionized the way faculty members teach and students learn
(Weyant & Gardner, 2010). In today’s economy institutions of
higher education must constantly produce at the human and
technological levels in order to remain competitive (Fillion et
al., 2006). With mainframe computers introduced in 1967, hand-
held digital calculators in 1970, personal computers in 1977,
the Internet and Microsoft in 1995, and the extranet in 1998
(Sibbet, 1997) technology has been on the rise for over 42 years
and there does not appear to be a hiccup or stop in sight. “In
some schools, the Internet and other technologies are being
integrated at the institutional level” (Gottwald, 2005: p. 2).
What used to be one-way communication and learning has
quickly become an interactive platform for communication and
learning. “Since the earliest use of the World Wide Web for
teaching and learning, one of the most powerful elements has
been the ability to engage learners in an interactive format”
(Hazari, North, & Moreland, 2009: p. 187). The United States
Department of Education established a project in 1998 to ad-
vocate the effective infusion of technology into teacher educa-
tion (Thompson, 2005). This project was established 21 years
after the personal computer was introduced, and a mere three
years after the Internet was introduced (Sibbet, 1997).
This is not surprising as the Internet has become the world’s
most widespread unrestricted communication system (Laudon
& Laudon, 2009: p. 200). “Increased attention to student en-
gagement and active learning strategies have become particu-
larly relevant in today’s classroom environments” (Williams &
Chinn, 2009: p. 165). In 2000, the use of technology in instruc-
tion was ranked as the second most significant issue confront-
ing public education; by 2020 is it expected to be the most sig-
nificant issue to confront public education (Hikmet, Taylor, &
Davis, 2008). This development is an innovation in higher
education. How faculty members are integrating Web 2.0 tech-
nologies into their curriculums and what specific Web 2.0
technologies are actually being integrated can lay the founda-
tion to what tomorrow will bring for education, the faculty and
the students. Thompson (2005) states that “teacher education
must be a strong force to promote appropriate use of technology
to support educational renewal and to prepare a skilled work
force for our Information Society” (p. 331).
With technology continuing to expand at a rapid rate and be-
ing ever changing (Rockart, Earl, & Ross, 1996), trying to con-
stantly be on the cutting edge of technology in higher education
is an interesting paradigm. “In some schools, the Internet and
other technologies are being integrated at the institutional level;
with a student’s complete academic experience—from applica-
tion through registration and tuition payment, to final examina-
tion and course grade-occurring on-line” (Gottwald, 2005: p. 2).
The rapidly growing technology infrastructure at institutions of
higher education to meet the instructional and research needs of
faculty, staff, and students (Alsaady, 2007) is making faculty
development with the use of technology a requirement. Be-
tween 2002 and 2006, online learning increased by 21.5%
while the entire higher education student body only increased
by 1.5% (Yates, 2010).
Li and Pitts (2009) indicate that “one key area where Web-
based technologies are predicted to have a significant impact is
in their ability to transform the way in which professors and
students are able to communicate and interact with one an-
other” (p. 175). With the significant increase in online learning
over the past years (Lee, 2010), this prediction is already a
reality at institutions of higher education. Rich (2008) states
that “members of the millennial generation are acquiring the
sort of adult information navigation skills in an environment
where folksonomies are widely used, and this potentially raises
challenges for educators in universities as to how to promote
information literacy” (p. 73). The reality is that the millennial
generation, those born between 1982 and 2000, grew up with
this technology so the faculty members are at a clear disadvan-
tage (Barnatt, 2088). The role of the professor has gone from
that of a broadcaster to a collaborative facilitator, and the learn-
ing delivery has gone from linear to student directed (Barnatt,
2008). The needs of the student population in institutions of
higher education are rapidly evolving into the most technologi-
cal advanced generation and if institutions and faculty members
want to remain competitive must infuse technology with cur-
riculums and continuously improve the technological offerings.
There are many factors that present challenges in evaluating
the effectiveness of web technologies, including emotions (Gil-
more & Warren, 2007), teachers’ attitudes toward information
technology (Grainger & Tolhurst, 2005), plagiarism (Harris &
Rea, 2009), students’ perception of information technology
(Hikmet et al., 2008), motivation and group interaction (Hazari
et al., 2009), students’ different styles and expectations (Wil-
liams & Chinn, 2009), students’ physical distance, their lack of
direct responses, and the lack of restrictions over assessments
(Halawi, Pires, & McCarthy, 2009). “There is a need to take
stock of information and communications technologies invest-
ments in schools to assess whether they have been effective,
rather than the results of well-intentioned administrators’ jump-
ing onto the information and communication technologies band-
wagon” (Hikmet et al., 2008: p. 128). There are also many fac-
tors that present challenges in faculty sustainability, including
faculty development programs (Alsaady, 2007; Baasandorj, 2010;
Yates, 2010); issues and barriers (Chuang, 2004); perceptions

S. A. ZELICK
of onsite versus online teaching (Fillion et al., 2006); percep-
tions (Sahin & Thompson, 2006); and constructs that affect
online teaching (Velez, 2010).
Statement of the Problem
The problem with advanced technological utilization by fac-
ulty in higher education is that higher education institutions are
installing state of the art technology into classrooms and faculty
members are expected to infuse this technology into their
teaching, but only about 20% of faculty members feel that they
are prepared to comply (Chuang, 2004). Internet usage among
18 - 29 years old college students is at a staggering 93% and
“44% of the nearly 53 million Internet users produce and share
digital content online” (Weyant & Gardner, 2010: p. 68). Not
only are these college students ahead of the faculty when it
comes to technical skills and utilization, but the organizations
that are waiting for these students to graduate so they can em-
ploy them are expecting familiarity of Web 2.0 technologies
(Weyant & Gardner, 2010).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine faculty members’
perception of Web 2.0 technologies on teaching and learning in
higher education compared to traditional classroom teaching
methods in programs at a higher education institutions to estab-
lish if relationships prevailed in their delivery of courses through
the use of Web 2.0 technologies compared with traditional
classroom delivery of courses: their overall satisfaction, the
level of faculty development programs available, and their per-
ceived effectiveness and impact of faculty development and
issues and barriers affecting technology integration. This study
also examined the influence of gender, age, and employment
status on faculty members’ perceptions of Web 2.0 technolo-
gies on teaching and learning in higher education compared to
traditional classroom teaching methods.
Research Questions
The primary research question for this study was:
To what extent do faculty members teaching college courses
utilizing Web 2.0 technologies perceive that this method is a
practical alternative to the traditional classroom method?
The following secondary questions were asked to support the
primary research question stated above:
Question 2: To what extent do faculty members perceive that
there is an adequate level of development programs available to
create their course content utilizing Web 2.0 technologies?
Question 3: To what extent do faculty members perceive that
the faculty development programs affecting technology integra-
tion are effective?
Question 4: To what extent do faculty members perceive that
the impact of the barriers affecting technology integration is
hindering their ability to utilize Web 2.0 technologies?
Question 5: Is there a difference in male and female faculty
members’ perceptions regarding their use of Web 2.0 technolo-
gies in their courses?
Question 6: Is there a difference in faculty members’ percep-
tions regarding their use of Web 2.0 technologies in their
courses respective to their age?
Question 7: Is there a difference in faculty members’ percep-
tions regarding their use of Web 2.0 technologies in their
courses respective to their employment status?
Significance of the Study
With technology continuing to expand at a rapid rate and be-
ing ever changing (Rockart et al., 1996), just keeping up with it
can be a daunting task in itself. “In some schools, the Internet
and other technologies are being integrated at the institutional
level; with a student’s complete academic experience—from
application through registration and tuition payment, to final
examination and course grade-occurring on-line” (Gottwald,
2005: p. 2). The rapidly growing technology infrastructure at
institutions of higher education to meet the instructional and
research needs of faculty, staff, and students (Alsaady, 2007) is
making faculty development with the use of technology a re-
quirement. Between 2002 and 2006, online learning increased
by 21.5% while the entire higher education student body only
increased by 1.5% (Yates, 2010). These are pretty alarming
statistics and with Web 3.0 moving fast upon us, institutions of
higher education need to put improving teaching and learning
through the use of Web 2.0 technologies as a priority in their
strategic plans so faculty members can learn not only how to
use Web 2.0 technologies, but how to successfully infuse Web
2.0 technologies into their curriculums to improve learning.
In order for faculty members’ to remain competitive and
sustainable in this digital age, professional development on the
use of technology and how to infuse technology into course
curricula is a requirement. Identifying the aspects of effective-
ness and potential impacts of faculty development will recog-
nize areas of success and failure and will contribute to improv-
ing the content of faculty development (Al-Washahi, 2007).
The results are expected to empower the faculty members to
actively infuse technology into their curriculum and classroom,
thus providing a state of the art experience for the student
community at institutions of higher education.
Li and Pitts (2009) state that “the use of Web-based learning
technologies has increased dramatically over the past decade
providing new opportunities and avenues for students to inter-
act with their professors virtually using computer-mediated
communication technologies” (p. 175). An increasing number
of institutions on higher education are relying on Web 2.0
technologies for teaching and learning purposes. Barnett (2008)
cautions, however, that “beyond the use of new online tools by
individual academics, an adoption of the philosophies, stake-
holder expectations and development concepts of Web/HE 2.0
is likely to prove far more difficult for HE institutions at a stra-
tegic level” (p. 50).
It is often the case that institutions of higher education are
incorporating state of the art technology into every teaching and
learning facility on campus and online, but it may also be the
case that the faculty members are not fully integrating the
technology into their curriculums. From the students’ perspec-
tive, the millennial generation grew up with technology. Lee
(2010) states that “technology has had the most dramatic influ-
ence on the youngest members of society, also known as the
millennial generation” (p. 3). The needs of the student popula-
tion in institutions of higher education are rapidly evolving into
the most technological advanced generation and if institutions
and faculty members want to remain competitive must infuse
technology with curriculums and continuously improve the
technological offerings. Barrett (2008) posits that “higher edu-

S. A. ZELICK
56
cation in particular is hence playing catch-up, as those it seeks
to educate increasingly arrive with the content sharing and ser-
vice skills that those teaching them and managing that teaching
have often not yet fully understood” (p. 48).
Definition of Terms
Avatar
An avatar “is a three dimensional cartoon character that in-
teracts with other objects and avatars in Second Life” (Lee,
2010: p. 19). An avatar is a virtual representation of the person
creating it.
Blogs
A blog is similar to an online diary. It is a webpage “consist-
ing of brief paragraphs of opinion, information, personal diary
entries, or links, called posts, arranged chronologically with the
most recent first, in the style of an online journal” (Anderson,
2007: p. 7).
Facebook
Facebook, initially created for college student synergy, is an
online network that allows people to have personal page and
grants them the ability to stay in touch with other people (Fuller,
2011).The personal page includes personal information, photos,
videos, text, and a ‘wall’ for friends to post information on
(McCarthy, 2010). As a user, you can add friends, create groups
and events (that you can invite friends to), create networks
which link the user to professional and higher education face-
book sites.
Hybrid Courses
Hybrid is the term used to describe educational courses de-
livered through a mixture of traditional face-to-face and online
teaching methods.
Online Courses
Online is the term used to describe educational courses de-
livered through the Internet.
Podcast
A Podcast is an audio or video file created for use on mp3
players or on a computer (Baker, Harrison, Thornton, & Yates,
2010).
Second Life
Second Life is a three-dimensional computerized environ-
ment where members can socialize, hold virtual meetings, or
conduct transactions online (Wang & Braman, 2009). Second
Life is the largest virtual world with 15 million registered ac-
counts in 2008 (Harris & Rea, 2009).
Skype
Skype is a synchronous voice and video communication tool
(Newman, 2007).
Traditional Face-to-Face Courses
Traditional face-to-face is the term used to describe educa-
tional courses delivered face-to-face in the classroom at the
educational institution.
Twitter
Twitter is a free micro-blogging application that allows for
quick exchanges of thoughts, ideas, and information, which are
delivered as messages up to 140 characters each (Wankel, 2009).
Virtual Worlds
A virtual world is a “computer simulated environment that
enables users to interact with each other without geographical
confines” (Harris & Rea, 2009: p. 138). Real people are char-
acterized by avatars (a virtual ‘you’) and meet, interact and
exchange ideas with each other at virtual locations.
Web 2.0
Web 2.0 is a service “built using the building blocks of the
technologies and open standards that underpin the Internet and
the web” (Anderson, 2007: p. 7). These services include blogs,
wikis, browsers with plugins, social networking, multimedia
sharing, content syndication, podcasting and content tagging
services (think of tagging a person in a photo to identify their
name).
Wikis
Wikis are a “type of Web site that makes it easy for users to
contribute and edit text content and graphics without any knowl-
edge of Web page development or programming techniques”
(Laudon & Laudon, 2009: p. 66). Wikipedia is one of the best
(and biggest) examples of a Wiki.
YouTube
YouTube “is the most popular and widely accepted video
sharing website on the Internet” (Lee, 2010: p. 23).
Web 2.0 Tools
Blogs
The Pew Internet and American Life Project reported in 2009
the usage of blogs in the following way: “32% of all American
adults go online to read someone else’s blog; 15% work on
someone else’s webpage or blog; and 11% create or work on
their own online journal or blog” (Weyant & Gardner, 2010: p.
68). Faculty are infusing blogs into their course curriculums for
a variety of purposes, including syllabi distribution, digital port-
folios, collaborative writing, and discussion group assignments
(Weyant & Gardner, 2010). Alexander (2008) argues that blogs
are the “centerpiece” to the organization of Web 2.0 because
“the simplicity of creating and updating blogs empowers read-
ers to write, evoking the phrase read/write Web” (p. 152).
Facebook
Facebook, initially created in 2004 for college student inter-
action by Harvard college student Mark Zuckerberg (Fuller,
2011), became widely available one year later. In late 2007,
Facebook started a fan page feature that permitted universities
to post information under their university name on Facebook
(Fuller, 2011), and “by January 2008, 420 universities were
using the fan page feature” (p. 49). This means that any user of
Facebook can become a fan of any or all of the universities
featured on Facebook. For universities, this can be a huge mar-
keting opportunity because “the current social networking plat-
form of choice among students in higher education is Face-
book” (Wankel, 2009: p. 252). Facebook statistics suggest that

S. A. ZELICK
there were 845,000,000 monthly active users at the end of De-
cember 2011, 483,000,000 daily active users on average in
December 2011, more than 425,000,000 monthly active users
who used Facebook mobile products in December 2011, and
available in more than 70 languages (Facebook, 2012).
By utilizing Facebook, faculty members can use the same
tool that the students are already using to do other collaboration
for course collaboration rather than making them log on to a
separate course collaboration tool or website (Lee, 2010). Wankel
(2009) furthers this discussion by stating that:
The uses of Facebook by management instructors include the
ability to provide an attractive interactive venue, such as a
Facebook group, for students to post threaded discussions on
course-related material and activities, as well as reply to other
student posting creating the sort of interactivity expected by
accreditation agencies, most particularly online courses (p. 252).
In 2009, a Facebook assessment was done at the University
of Adelaide in Australia with a first year design elective course.
In this 6-week program, 120 students including 27 international
students were enrolled in the course and participated in the
assessment that involved a blended environment of both online
engagements and face-to-face engagements (McCarthy, 2010).
“The 2009 study indicated that the blending of real and virtual
environments increased peer interaction and academic engage-
ment, two key factors in a positive first year experience”
(McCarthy, 2009: p. 738). McCarthy also notes that the in-
creased collaboration between resident and international stu-
dents was one of the most gratifying features of the online
learning environment with Facebook.
Podcast
Podcasting was originally designed for audio files through
the use of the Apple iPod but was enhanced to include video
files when the video enabled iPods appeared on the market
(Baker et al., 2010). Podcasts can be downloaded and viewed
through the use of any mp3 device or computer. “The basic
elements required to initiate a Podcasting program consist of a
personal computer, microphone, audio editing software (avail-
able at no charge from Audacity.com), web server and a web-
site” (Baker et al., 2010: p. 9).
A study was conducted by Baker et al. (2010) with an avia-
tion class at a university in Florida to assess the benefits of
using podcasting in a class. The 29 students in the class had
access to four different podcasts that were available through the
course website. Each podcast was a summary of four subjects
that previous students had difficulty in understanding. The 29
students were given a quiz made up of questions from the Fed-
eral Aviation Administration (FAA) question bank and the
results were compared to the results from the previous year
where students did not have access to podcasts. The results
proved that there was no difference between the test scores
from the students who did have access to the podcasts and from
the students who did not have access to the podcasts.
Second Life
Second Life, a desktop virtual reality application, “is a three-
dimensional (3D) electronic environment where members can
socialize, hold virtual meetings, or conduct economic transac-
tions” (Wang & Braman, 2009: p. 235). Second Life is an ap-
plication that is downloaded to a person’s computer in order to
extract the three dimensional graphics (Lee, 2010). Second Life
is composed of islands that can be purchased and owned by
people; on each island, the owners can do anything their crea-
tive mind or budget allows (Lee, 2010). Two significant fea-
tures of learning in Second Life are that students are “often
more motivated and less distracted than when they are placed in
a traditional classroom” (Lee, 2010: p. 36) and that “the simu-
lations tend to be more relevant to student when learning about
real world situations” (p. 36).
Skype
The most influential feature of Skype is the ability to provide
synchronous video feed during calls (Newman, 2007). “Using
Skype, students can contact an instructor for help anytime the
instructor is logged on to his or her computer. With this syn-
chronous form of communication in both audio and visual for-
mats, instructors have the ability to talk with and see students
anytime both parties are connected in the Skype application”
(Newman, 2007: pp. 27-28). Based on a survey of 221 students,
the addition of Skype did not have a significant effect on stu-
dent perceptions of online communications, online learning, or
online community (Newman, 2007). Newman (2007: p. 78)
points out that “the majority of the students indicated their en-
thusiasm and willingness to use a synchronous communication
tool, yet they optioned not to use it or did so very little”). This
could have been due to the fact that students had to have mi-
crophones and speakers or headsets, so if they did not own
these they considered it hassle to go check the equipment out
and install it on the computer they were using (Newman, 2007).
Twitter
Twitter is being utilized by colleges and universities as a chat
service with current and potential students and also to improve
awareness of campus events (Fuller, 2011). It can also be util-
ized to allow of network of users to add to an unstructured col-
laboration of ideas, links and resources (Wankel, 2009). “In a
large class section of perhaps hundreds of learners, tweeting
enables an immense amount of interactivity, ideally enriching
the session in which it occurs” (Wankel, 2009: p. 254). Profes-
sors at Marquette University in Wisconsin utilize Twitter to
promote the development of listening and classroom commu-
nity environment, information gathering, multi-tasking, writing
skills, and attention skills and have reported an increase in
communication with students with the use Twitter (Wenkel,
2009).
Wiki
Faculty are infusing wikis into their course curriculums for a
variety of purposes, including collaborative writing, posting of
class notes, project brainstorming, and as a course management
system (Weyant & Gardner, 2010). “Wikis support the con-
structivist, collaborative learning models by engaging students
in the learning process” (Weyant & Gardner, 2010: p. 70). The
largest and most well-known wiki is Wikipedia (Nicolaou,
2009). Nicolaou (2009) posits that:
Wikipedia holds millions of articles in approximately 250
languages with more than two million pages in English. There
are currently more than 75,000 active contributors to Wikipe-
dia articles, while tens of thousands of edits are made daily to
enhance the knowledge help by this online encyclopedia (p. 26).
YouTube
“YouTube provides colleges and universities a free mecha-

S. A. ZELICK
58
nism for sharing recruiting videos” (Fuller, 2011: p. 50). You-
Tube is the standard for video streaming on the Internet (Lee,
2010) and instructors can use this as a tool for students to up-
load the videos as homework assignments. Video streaming is
also available via Facebook, and both can easily be done with
today’s smart phones.
Research Design
This study used a nonexperimental, quantitative descriptive
research design to investigate faculty members’ perception of
Web 2.0 technologies on teaching and learning in higher educa-
tion compared to traditional classroom teaching methods. Quan-
titative techniques, as stated by Swanson and Holton (2005),
“are particularly strong at studying large groups of people and
making generalizations from the sample being studied to broader
groups beyond that sample” (p. 30). This design was suitable
for this research because the researcher had no control or influ-
ence over the variables. Cooper and Schindler (2008) posit that
with nonexperimental researcher, “the researcher is limited to
holding factors constant by judicious selection of subjects ac-
cording to strict sampling procedures and by statistical ma-
nipulation of findings” (p. 143).
Sample
Participants for this study included full-time and part-time
faculty members teaching at a public university in the United
States, with the following selected attributes:
 Industry = Education;
 Job Function = Educator;
 Education Level = Graduate Degree;
 Employment = Employed Part Time, Employed Full Time;
 Age = 20 - 100+;
 Country = USA.
Of the 1207 respondents who were willing to participate in
the survey, 988 or 81.9% of them were disqualified because
they were not a part time or full time faculty member teaching
in a public university in the United States and 18.1% or 219 of
the respondents were eligible to participate in the survey based
on the selected criteria noted above. Of the 219 surveys re-
ceived, 41 surveys were deleted because of missing data. A
total of 178 or 81.3% of the surveys were considered usable
because the respondents participated in and actually completed
the survey.
Setting
Zoomerang, an online survey service affiliated with the online
survey tool SurveyMonkey, was the setting this study. Zoom-
erang allows researchers to select an online panel of partici-
pants based on particular attributes set by the researcher.
Instrumentation
The instrument that was utilized for this research was an
online survey that was designed and created by the researcher.
Advantages of an online survey include the unit cost of data
collection is low, the possibility for high speed of returns, all of
the benefits of a self-administered instrument can be realized,
all of the benefits of a computer-assisted instrument can be
realized, and they provide time for thoughtful answers (Fowler,
2009). The online survey was created through SurveyMonkey.
SurveyMonkey, an online survey tool that has been available
since 1999, was appropriate for this type of research as it al-
lowed the researcher to create her own online survey using
custom templates, the researcher obtained descriptive statistics
on the results, and the results were downloaded into a database
for additional data analysis (Creswell, 2009).
The survey was created following the five guiding principles
of self-administered surveys: surveys should be self-explana-
tory, restricted to closed answers, the question forms should be
few in number, laid out in a manner that is clear, and provide
redundant information to make everything simple (Fowler, 2009).
The survey was divided into three sections. The first section
collected data on demographic information from the faculty
members including age, gender, employment status, number of
years working in higher education, how their courses are taught
(face-to-face, hybrid, or online), and information on their work
and personally owned computers. The second section of the
survey listed current Web 2.0 technologies (Blogs, Facebook,
Podcast, Second Life, Skype, Twitter, Wiki, YouTube) and the
participant was asked to rate their proficiency level towards
each technology on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = expert, 5 = pro-
ficient). The third section was a sequence of optimistic state-
ments regarding faculty members’ perceptions on whether or
not teaching college courses utilizing Web 2.0 technologies was
a practical alternative to the traditional classroom method. The
participants were asked to match their level of agreement on a
5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly
agree).
Data Collection
The data was collected via an online survey, created through
SurveyMonkey. Once approval was received from the Survey-
Monkey Project Management team, the survey launched and
data collection automatically began. In order for respondents to
be eligible to begin the survey, they must have the following
attributes:
 Industry = Education;
 Job Function = Educator;
 Education Level = Graduate Degree;
 Employment = Employed Part Time, Employed Full Time;
 Age = 20 - 100+;
 Country = USA.
When respondents began the survey, the first page included
the wording from the initial email to potential participants which
explained the purpose of the research study, that they have been
selected to participate in the research study, the procedures, and
that their professional experience at their University will be
invaluable to this particular research study. As the level of
granularity on the available attribute selections within Survey-
Monkey did not allow for ensuring that the participants were
part time or full time faculty members employed at a public
university in the United States, a screening question was in-
cluded at the bottom of this page with skip logic that would
automatically disqualify a respondent when their answer to the
answer was no.
Respondents who answered yes to the question were sent to
the next page which included the wording from the informed
consent form. The consent form explained the benefits and risks,
the voluntary participation, confidentiality statement, and pro-
vided contact information for the researcher if the participants
had any further questions. If the respondent read and fully un-

S. A. ZELICK
derstood the consent form and agreed to voluntarily participate
as a subject in the research, they were able to access the survey
by simply clicking the button labeled next. Once each survey
was submitted by the participant, it was automatically saved in
the SurveyMonkey database. SurveyMonkey notified the re-
searcher once the project received the number of expected re-
sponses and the project was labeled as complete by Survey-
Monkey. No further action needed to be taken by the partici-
pants.
Results
Description of Participants
The description of participants was defined through Section 1
of the online survey which included 13 questions that became
the independent scale variables and one qualifying question to
determine the eligibility of the respondent which was also an
independent scale variable. Of the 1207 respondents who were
willing to participate in the survey, 988 or 81.9% of them were
disqualified because they were not a part time or full time fac-
ulty member teaching in a public university in the United States
and 18.1% or 219 of the respondents were eligible to participate
in the survey based on the selected criteria noted above. Of the
219 surveys received, 42 surveys were deleted because of
missing data. A total of 177 or 80.8% of the surveys were con-
sidered usable because the respondents participated in and ac-
tually completed the survey. These statistics are defined in Ta-
ble 1.
Survey Question 1 asked the participants to select their gen-
der. Table 2 displays the results.
Of the 177 valid responses, more than half of the participants
were male with 96 or 54.2% being male and 81 or 45.8% being
female. Survey Question 2 asked the participant to select the
category that includes their age. The results are displayed in
Table 3.
The majority of the faculty members who participated in this
research study were in the age range of 50 - 59 years old
(25.4%) and 30 - 39 years old (25.4%); the minority of the fac-
ulty members who participated were in the age range of 70
years and older (5.1%) and between 20 - 29 years old (9.0%).
Table 1.
Frequency table—qualifying question to determine if participants are
part time or full time faculty members teaching at a public university in
the United States.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Yes 219 18.1 18.1 18.1
No 988 81.9 81.9 100.0
Valid
Total 1207 100.0 100.0
Table 2.
Frequency table—gender.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Male 96 8.0 54.2 54.2
Female 81 6.7 45.8 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Table 3.
Frequency table—age.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
20 - 2916 1.3 9.0 9.0
30 - 3945 3.7 25.4 34.5
40 - 4928 2.3 15.8 50.3
50 - 5945 3.7 25.4 75.7
60 - 6934 2.8 19.2 94.9
70+ 9 .7 5.1 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Survey Question 3 asked the participants to select the number
of years they have been teaching in higher education. The re-
sults can be found in Table 4.
The number of years that the faculty members have been
teaching in higher education appeared on both ends of the spec-
trum with the majority of responses falling between 1 - 5 years
(26.0%) or 21+ years (24.9%). The minority of responses fell
between 16 - 20 years (12.4%). Survey Question 4 asked the
participants to select the number of years they have been
teaching at their University. The results can be seen in Table 5.
When the faculty members were asked how many years they
had been teaching at their university, the majority of them (68
or 38.4%) had been teaching at their university for 1 - 5 years
while 10 or 5.6% of the faculty members had been teaching at
their university for 16 - 20 years. Survey Question 5 asked the
participants to select their current employment status within the
University. These results are indicated by Table 6.
Of the 177 faculty members who participated in the research
study, almost half (86 or 48.6%) were adjuncts, while 37 or
20.9% were professors, 25 or 14.1% were assistant professors,
and 24 or 13.6% were associate professors. The minority of the
participants selected chairperson (3 or 1.7%), assistant dean (1
or .6%) or associate dean (1 or .6%).
Survey Question 6 asked the participants to select the level of
courses they taught (undergraduate, graduate or both). The re-
sults can be found in Table 7.
The majority of the faculty members taught undergraduate
courses (113 or 63.8%); 15 or 8.5% taught graduate courses;
and 49 or 27.7% taught both undergraduate and graduate courses.
Survey Question 7 asked the participants to select the method
of teaching they utilize (traditional face-to-face, online, hybrid,
or all of the above). The results are displayed in Table 8.
The majority of the participants (111 or 62.7%) taught tradi-
tional face-to-face courses, 16 or 9.0% taught online courses, 5
or 2.8% taught hybrid courses, and a quarter of the participants
(45 or 25.4%) taught traditional face-to-face, online and hybrid
courses. Survey Question 8 asked the participants to select their
preferred method of teaching. The results can be found in Ta-
ble 9.
The majority of the participants (114 or 64.4%) preferred to
teach traditional face-to-face courses, 22 or 12.4% preferred to
teach hybrid courses, 15 or 8.5% preferred to teach online, and
26 or 14.7% did not have a preference. Survey Question 9
asked the participants if they had a personal computer. Table
10 displays the results.
Almost all of the faculty participants had a personal com-
puter (172 or 97.2%) and 5 or 2.8% of the faculty members did

S. A. ZELICK
60
Table 4.
Frequency table—number of years teaching in higher education.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1-5 46 3.8 26.0 26.0
6-10 38 3.1 21.5 47.5
11-15 27 2.2 15.3 62.7
16-20 22 1.8 12.4 75.1
21+ 44 3.6 24.9 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Table 5.
Frequency table—number of years teaching at the university.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1-5 68 5.6 38.4 38.4
6-10 40 3.3 22.6 61.0
11-15 30 2.5 16.9 78.0
16-20 10 .8 5.6 83.6
21+ 29 2.4 16.4 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Table 6.
Frequency table—current employment status within the university.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Adjunct 86 7.1 48.6 48.6
Assistant Professor 25 2.1 14.1 62.7
Associate Professor 24 2.0 13.6 76.3
Professor 37 3.1 20.9 97.2
Chairperson 3 .2 1.7 98.9
Assistant Dean 1 .1 .6 99.4
Associate Dean 1 .1 .6 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Table 7.
Frequency table—level of courses taught.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Under graduate 113 9.4 63.8 63.8
Graduate 15 1.2 8.5 72.3
Both 49 4.1 27.7 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Table 8.
Frequency table—method of teaching courses.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Traditional
face-to-face 111 9.2 62.7 62.7
Online 16 1.3 9.0 71.8
Hybrid 5 .4 2.8 74.6
All of the above45 3.7 25.4 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Table 9.
Frequency table—teaching method preference.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Traditional
face-to-face 114 9.4 64.4 64.4
Hybrid 22 1.8 12.4 76.8
Online 15 1.2 8.5 85.3
No preference26 2.2 14.7 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Table 10.
Frequency table—personal home computer.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Yes 172 14.3 97.2 97.2
No 5 .4 2.8 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
not have a personal computer. Survey Question 10 asked the
participants if they had a computer issued from the University.
The results of this question are displayed in Table 11.
Based on the results from Table 11, over half of the faculty
participants (95 or 53.7%) had a computer issued from the uni-
versity, and 82 or 46.3% of the faculty members did not have a
computer issued by the University. Survey Question 11 asked
the participants how technically proficient they considered
themselves to be. Table 12 shows the results.
Based on the results from Table 12, 66 (37.3%) of the fac-
ulty members indicated that they were moderately proficient,
39 or 22% of the faculty members indicated that they were
proficient and somewhat proficient, 29 or 16.4% indicated they
were expert, and 4 or 2.3% indicated that they were not profi-
cient. Survey Question 12 asked the participants to select how
technically proficient they considered themselves to be when
specifically talking about Web 2.0 technologies that their uni-
versity offers. The results are reflected in Table 13.
Of the 177 responses, 55 or 31.1% of the faculty members
rated themselves as somewhat proficient while 45 or 25.4% of
the faculty members rated themselves as proficient. The differ-
ence between moderately proficient and proficient was only a
matter of 7 faculty members, however, only 13 or 7.3% of the

S. A. ZELICK
Table 11.
Frequency table—university issued computer.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Yes 95 7.9 53.7 53.7
No 82 6.8 46.3 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Table 12.
Frequency table—technical proficiency level.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Not Proficient 4 .3 2.3 2.3
Somewhat
Proficient 39 3.2 22.0 24.3
Proficient 39 3.2 22.0 46.3
Moderately
Proficient 66 5.5 37.3 83.6
Expert 29 2.4 16.4 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Table 13.
Frequency table—technology proficiency level based on Web 2.0 tech-
nologies offered by the university.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Not Proficient 26 2.2 14.7 14.7
Somewhat
Proficient 55 4.6 31.1 45.8
Proficient 45 3.7 25.4 71.2
Moderately
Proficient 38 3.1 21.5 92.7
Expert 13 1.1 7.3 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
faculty members rated themselves as an expert. Survey Ques-
tion 13 asked the participants to select their best method of
learning. The results can be found in Table 14.
The majority of the faculty members, 103 or 58.2%, indi-
cated that they learned best by doing, while 63 or 35.6%
learned best by reading or watching. Only 11 or 6.2% of the
faculty learned best by listening.
Description of Ordinal Variables
Sections 2 and 3 of the survey contain the dependent ordinal
variables. Section 2 asked the faculty member to identify their
current level of Web 2.0 technology use, from never to very
often, at their university for instructional purposes. Survey
Question 14 asked the participants to select their current level
of utilizing Blogs for instructional purposes. The results are
indicated in Table 15.
The majority of the faculty members have never utilized
Blogs (75 or 42.4%), 40 or 22.5% sometimes utilized Blogs, 36
or 20.3% rarely utilized Blogs, 23 or 13.0% often utilized Blogs,
and 3 or 1.7% very often utilized Blogs. Survey Question 15
asked the participants to select their current level of utilizing
Facebook for instructional purposes. The results are indicated
by Table 16.
Half of the faculty members (90 or 50.8%) never utilized
Facebook for instructional purposes, while 28 of the faculty
members have rarely utilized Facebook and 27 or 15.3% some-
times utilized Facebook. The minority of the faculty members
have either often utilized Facebook (22 or 12.4%) or very often
utilized Facebook (10 or 5.6%). Survey Question 16 asked the
participants to select their utilization of Podcast for instruc-
tional purposes. The results of this question can be found in
Table 17.
Table 14.
Frequency table—best method of learning.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Reading or
watching 63 5.2 35.6 35.6
Listening 11 .9 6.2 41.8
Doing 103 8.5 58.2 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Table 15.
Frequency table—Blogs utilization for instructional purposes.
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Never 75 6.2 42.4 42.4
Rarely 36 3.0 20.3 62.7
Sometimes 40 3.3 22.6 85.3
Often 23 1.9 13.0 98.3
Very Often3 .2 1.7 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Table 16.
Frequency table—Facebook utilization for instructional purposes.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Never 90 7.5 50.8 50.8
Rarely 28 2.3 15.8 66.7
Sometimes 27 2.2 15.3 81.9
Often 22 1.8 12.4 94.4
Very Often10 .8 5.6 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Table 17.
Frequency table—Podcast utilization for instructional purposes.
FrequencyPercent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Never 86 7.1 48.6 48.6
Rarely 28 2.3 15.8 64.4
Sometimes 43 3.6 24.3 88.7
Often 15 1.2 8.5 97.2
Very Often5 .4 2.8 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0

S. A. ZELICK
62
The majority of the faculty members (86 or 48.6%) have
never utilized Podcast for instructional purposes, while 43 or
24.3% sometimes utilized Podcast, and 28 or 15.8% rarely util-
ized Podcast. Of the 177 participants, 15 or 8.5% often utilized
Podcast and 5 or 2.8% very often utilized Podcast for instruc-
tional purposes. Survey Question 17 asked the participants how
often they utilized Second Life for instructional purposes. The
results of this question can be found in Table 18.
The majority of the participants (141 or 79.7%), have never
utilized Second Life for instructional purposes, 15 or 8.5% of
the participants have rarely utilized Second Life, 17 or 9.6%
sometimes utilized Second Life and 4 or 2.3% often utilize
Second Life. Survey Question 18 asked the participants how
often they utilized Skype for instructional purposes. The results
are indicated Table 19.
The majority of faculty members (91 or 51.4%) have never
utilized Skype for instructional purposes, while 35 or 19.8%
have rarely utilized Skype, 33 or 18.6% sometimes utilized
Skype, 15 or 8.5% often utilize Skype, and 3 or 1.7% very of-
ten utilize Skype. Survey Question 19 asked the participants
how often they utilized Twitter for instructional purposes. The
results can be found in Table 20.
Table 18.
Frequency table—Second Life utilization for instructional purposes.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Never 141 11.7 79.7 79.7
Rarely 15 1.2 8.5 88.1
Sometimes 17 1.4 9.6 97.7
Often 4 .3 2.3 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Table 19.
Frequency table—Skype utilization for instructional purposes.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Never 91 7.5 51.4 51.4
Rarely 35 2.9 19.8 71.2
Sometimes 33 2.7 18.6 89.8
Often 15 1.2 8.5 98.3
Very Often 3 .2 1.7 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Table 20.
Frequency table—Twitter utilization for instructional purposes.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Never 126 10.4 71.2 71.2
Rarely 21 1.7 11.9 83.1
Sometimes 18 1.5 10.2 93.2
Often 10 .8 5.6 98.9
Very Often 2 .2 1.1 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
The majority of the participants (126 or 71.2%) have never
utilized Twitter for instructional purposes, while 21 or 11.9%
rarely utilized Twitter, and 18 or 10.2% of the faculty members
sometimes utilized Twitter. The minority of the participants (2
or 1.1%) very often utilizes Twitter, and 10 or 5.6% often util-
ize Twitter for instructional purposes. Survey Question 20
asked the participants how often they utilized Wikis for instruc-
tional purposes. The results can be found in Table 21.
Over half of the participants (92 or 52%) have never utilized
Wikis for instructional purposes, while 34 or 19.2% rarely util-
ize Wikis and 35 or 19.8% sometimes utilize Wikis. Of the 177
tot participants, 12 or 6.8% indicated that they often utilize
Wikis and 4 or 2.3% indicated that they very often utilize Wikis
for instructional purposes. Survey Question 21 asked the par-
ticipants how often they utilized YouTube for instructional
purposes. The results can be found in Table 22.
The majority of the participants (71 or 40.1%) indicated that
they sometimes utilize YouTube for instructional purposes,
while 44 or 24.9% have rarely utilized YouTube and 27 or
15.3% have never utilized YouTube for instructional purposes.
The minority of the participants (9 or 5.1%) indicated that they
very often utilized YouTube and 25 or 14.7% indicated that
they often utilize YouTube for instructional purposes. Descrip-
tive statistics for the Web 2.0 technologies analyzed (Blogs,
Facebook, Podcast, Second Life, Skype, Twitter, Wiki, and
YouTube) can be found in Table 23.
In summary, Table 23 shows that the Web 2.0 technologies
that are utilized the least out of all of the participants were
Second Life with a mean of 1.3446 and Twitter with a mean of
1.5367. The Web 2.0 technologies utilized the most out of all of
the participants was YouTube with a mean of 2.6949 and Blogs
with a mean of 2.1130.
Crosstablulation analyses were conducted to understand the
impact of gender on the level of Web 2.0 technology utilization
at the faculty members’ university. Figure 1 shows the impact
of gender on the level of Blog utilization at their respective
university.
Table 21.
Frequency table—Wiki utilization for instructional purposes.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Never 92 7.6 52.0 52.0
Rarely 34 2.8 19.2 71.2
Sometimes35 2.9 19.8 91.0
Often 12 1.0 6.8 97.7
Very Often4 .3 2.3 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Table 22.
Frequency table—YouTube utilization for instructional purposes.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Never 27 2.2 15.3 15.3
Rarely 44 3.6 24.9 40.1
Sometimes 71 5.9 40.1 80.2
Often 26 2.2 14.7 94.9
Very Often9 .7 5.1 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
MissingSystem 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0

S. A. ZELICK
Table 23.
Descriptive statistics of Web 2.0 technologies.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Blogs 177 1.00 5.00 2.1130 1.14748
Facebook 177 1.00 5.00 2.0621 1.29316
Podcast 177 1.00 5.00 2.0113 1.15300
Second Life 177 1.00 4.00 1.3446 .74612
Skype 177 1.00 5.00 1.8927 1.08962
Twitter 177 1.00 5.00 1.5367 .96534
Wiki 177 1.00 5.00 1.8814 1.08844
YouTube 177 1.00 5.00 2.6949 1.05939
Valid N (listwise) 177
Figure 1.
Crosstabulation—Blog utilization for instructional purposes by gender.
Reviewing the results with highest count indicates that male
faculty members had a higher count on the never utilizing Blog,
rarely utilizing Blogs, sometimes utilizing Blogs, and often
utilizing Blogs. Female faculty members had a higher count on
very often utilizing Blogs for instructional purposes. Figure 2
shows the impact of gender on the level of Facebook utilization
at their respective university.
Reviewing the results with highest count indicates that male
faculty members had a higher count on never utilizing Face-
book, rarely utilizing Facebook, and often utilizing Facebook
for instructional purposes. Female faculty members had a higher
count on sometimes utilizing Facebook, and very often utilizing
Facebook for instructional purposes. Figure 3 shows the impact
of gender on the level of Podcast utilization at their respective
university.
Reviewing the results with highest count indicates that male
faculty members had a higher count on never utilizing Podcast,
rarely utilizing Podcast, sometimes utilizing Podcast, and very
often utilizing Podcast for instructional purposes. Female fac-
ulty members had a higher count on often utilizing Podcast for
instructional purposes. Figure 4 shows the impact of gender on
the level of Second Life utilization at their respective univer-
sity.
Figure 2.
Crosstabulation—Facebook utilization for instructional purposes by
gender.
Figure 3.
Crosstabulation—Podcast utilization for instructional purposes by
gender.
Reviewing the results with highest count indicates that male
faculty members had a higher count on never utilizing Second
Life, rarely utilizing Second Life, sometimes utilizing Second
Life, and often utilizing Second Life for instructional purposes.
Neither male nor female faculty members measured on the
chart as very often utilizing Second Life for instructional pur-
poses. Figure 5 shows the impact of gender on the level of
Skype utilization at their respective university.
Reviewing the results with highest count indicates that male
faculty members had a higher count on never utilizing Skype,
rarely utilizing Skype, often utilizing Skype, and very often
utilizing Skype for instructional purposes. Female faculty mem-
bers had a higher count on sometimes utilizing Skype for in-

S. A. ZELICK
64
Figure 4.
Crosstabulation—Second Life utilization for instructional purposes by
gender.
Figure 5.
Crosstabulation—Skype utilization for instructional purposes by gender.
structional purposes. Figure 6 shows the impact of gender on
the level of Twitter utilization at their respective university.
Reviewing the results with highest count indicates that male
faculty members had a higher count on never utilizing Twitter,
sometimes utilizing Twitter, and often utilizing Twitter for in-
structional purposes. Female faculty members had a higher count
on rarely utilizing Twitter, and very often utilizing Twitter for
instructional purposes. Figure 7 shows the impact of gender on
the level of Wiki utilization at their respective university.
Reviewing the results with highest count indicates that male
faculty members had a higher count on never utilizing Wikis,
rarely utilizing Wikis, sometimes utilizing Wikis, and often
utilizing Wikis for instructional purposes. Female faculty mem-
bers were tied with male faculty members on the count for very
often utilizing Wikis for instructional purposes. Figure 8 shows
the impact of gender on the level of YouTube utilization at their
respective university.
Reviewing the results with highest count indicates that male
faculty members had a higher count on never utilizing You-
Tube, rarely utilizing YouTube, and often utilizing YouTube
for instructional purposes. Female faculty members had a higher
count on sometimes utilizing YouTube and very often utilizing
YouTube for instructional purposes.
Crosstablulation analyses were conducted to understand the
impact of age on the level of Web 2.0 technology utilization at
the faculty members’ perspective university. Figure 9 shows
Figure 6.
Crosstabulation—Twitter utilization for instructional purposes by gen-
der.
Figure 7.
Crosstabulation—Wiki utilization for instructional purposes by gender.

S. A. ZELICK
Figure 8.
Crosstabulation—YouTube utilization for instructional purposes by
gender.
Figure 9.
Crosstabulation—Blog utilization for instructional purposes by age.
the impact of age on the level of Blog utilization at faculty
members’ respective university.
Reviewing the results with highest count indicates overall,
participants in the age range of 60 - 69 have never utilized
Blogs; participants in the age range of 50 - 59 have rarely util-
ized Blogs and sometimes utilized Blogs; participants in the age
range of 30 - 39 often utilize Blogs and very often utilized
Blogs for instructional purposes. Figure 10 shows the impact
of age on the level of Facebook utilization at the faculty mem-
bers’ respective university.
Reviewing the results with highest count indicates overall,
participants in the age range of 60 - 69 have never utilized
Facebook; participants in the age range of 50 - 59 have rarely
utilized Facebook; participants in the age range of 30 - 39
sometimes utilized Facebook and very often utilized Facebook
for instructional purposes. Participants in the age range of 30 -
39 tied with participants in the age range of 40 - 49 who often
utilize Facebook for instructional purposes. Figure 11 shows
the impact of age on the level of Podcast utilization at the fac-
ulty members’ respective university.
Reviewing the results with highest count indicates overall,
participants in the age range of 50 - 59 have never utilized
Podcasts and have very often utilized Podcast; participants in
the age range of 30 - 39 sometimes utilized Podcasts; partici-
pants in the age range of 30 - 39 and 40 - 49 tied with the count
of those who rarely utilized Podcast and often utilized Podcast for
Figure 10.
Crosstabulation—Facebook utilization for instructional purposes by
age.
Figure 11.
Crosstabulation—Podcast utilization for instructional purposes by age.

S. A. ZELICK
66
instructional purposes. Figure 12 shows the impact of age on
the level of Second Life utilization at the faculty members’
respective universities.
Reviewing the results with highest count indicates overall,
participants in the age range of 50 - 59 have never utilized
Second Life, and have rarely utilized Second Life; participants
in the age range of 30 - 39 sometimes utilized Second Life; and
participants in the age range of 20 - 29 have often utilized Sec-
ond Life for instructional purposes. Figure 13 shows the im-
pact of age on the level of Skype utilization at the faculty mem-
bers’ respective university.
Reviewing the results with highest count indicates overall,
participants in the age range of 50 - 59 have never utilized
Figure 12.
Crosstabulation—Second Life utilization for instructional purposes by
age.
Figure 13.
Crosstabulation—Skype utilization for instructional purposes by age.
Skype, and have rarely utilized Second Life; participants in the
age range of 30 - 39 sometimes utilized Skype, often utilized
Skype and very often utilized Skype for instructional purposes.
Figure 14 shows the impact of age on the level of Twitter uti-
lization at the faculty members’ respective university.
Reviewing the results with highest count indicates overall,
participants in the age range of 50 - 59 have never utilized
Twitter; participants in the age range of 30 - 39 rarely utilized
Twitter, sometimes utilized Twitter, and often utilized Twitter;
participants in the age range of 40 - 49 and 50 - 59 tied with the
count of those who very often utilized Twitter for instructional
purposes. Figure 15 shows the impact of age on the level of
Wiki utilization at the faculty members’ respective university.
Reviewing the results with highest count indicates overall,
Figure 14.
Crosstabulation—Twitter utilization for instructional purposes by age.
Figure 15.
Crosstabulation—Wiki utilization for instructional purposes by age.

S. A. ZELICK
participants in the age range of 60 - 69 have never utilized
Wikis; participants in the age range of 30 - 39 rarely utilized
Wikis and sometimes utilized Wikis; participants in the age
range of 50 - 59 often utilized Wikis; and participants in the age
range of 40 - 49 very often utilized Wikis for instructional pur-
poses. Figure 16 shows the impact of age on the level of You-
Tube utilization at the faculty members’ respective university.
Reviewing the results with highest count indicates overall,
participants in the age range of 50 - 59 have never utilized
YouTube, and have rarely utilized YouTube; participants in the
age range of 30 - 39 sometimes utilized YouTube, often utilized
YouTube and very often utilized YouTube for instructional
purposes.
Crosstablulation analyses were conducted to understand the
impact of employment status on the level of Web 2.0 technol-
ogy use at the faculty members’ university. Figure 17 shows
the impact of employment status on the level of Blog utilization
at faculty members’ respective university.
Reviewing the results with highest count indicates overall,
participants whose employment status was adjunct have never
utilized Blogs, have rarely utilized Blogs, have sometimes util-
ized Blogs, and have very often utilized Blogs; participants
whose employment status was professor often utilized Blogs
for instructional purposes. Figure 18 shows the impact of em-
ployment status on the level of Facebook utilization at faculty
members’ respective university.
Reviewing the results with highest count indicates overall,
participants whose employment status was adjunct have never
utilized Facebook, have rarely utilized Facebook, have some-
times utilized Facebook, have often utilized Facebook, and have
very often utilized Facebook for instructional purposes. Figure
19 shows the impact of employment status on the level of Pod-
cast utilization at faculty members’ respective university.
Reviewing the results with highest count indicates overall,
participants whose employment status was adjunct have never
utilized Podcasts, have rarely utilized Podcasts, and have some-
times utilized Podcast for instructional purposes. Participants
Figure 16.
Crosstabulation—YouTube utilization for instructional purposes by
age.
Figure 17.
Crosstabulation—Blog utilization for instructional purposes by em-
ployment status.
Figure 18.
Crosstabulation—Facebook utilization for instructional purposes by
employment status.
whose employment status was assistant professor, associate
professor and professor tied in the count for those who often
utilized Podcasts; and participants whose employment status
was assistant professor and professor tied in the count for those
who very often utilized Podcasts for instructional purposes.
Figure 20 shows the impact of employment status on the level
of Second Life utilization at faculty members’ respective uni-
versity.
Reviewing the results with highest count indicates overall,
participants whose employment status was adjunct have never
utilized Second Life, and have sometimes utilized Second Life
for instructional purposes. Participants whose employment status

S. A. ZELICK
68
Figure 19.
Crosstabulation—Podcast utilization for instructional purposes by em-
ployment status.
Figure 20.
Crosstabulation—Second Life utilization for instructional purposes by
employment status.
was professor often utilized Second Life; participants whose
employment status was assistant professor and associate pro-
fessor tied in the count for those who rarely utilized Second
Life; and participants whose employment status was adjunct
and associate professor tied in the count for those who some-
times utilized Second Life for instructional purposes. Figure 21
shows the impact of employment status on the level of Skype
utilization at faculty members’ respective university.
Reviewing the results with highest count indicates overall,
participants whose employment status was adjunct have never
utilized Skype, have rarely utilized Skype, have sometimes util-
ized Skype, and have very often utilized Skype for instructional
purposes. Participants whose employment status was professor
often utilized Skype for instructional purposes. Fi gure 22 shows
the impact of employment status on the level of Twitter utiliza-
tion at faculty members’ respective university.
Reviewing the results with highest count indicates overall,
participants whose employment status was adjunct have never
utilized Twitter, and have rarely utilized Twitter for instruc-
tional purposes. Participants whose employment status was pro-
fessor have often utilized Twitter. Participants whose employ-
ment status was adjunct and associate professor tied for the
count of those who sometimes utilized Twitter and very often
utilized Twitter for instructional purposes. Figure 23 shows the
Figure 21.
Crosstabulation—Skype utilization for instructional purposes by em-
ployment status.
Figure 22.
Crosstabulation—Twitter utilization for instructional purposes by em-
ployment status.

S. A. ZELICK
impact of employment status on the level of Wiki utilization at
faculty members’ respective university.
Reviewing the results with highest count indicates overall,
participants whose employment status was adjunct have never
utilized Wikis, have rarely utilized Wikis, and have often util-
ized Wikis for instructional purposes. Participants whose em-
ployment status was adjunct and tied for the count of those who
sometimes utilized Wikis; and participants whose employment
status was adjunct, assistant professor, associate professor, and
professor tied for the count of those who very often utilized
Wikis for instructional purposes. Figure 24 shows the impact
of employment status on the level of YouTube utilization at
faculty members’ respective university.
Figure 23.
Crosstabulation—Wiki utilization for instructional purposes by em-
ployment status.
Figure 24.
Crosstabulation—YouTube utilization for instructional purposes by
employment status.
Reviewing the results with highest count indicates overall,
participants whose employment status was adjunct have never
utilized YouTube, have rarely utilized YouTube, have some-
times utilized YouTube, and have very often utilized YouTube
for instructional purposes. Participants whose employment status
was assistant professor often utilized YouTube for instructional
purposes.
Section 3 of the survey included 19 questions that asked the
faculty members, by using a scale of strongly disagree to
strongly agree, to identify which statements most closely matches
their agreement with each statement. Survey Question 22 asked
the participants if using Web 2.0 technologies improve the
quality of teaching. Table 24 shows the results.
The majority of the faculty members (82 or 46.3%) felt neu-
tral about the utilization of Web 2.0 technologies improving the
quality of teaching, while 65 or 36.7% of the faculty members
agreed that using Web 2.0 technologies improves the quality of
teaching. Of the 177 participants, 12 or 6.8% of the faculty
members strongly agreed that using Web 2.0 technologies im-
proves the quality of teaching. Survey Question 23 asked the
participants if using Web 2.0 technologies enhances student’s
experience. The results of this question are in Table 25.
The majority of the faculty members (81 or 45.8%) agreed
that using Web 2.0 technologies enhances student’s experiences,
while 65 or 36.7% of the faculty members remained neutral. Of
the 177 participants, 15 or 8.5% of the faculty members strongly
agreed that using Web 2.0 technologies enhances student’s
experience, and 11 or 6.2% disagreed with the statement. Sur-
vey Question 24 asked the participants if learning to use Web
2.0 technologies was easy for them. The results of this question
can be found in Table 26.
Table 24.
Frequency table—using Web 2.0 technologies improves the quality of
teaching.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly
Disagree 7 .6 4.0 Valid
Disagree 11 .9 6.2
Neutral 82 6.8 46.3
Agree 65 5.4 36.7
Strongly
Agree 12 1.0 6.8
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
MissingSystem 1030 85.3 Missing
Total 1207 100.0
Table 25.
Frequency table—using Web 2.0 technologies enhances student’s ex-
periences in the classroom.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly
Disagree 5 .4 2.8 2.8
Disagree 11 .9 6.2 9.0
Neutral 65 5.4 36.7 45.8
Agree 81 6.7 45.8 91.5
Strongly
Agree 15 1.2 8.5 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0

S. A. ZELICK
70
Table 26.
Frequency table—learning to use Web 2.0 technologies is easy for me.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly
Disagree 5 .4 2.8 2.8
Disagree 17 1.4 9.6 12.4
Neutral 70 5.8 39.5 52.0
Agree 67 5.6 37.9 89.8
Strongly
Agree 18 1.5 10.2 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
The majority of the faculty members (70 or 39.5%) remained
neutral while 67 or 37.9% of the faculty agreed that learning to
use Web 2.0 technologies is easy for them. Of the 177 partici-
pants, 18 or 10.2% strongly agreed that learning to use Web 2.0
technologies is easy for them, 17 or 9.6% disagreed and 5 or
2.8% strongly disagreed with the statement. Survey Question
25 asked the participants if learning to use Web 2.0 technolo-
gies is beneficial to them as a faculty member in higher educa-
tion. The results of this question can be found in Table 27.
The majority of the faculty members (83 or 46.9%) agreed
that learning to use Web 2.0 technologies is beneficial to them
as a faculty member in higher education and 55 or 31.1% re-
mained neutral. Of the 177 participants, 26 or 14.7% strongly
agreed that learning to use Web 2.0 technologies is beneficial to
them as a faculty member in higher education and the minority
either disagreed (8 or 4.5%) or strongly disagreed (5 or 2.8%)
that learning to use Web 2.0 technologies is beneficial to them
as a faculty member in higher education. Survey Question 26
asked the participants if their students expected them to use
Web 2.0 technology for instruction. The results of this question
can be found in Table 28.
The majority of the faculty members (77 or 43.5%) remained
neutral and 46 or 26% of the faculty agreed that their students
expected them to use Web 2.0 technology for instruction. Of
the 177 participants, 30 or 16.9% disagreed and 12 or 6.8%
both strongly disagreed and strongly agreed that their students
expected them to us Web 2.0 technology for instruction. Survey
Question 27 asked the participants to rate their level of agree-
ment to the following statement: There are no differences in
what I taught utilizing Web 2.0 technologies versus the tradi-
tional classroom method. The results of this question can be
found in Table 29.
The majority of the faculty members (65 or 36.7%) disagreed
while 57 or 32.2% of the faculty members remained neutral
regarding the statement. While 28 or 15.8% of the faculty
members agreed and 10 or 5.6% of the faculty members strongly
agreed that there were no differences in what they taught util-
izing Web 2.0 technologies versus the traditional classroom
method, 17 or 9.6% of the faculty strongly disagreed with the
statement. Survey Question 28 asked the participants if infusing
Web 2.0 technologies within their course content was a re-
quirement for them. The results of this question can be found in
Table 30.
The majority of the faculty members (54 or 30.5%) disagreed
while 51 or 28.8% of the faculty members remained neutral
regarding the statement. While 37 or 20.9% of the faculty
Table 27.
Frequency table—learning to use Web 2.0 technologies is beneficial to
me as a faculty member in higher education.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly Disagree5 .4 2.8 2.8
Disagree 8 .7 4.5 7.3
Neutral 55 4.6 31.1 38.4
Agree 83 6.9 46.9 85.3
Strongly Agree26 2.2 14.7 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
MissingSystem 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Table 28.
Frequency table—my students expect me to use Web 2.0 technologies
for instruction.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly
Disagree 12 1.0 6.8 6.8
Disagree 30 2.5 16.9 23.7
Neutral 77 6.4 43.5 67.2
Agree 46 3.8 26.0 93.2
Strongly
Agree 12 1.0 6.8 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Table 29.
Frequency table—there are no differences in what I taught utilizing
Web 2.0 technologies versus the traditional classroom method.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly
Disagree 17 1.4 9.6 9.6
Disagree 65 5.4 36.7 46.3
Neutral 57 4.7 32.2 78.5
Agree 28 2.3 15.8 94.4
Strongly
Agree 10 .8 5.6 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
MissingSystem 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Table 30.
Frequency table—infusing Web 2.0 technologies within my course
content is a requirement for me.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly
Disagree 28 2.3 15.8 15.8
Disagree 54 4.5 30.5 46.3
Neutral 51 4.2 28.8 75.1
Agree 37 3.1 20.9 96.0
Strongly
Agree 7 .6 4.0 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
MissingSystem 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0

S. A. ZELICK
members agreed and 7 or .6% of the faculty members strongly
agreed that infusing Web 2.0 technologies within their course
content is a requirement for them, 28 or 15.8% of the faculty
strongly disagreed with the statement. Survey Question 29 asked
the participants if there are many faculty development opportu-
nities available to learn how to use these Web 2.0 technologies.
The results of this question can be found in Table 31.
The majority of the faculty members (63 or 35.6%) agreed
that there are many faculty development opportunities available
to learn how to use these Web 2.0 technologies while 63 or
35.6% of the faculty members agreed with the statement and 55
or 31.1% of the faculty members remained neutral regarding
the statement. Of the 177 participants, 35 or 19.8% disagreed
and 11 or 6.2% strongly disagreed that there are many faculty
development opportunities available to learn to use these Web
2.0 technologies. Survey Question 30 asked the participants if
there are many faculty development programs available while
they are on campus that they can sign up for to learn how to
create course content utilizing Web 2.0 technologies. The re-
sults of this question can be found in Table 32.
The majority of the faculty members (59 or 33.3%) agreed
that there are many faculty development programs available
while they are on campus that they can sign up for to learn how
to create course content utilizing Web 2.0 technologies and 55
or 31.1% remained neutral. While 38 or 21.5% of the faculty
members disagreed with the statement and 14 or 7.9% of the
faculty strongly disagreed with the statement, 11 or 6.2% of the
faculty strongly agreed that there are many faculty development
programs available while they are on campus that they can sign
up for to learn how to create course content utilizing Web 2.0
technologies. Survey Question 31 asked the participants if the
faculty development programs available on campus are based
on varied proficiency levels, from beginner to expert. The re-
sults of this question can be found in Table 33.
While the majority of the faculty members (72 or 40.7%)
remained neutral, 63 or 35.6% of the faculty agreed and 11 or
6.2% strongly agreed that the faculty development programs
available on campus are based on varied proficiency levels. Out
of 177 participants, 23 or 13.0% disagreed and 8 or 4.5% strongly
disagreed that the faculty development programs available on
campus are based on varied proficiency levels. Survey Question
32 asked the participants if the faculty development opportuni-
ties on campus are effective. The results of this question can be
found in Table 34.
The majority of the faculty members (72 or 40.7%) agreed
that the faculty development opportunities on campus are effec-
tive, while 68 or 38.4% remained neutral. Of the 177 partici-
pants, 11 or 6.2% strongly agreed with the statement, 22 or
12.4% disagreed and 4 or 2.3% strongly disagreed that the fac-
ulty development opportunities on campus are effective. Survey
Question 33 asked the participants if they find it difficult to find
the time to attend faculty development programs. The results of
this question can be found in Table 35.
The majority of the faculty members (78 or 44.1%) agreed
that they find it difficult to attend faculty development pro-
grams, while 47 or 26.6% remained neutral. Of the 177 partici-
pants, 24 or 13.6% both strongly agreed and disagreed with the
statement, while 4 or 2.3% strongly disagreed that they find it
difficult to attend faculty development programs. Survey Ques-
tion 34 asked the participants if they find it difficult to keep up
with technology because it is constantly changing. The results
of this question can be found in Table 36.
Table 31.
Frequency table—there are many faculty development opportunities
available to learn how to use these Web 2.0 technologies.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly
Disagree 11 .9 6.2 6.2
Disagree 35 2.9 19.8 26.0
Neutral 55 4.6 31.1 57.1
Agree 63 5.2 35.6 92.7
Strongly
Agree 13 1.1 7.3 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Table 32.
Frequency table—there are many faculty development programs avail-
able while I am on campus that I can sign up for to learn how to create
course content utilizing Web 2.0 technologies.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly
Disagree 14 1.2 7.9 7.9
Disagree 38 3.1 21.5 29.4
Neutral 55 4.6 31.1 60.5
Agree 59 4.9 33.3 93.8
Strongly
Agree 11 .9 6.2 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Table 33.
Frequency table—faculty development programs available on campus
are based on varied proficiency levels, from beginner to expert.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly
Disagree 8 .7 4.5 4.5
Disagree 23 1.9 13.0 17.5
Neutral 72 6.0 40.7 58.2
Agree 63 5.2 35.6 93.8
Strongly
Agree 11 .9 6.2 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Table 34.
Frequency table—the faculty development opportunities on campus are
effective.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly
Disagree 4 .3 2.3 2.3
Disagree 22 1.8 12.4 14.7
Neutral 68 5.6 38.4 53.1
Agree 72 6.0 40.7 93.8
Strongly
Agree 11 .9 6.2 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0

S. A. ZELICK
72
Table 35.
Frequency table—I find it difficult to find the time to attend faculty
development programs.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly
Disagree 4 .3 2.3 2.3
Disagree 24 2.0 13.6 15.8
Neutral 47 3.9 26.6 42.4
Agree 78 6.5 44.1 86.4
Strongly
Agree 24 2.0 13.6 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Table 36.
Frequency table—I find it difficult to keep up with technology because
it is constantly changing.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly
Disagree 16 1.3 9.0 9.0
Disagree 38 3.1 21.5 30.5
Neutral 52 4.3 29.4 59.9
Agree 62 5.1 35.0 94.9
Strongly
Agree 9 .7 5.1 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
The majority of the faculty members (62 or 35.0%) agreed
that they find it difficult to keep up with technology because it
is constantly changing, while 52 or 29.4% remained neutral. Of
the 177 participants, 38 or 21.5% disagreed with the statement,
while 16 or 9.0% strongly disagreed and 9 or 5.1% strongly
agreed that they find it difficult to keep up with technology
because it is constantly changing. Survey Question 35 asked the
participants if there is adequate computer access in most class-
rooms they teach in. The results of this question can be found in
Table 37.
The majority of the faculty members (72 or 40.7%) agreed
that there is adequate computer access in most classrooms they
teach in. Of the 177 participants, 37 or 20.9% strongly agreed
that there is adequate computer access in most classrooms they
teach in, while 35 or 19.8% remained neutral, 23 or 13.0%
disagreed and 10 or 5.6% strongly disagreed that there is ade-
quate computer access in most classrooms they teach in. Survey
Question 36 asked the participants if students are far more ad-
vanced in technology than they were. The results of this ques-
tion can be found in Table 38.
The majority of the faculty members (63 or 35.6%) agreed
that students are far more advanced in technology than they
were, while 48 or 27.1% remained neutral about the statement.
Of the 177 participants, 31 or 17.5% disagreed and 14 or 7.9%
strongly disagreed that students are far more advanced in tech-
nology than they were. Survey Question 37 asked the partici-
pants if it took them a long time to learn how to use Web 2.0
technologies. The results of this question can be found in Table
39.
The majority of the faculty members (59 or 33.3%) disagreed
Table 37.
Frequency table—there is adequate computer access in most class-
rooms I teach in.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly
Disagree 10 .8 5.6 5.6
Disagree 23 1.9 13.0 18.6
Neutral 35 2.9 19.8 38.4
Agree 72 6.0 40.7 79.1
Strongly
Agree 37 3.1 20.9 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
MissingSystem 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Table 38.
Frequency table—students are far more advanced in technology than I
am.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly
Disagree 14 1.2 7.9 7.9
Disagree 31 2.6 17.5 25.4
Neutral 48 4.0 27.1 52.5
Agree 63 5.2 35.6 88.1
Strongly
Agree 21 1.7 11.9 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Table 39.
Frequency table—it takes me a long time to learn how to use Web 2.0
technologies.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly
Disagree 22 1.8 12.4 12.4
Disagree 59 4.9 33.3 45.8
Neutral 53 4.4 29.9 75.7
Agree 38 3.1 21.5 97.2
Strongly
Agree 5 .4 2.8 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
that it takes them a long time to learn how to use Web 2.0
technologies, while 53 or 29.9% remained neutral. Of the 177
participants, 38 or 21.5% agreed, 22 or 12.4% strongly dis-
agreed, and 5 or 2.8% strongly agreed that it takes them a long
time to learn how to use Web 2.0 technologies. Survey Ques-
tion 38 asked the participants if there are many incentive or
reward programs available to faculty who attend faculty devel-
opment programs on campus. The results of this question can
be found in Table 40.
The majority of the faculty members (59 or 33.3%) disagreed
that there were many incentive or reward programs available to
faculty who attend faculty development programs on campus,
while 57 or 32.2% remained neutral. Of the 177 participants, 38
or 21.5% strongly disagreed, 16 or 9.0% agreed, and 7 or 4.0%

S. A. ZELICK
strongly agreed that there are many incentives or reward pro-
grams available to faculty who attend faculty development pro-
grams on campus. Survey Question 39 asked the participants if
teaching courses utilizing Web 2.0 technologies provides more
flexibility than with traditional face-to-face method. The results
of this question can be found in Table 41.
The majority of the faculty members (69 or 39.0%) agreed
that teaching courses utilizing Web 2.0 technologies provides
more flexibility than with the traditional face-to-face method,
while 65 or 36.7% remained neutral. Of the 177 participants, 18
or 10.2% disagreed, 15 or 8.5% strongly agreed, and 10 or 5.6%
strongly disagreed that teaching courses utilizing Web 2.0 tech-
nologies provides more flexibility than with traditional face-to-
face method. Survey Question 40 asked the participants if they
were self-motivated. The results of this question can be found
in Table 42.
Table 40.
Frequency table—there are many incentives or reward programs avail-
able to faculty who attend faculty development programs on campus.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly
Disagree 38 3.1 21.5 21.5
Disagree 59 4.9 33.3 54.8
Neutral 57 4.7 32.2 87.0
Agree 16 1.3 9.0 96.0
Strongly
Agree 7 .6 4.0 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Table 41.
Frequency table—teaching courses utilizing Web 2.0 technologies pro-
vides more flexibility than with traditional face-to-face method.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly
Disagree 10 .8 5.6 5.6
Disagree 18 1.5 10.2 15.8
Neutral 65 5.4 36.7 52.5
Agree 69 5.7 39.0 91.5
Strongly
Agree 15 1.2 8.5 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
Table 42.
Frequency table—I am self-motivated.
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Strongly
Disagree 3 .2 1.7 1.7
Disagree 5 .4 2.8 4.5
Neutral 22 1.8 12.4 16.9
Agree 86 7.1 48.6 65.5
Strongly
Agree 61 5.1 34.5 100.0
Valid
Total 177 14.7 100.0
Missing System 1030 85.3
Total 1207 100.0
The majority of the faculty members (86 or 48.6%) agreed
that they were self-motivated and 61 or 34.5% strongly agreed
that they were self-motivated. Of the 177 participants, 22 or
12.4% remained neutral, 5 or 2.8% disagreed, and 3 or 1.7%
strongly disagree that they were self-motivated.
Research Questions
The research study had one primary research question and
six secondary research question. The hypotheses statements that
support the primary and secondary research questions were:
The primary research question for this study was:
To what extent do faculty members teaching college courses
utilizing Web 2.0 technologies perceive that this method is a
practical alternative to the traditional classroom method?
The supporting hypothesis statements for the primary re-
search question were:
H10 = There is no relationship between faculty members’
perception of teaching college courses utilizing Web 2.0 tech-
nologies versus the traditional classroom method.
H11 = There is a relationship between faculty members’ per-
ception of teaching college courses utilizing Web 2.0 technolo-
gies versus the traditional classroom method.
The survey questions related to this research question were
the following:
 Survey Question 6: Do you teach undergraduate or graduate
courses?
 Survey Question 7: Do you teach traditional face-to-face,
hybrid, or online courses?
 Survey Question 22: Using Web 2.0 technologies improves
the quality of my teaching.
 Survey Question 23: Using Web 2.0 technologies enhances
the student’s experiences in the classroom.
 Survey Question 27: There are no differences in what I
taught utilizing Web 2.0 technologies versus the traditional
classroom method.
 Survey Question 39: Teaching courses utilizing Web 2.0
technologies provides more flexibility than with the tradi-
tional face-to-face method.
A non-parametric Chi-squared test was completed to deter-
mine the extent to which faculty members perception of teach-
ing college courses utilizing Web 2.0 technologies as a practical
alternative to the traditional classroom method differ from the
neutral point. Chi-square tests are used to evaluate whether or
not differences between the observed and expected frequencies
are due to chance alone or to something more than simple er-
rors. The results of the chi-square test can be found in Table
43.
As indicated in Table 43, the minimum expected cell fre-
quencies are significantly less than the chi-square values and
the two-sided observed significance level on the Chi-Square
(Asymp. Sig) are less than the customary .05 the null hypothe-
sis is rejected. A Non-Parametric Chi-Square Hypothesis Test
Summary was conducted also test the decision. The results can
be found in Table 44.
The results in Table 44 confirm the rejection of the null hy-
pothesis. There was a significant difference between faculty
members’ perception of teaching college courses utilizing Web
2.0 technologies versus the traditional classroom method. There-
fore, the alternate hypothesis is accepted: there is a relationship
between faculty members’ perception of teaching college courses
utilizing Web 2.0 technologies versus the traditional classroom

S. A. ZELICK
74
Table 43.
Non-parametric chi-square test statistics.
6. Do you teach
undergraduate or
graduate courses?
7. Do you teach
traditional face-to-face,
hybrid, or online
courses?
22. Using Web 2.0
technologies improves
the quality of my
teaching
23. Using Web 2.0
technologies enhances
the student’s
experiences in the
classroom
27. There are no
differences in what I
taught utilizing Web 2.0
technologies versus the
traditional classroom
method
39. Teaching courses
utilizing Web 2.0
technologies provides
more flexibility t) han
with the traditional
face-to-face method
Chi-Square 83.932a 153.554b 141.164c 138.169c 67.266c 95.175c
Df 2 3 4 4 4 4
Asymp. Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Note. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 59.0; Note. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The
minimum expected cell frequency is 44.3; Note. 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 35.4.
Table 44.
Non-parametric chi-square hypothesis test summary.
Null Hypothesis Test Sig Decision
The categories of Teaching courses utilizing Web 2.0 technologies provides more flexibility
than with the traditional face-to-face method occur with equal probabilities. One-Sample Chi-Square Test .000 Reject the null hypothesis.
The categories of There are no differences in what I taught utilizing Web 2.0 technologies
versus the traditional classroom occur with equal probabilities. One-Sample Chi-Square Test .000 Reject the null hypothesis.
The categories of Using Web 2.0 technologies improves the quality my teaching occur with
equal probabilities. One-Sample Chi-Square Test .000 Reject the null hypothesis.
The categories of Using Web 2.0 technologies enhances the student’s experiences in the
classroom occur with equal probabilities. One-Sample Chi-Square Test .000 Reject the null hypothesis.
The categories of Do you teach undergraduate or graduate courses occur with equal
probabilities. One-Sample Chi-Square Test .000 Reject the null hypothesis.
The categories of Do you teach traditional face-to-face, hybrid, or online course? occur with
equal probabilities. One-Sample Chi-Square Test .000 Reject the null hypothesis.
Note. Asymptotic significance are displayed. The significance level is .05.
method.
The second research question for this study was:
To what extent do faculty members perceive that there is an
adequate level of development programs available to create
their course content utilizing Web 2.0 technologies?
The supporting hypothesis statements for the second research
question were:
H20 = There is no relationship between faculty members’
perception of the level of development programs and the crea-
tion of course content utilizing Web 2.0 technologies.
H21 = There is a relationship between faculty members’ per-
ception of the level of development programs and the creation
of course content utilizing Web 2.0 technologies.
The survey questions related to this research question were
the following:
 Survey Question 12: Specifically to the Web 2.0 technolo-
gies that your University offers, how technically proficient
do you consider yourself to be?
 Survey Question 29: There are many faculty development
opportunities available to learn how to use these Web 2.0
technologies.
 Survey Question 30: There are many faculty development
programs available while I am on campus that I can sign up
for to learn how to create course content utilizing Web 2.0
technologies.
 Survey Question 31: The faculty development programs
available on campus are based on varied proficiency levels,
from beginner to expert.
To test these hypotheses, a One Way ANOVA was con-
ducted on the survey questions related to faculty development
programs based on gender was conducted. The results can be
found in Table 45.
As Table 45 indicates, the p-values (Sig.) are .764, .224, .083,
and .104 respectively. When the p-value is less than the com-
monly accepted .05 value, we reject the null hypothesis. In this
case all of the p-values are greater than .05. That said, the null
hypothesis is not rejected. There was no significant different
between faculty members’ perception based on gender of the
level of development programs and the creation of course con-
tent utilizing Web 2.0 technologies. Therefore, the null hypo-
thesis is accepted. There is no relationship between faculty
members’ perception of the level of development programs and
the creation of course content utilizing Web 2.0 technologies.
An additional One Way ANOVA was conducted on the sur-
vey questions related to faculty development programs based
on age was conducted. The results can be seen in Table 46.
As Table 46 indicates, the p-values (Sig.) are .024, .053, .086,
and .732 respectively. When the p-value is less than the com-
monly accepted .05 value, we reject the null hypothesis. In this
case all of the p-values are greater than .05 except for one. That
said, we do not reject the null hypothesis. There was no sig-
nificant difference between faculty members’ perception based
on age of the level of development programs and the creation of
course content utilizing Web 2.0 technologies. Therefore, the
null hypothesis is accepted. There is no relationship between
faculty members’ perception of the level of development pro-
grams and the creation of course content utilizing Web 2.0
technologies.
A third One Way ANOVA was conducted on the survey
questions related to faculty development programs based on
employment status was conducted. The results can be seen in
Table 47.

S. A. ZELICK
Table 45.
One way ANOVA test based on gender.
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups.123 1 .123 .090.764
Within Groups238.431 175 1.362
12. Specifically to the Web 2.0 technologies that your University offers, how
technically proficient do you consider yourself to be?
Total 238.554 176
Between Groups1.589 1 1.589 1.490.224
Within Groups186.625 175 1.066
29. There are many faculty development opportunities available to learn how to use
these Web 2.0 technologies
Total 188.215 176
Between Groups3.352 1 3.352 3.049.083
Within Groups192.377 175 1.099
30. There are many faculty development programs available while I am on campus
that I can sign up for to learn how to create course content utilizing Web 2.0
technologies Total 195.729 176
Between Groups2.253 1 2.253 2.668.104
Within Groups147.792 175 .845
31. The faculty development programs available on campus are based on varied
proficiency levels, from beginner to expert
Total 150.045 176
Table 46.
One way ANOVA test based on age.
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups17.255 5 3.451 2.667.024
Within Groups221.298 171 1.294
12. Specifically to the Web 2.0 technologies that your University offers, how
technically proficient do you consider yourself to be?
Total 238.554 176
Between Groups11.552 5 2.310 2.236.053
Within Groups176.663 171 1.033
29. There are many faculty development opportunities available to learn how to use
these Web 2.0 technologies
Total 188.215 176
Between Groups10.628 5 2.126 1.964.086
Within Groups185.101 171 1.082
30. There are many faculty development programs available while I am on campus
that I can sign up for to learn how to create course content utilizing Web 2.0
technologies Total 195.729 176
Between Groups2.408 5 .482 .558.732
Within Groups147.637 171 .863
31. The faculty development programs available on campus are based on varied
proficiency levels, from beginner to expert
Total 150.045 176
Table 47.
One way ANOVA test based on employment status.
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups13.460 6 2.243 1.694.125
Within Groups225.093 170 1.324
12. Specifically to the Web 2.0 technologies that your University offers, how
technically proficient do you consider yourself to be?
Total 238.554 176
Between Groups3.335 6 .556 .511.799
Within Groups184.880 170 1.088
29. There are many faculty development opportunities available to learn how to use
these Web 2.0 technologies
Total 188.215 176
Between Groups3.798 6 .633 .561.761
Within Groups191.931 170 1.129
30. There are many faculty development programs available while I am on campus
that I can sign up for to learn how to create course content utilizing Web 2.0
technologies Total 195.729 176
Between Groups6.200 6 1.033 1.221.298
Within Groups143.845 170 .846
31. The faculty development programs available on campus are based on varied
proficiency levels, from beginner to expert
Total 150.045 176
Table 47 indicates that the p-values (Sig.) are .125, .799, .761,
and .298 respectively. When the p-value is less than the com-
monly accepted .05 value, we reject the null hypothesis. In this
case all of the p-values are greater than .05. That said, we do
not reject the null hypothesis. There was no significant differ-
ence between faculty members’ perception based on employ-
ment status of the level of development programs and the crea-
tion of course content utilizing Web 2.0 technologies. Therefore,
the null hypothesis is accepted. There is no relationship be-
tween faculty members’ perception of the level of development
programs and the creation of course content utilizing Web 2.0
technologies.
The third research question was:
To what extent do faculty members perceive that the faculty
development programs affecting technology integration are ef-
fective?
The supporting hypothesis statements for the third research
question were:

S. A. ZELICK
76
H30 = There is no relationship between faculty members’
perception of development programs affecting technology inte-
gration and their effectiveness.
H31 = There is a relationship between faculty members’ per-
ception of development programs affecting technology integra-
tion and their effectiveness.
The survey questions related to this research question were
the following:
 Survey Question 14: Blogs;
 Survey Question 15: Facebook;
 Survey Question 16: Podcast;
 Survey Question 17: Second Life;
 Survey Question 18: Skype;
 Survey Question 19: Twitter;
 Survey Question 20: Wiki;
 Survey Question 21: YouTube;
 Survey Question 32: The faculty development opportunities
on campus are effective.
To test these hypotheses, a One Way ANOVA of the Web
2.0 technologies survey questions based on gender was con-
ducted. The results can be seen in Table 48.
As Table 48 indicates, the p-values (Sig.) are .809, .819, .991,
.163, .857, .935, .848, .005, and .089 respectively. When the
p-value is less than the commonly accepted .05 value, we reject
the null hypothesis. In this case all of the p-values are greater
than .05 except for one. That said, the null hypothesis is not
rejected. There was no significant difference between faculty
members’ perception based on gender of development pro-
grams affecting technology and their effectiveness. Therefore,
the null hypothesis is accepted. There is no relationship be-
tween faculty members’ perception of development programs
affecting technology integration and their effectiveness.
An additional One Way ANOVA of the Web 2.0 technolo-
gies survey questions based on employment status was con-
ducted. The results can be seen in Table 49.
As Table 49 indicates, the p-values (Sig.) are .088, .151, .259,
.081, .039, .002, .249, .077, and .366 respectively. When the
p-value is less than the commonly accepted .05 value, the null
hypothesis is not rejected. In this case all of the p-values are
greater than .05 except for two. That said, the null hypothesis is
not rejected. There was no significant difference between fac-
ulty members’ perception based on employment status of de-
velopment programs affecting technology integration and their
effectiveness. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. There
is no relationship between faculty members’ perception of de-
velopment programs affecting technology integration and their
effectiveness.
The fourth research question was:
To what extent do faculty members perceive that the impact
of the barriers affecting technology integration is hindering
their ability to utilize Web 2.0 technologies?
The supporting hypothesis statements for the fourth research
question were:
H40 = There is no relationship between faculty members’
perception of the impact of the barriers affecting technology
integration and the faculty members’ ability to utilize Web 2.0
Table 48.
One way ANOVA test based on gender.
Sum of Squaresdf Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups .078 1 .078 .059 .809
Within Groups 231.662 175 1.324 14. Blogs
Total 231.740 176
Between Groups .088 1 .088 .052 .819
Within Groups 294.228 175 1.681
15. Facebook
Total 294.316 176
Between Groups .000 1 .000 .000 .991
Within Groups 233.977 175 1.337 16. Podcast
Total 233.977 176
Between Groups 1.089 1 1.089 1.966.163
Within Groups 96.889 175 .554 17. Second Life
Total 97.977 176
Between Groups .039 1 .039 .032 .857
Within Groups 208.922 175 1.194 18. Skype
Total 208.960 176
Between Groups .006 1 .006 .007 .935
Within Groups 164.005 175 .937 19. Twitter
Total 164.011 176
Between Groups .044 1 .044 .037 .848
Within Groups 208.465 175 1.191 20. Wiki
Total 208.508 176
Between Groups 8.844 1 8.844 8.203.005
Within Groups 188.681 175 1.078 21. YouTube
Total 197.525 176
Between Groups 2.147 1 2.147 2.919.089
Within Groups 128.712 175 .735 32. The faculty development opportunities on campus are effective
Total 130.859 176

S. A. ZELICK
Table 49.
One way ANOVA test based on employment status.
Sum of Squaresdf Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 14.366 6 2.394 1.872.088
Within Groups 217.374 170 1.279 14. Blogs
Total 231.740 176
Between Groups 15.708 6 2.618 1.597.151
Within Groups 278.608 170 1.639 15. Facebook
Total 294.316 176
Between Groups 10.275 6 1.712 1.301.259
Within Groups 223.702 170 1.316
16. Podcast
Total 233.977 176
Between Groups 6.202 6 1.034 1.915.081
Within Groups 91.776 170 .540 17. Second Life
Total 97.977 176
Between Groups 15.534 6 2.589 2.275.039
Within Groups 193.427 170 1.138 18. Skype
Total 208.960 176
Between Groups 18.581 6 3.097 3.620.002
Within Groups 145.430 170 .855 19. Twitter
Total 164.011 176
Between Groups 9.314 6 1.552 1.325.249
Within Groups 199.194 170 1.172 20. Wiki
Total 208.508 176
Between Groups 12.673 6 2.112 1.943.077
Within Groups 184.852 170 1.087 21. YouTube
Total 197.525 176
Between Groups 4.879 6 .813 1.097.366
Within Groups 125.979 170 .741 32. The faculty development opportunities on campus are effective
Total 130.859 176
technologies.
H41 = There is a relationship between faculty members’ per-
ception of the impact of the barriers affecting technology inte-
gration and the faculty members’ ability to utilize Web 2.0
technologies.
The survey questions related to this research question were
the following:
 Survey Question 8: Do you prefer to teach traditional face-
to-face, hybrid, or online courses?
 Survey Question 9: Do you have a personal (home) com-
puter?
 Survey Question 10: do you have a computer issued from
the University?
 Survey Question 11: In general, how technically proficient
do you consider yourself to be?
 Survey Question 13: In general, I learn best by.
 Survey Question 24: Learning to use Web 2.0 technologies
is easy for me.
 Survey Question 25: Learning to use Web 2.0 technologies
is beneficial to me as a faculty member in higher education.
 Survey Question 26: My students expect me to use Web 2.0
technology for instruction.
 Survey Question 28: Infusing Web 2.0 technologies within
my course content is a requirement for me.
 Survey Question 33: I find it difficult to find the time to
attend faculty development programs.
 Survey Question 34: I find it difficult to keep up with tech-
nology because it is constantly changing.
 Survey Question 35: There is adequate computer access in
most classrooms I teach in.
 Survey Question 36: Students are far more advanced in
technology than I am.
 Survey Question 37: It takes me a long time to learn how to
use Web 2.0 technologies.
 Survey Question 38: There are many incentives or reward
programs available to faulty who attend faculty develop-
ment programs on campus.
 Survey Question 40: I am self-motivated.
To test these hypotheses, a One Way ANOVA of survey
questions relating to barriers based on gender. The results can
be found in Table 50.
As Table 50 indicates, the p-values (Sig.) are .092, .520, .887,
.464, .599, .170, .000, .073, .099, .998, .444, .581, .508, .152,
.892, and .117 respectively. When the p-value is less than the
commonly accepted .05 value, we reject the null hypothesis. In
this case all of the p-values are greater than .05 except for one.
That said, the null hypothesis is not rejected. There was no
significant difference between faculty members’ perception based
on gender of the impact of the barriers affecting technology
integration and the faculty members’ ability to utilize Web 2.0
technologies. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. There
is no relationship between faculty members’ perception of the
impact of the barriers affecting technology integration and the
faculty members’ ability to utilize Web 2.0 technologies.
An additional One Way ANOVA of survey questions relat-
ing to barriers based age was also conducted. The results can be

S. A. ZELICK
78
Table 50.
One way ANOVA test based on gender.
Sum of Squaresdf Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups3.561 1 3.561 2.873.092
Within Groups216.958 175 1.240
8. Do you prefer to teach traditional face-to-face, hybrid, or online courses?
Total 220.520 176
Between Groups.012 1 .012 .416.520
Within Groups4.847 175 .028 9. Do you have a personal (home) computer?
Total 4.859 176
Between Groups.005 1 .005 .020.887
Within Groups44.006 175 .251 10. Do you have a computer issued from the University?
Total 44.011 176
Between Groups.624 1 .624 .539.464
Within Groups202.878 175 1.159 11. In general, how technically proficient do you consider yourself to be?
Total 203.503 176
Between Groups.249 1 .249 .278.599
Within Groups156.712 175 .895 13. In general, I learn best by
Total 156.960 176
Between Groups1.538 1 1.538 1.898.170
Within Groups141.829 175 .810 24. Learning to use Web 2.0 technologies is easy for me
Total 143.367 176
Between Groups13.616 1 13.616 19.209.000
Within Groups124.045 175 .709
25. Learning to use Web 2.0 technologies is beneficial to me as a faculty member in
higher education
Total 137.661 176
Between Groups3.104 1 3.104 3.244.073
Within Groups167.449 175 .957 26. My students expect me to use Web 2.0 technology for instruction
Total 170.554 176
Between Groups3.278 1 3.278 2.757.099
Within Groups208.056 175 1.189 28. Infusing Web 2.0 technologies within my course content is a requirement for me
Total 211.333 176
Between Groups.000 1 .000 .000.998
Within Groups164.079 175 .938 33. I find it difficult to find the time to attend faculty development programs
Total 164.079 176
Between Groups.670 1 .670 .590.444
Within Groups198.765 175 1.136 34. I find it difficult to keep up with technology because it is constantly changing
Total 199.435 176
Between Groups.389 1 .389 .306.581
Within Groups222.673 175 1.272 35. There is adequate computer access in most classrooms I teach in
Total 223.062 176
Between Groups.558 1 .558 .441.508
Within Groups221.488 175 1.266 36. Students are far more advanced in technology than I am
Total 222.045 176
Between Groups2.200 1 2.200 2.073.152
Within Groups185.710 175 1.061 37. It takes me a long time to learn how to use Web 2.0 technologies
Total 187.910 176
Between Groups.021 1 .021 .019.892
Within Groups192.691 175 1.101
38. There are many incentives or reward programs available to faculty who attend
faculty development programs on campus
Total 192.712 176
Between Groups1.782 1 1.782 2.476.117
Within Groups125.958 175 .720 40. I am self-motivated
Total 127.740 176
found in Table 51.
As Table 51 indicates, the p-values (Sig.) are .527, .209, .185,
.295, .293, .011, .027, .111, .114, .750, .187, .007, .012, .430,
.091, and .010 respectively. When the p-value is less than the
commonly accepted .05 value, we reject the null hypothesis. In
this case all of the p-values are greater than .05 except for five.
That said, the null hypothesis is not rejected. There was no
significant difference between faculty members’ perception based
on age of the impact of the barriers affecting technology inte-
gration and the faculty members’ ability to utilize Web 2.0

S. A. ZELICK
Table 51.
One way ANOVA test based on age.
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups5.255 5 1.051 .835.527
Within Groups215.265 171 1.259
8. Do you prefer to teach traditional face-to-face, hybrid, or online courses?
Total 220.520 176
Between Groups.197 5 .039 1.449.209
Within Groups4.661 171 .027 9. Do you have a personal (home) computer?
Total 4.859 176
Between Groups1.876 5 .375 1.523.185
Within Groups42.135 171 .246 10. Do you have a computer issued from the University?
Total 44.011 176
Between Groups7.088 5 1.418 1.234.295
Within Groups196.414 171 1.149 11. In general, how technically proficient do you consider yourself to be?
Total 203.503 176
Between Groups5.488 5 1.098 1.239.293
Within Groups151.472 171 .886 13. In general, I learn best by
Total 156.960 176
Between Groups11.764 5 2.353 3.057.011
Within Groups131.603 171 .770 24. Learning to use Web 2.0 technologies is easy for me
Total 143.367 176
Between Groups9.705 5 1.941 2.594.027
Within Groups127.956 171 .748
25. Learning to use Web 2.0 technologies is beneficial to me as a faculty member in
higher education
Total 137.661 176
Between Groups8.626 5 1.725 1.822.111
Within Groups161.927 171 .947 26. My students expect me to use Web 2.0 technology for instruction
Total 170.554 176
Between Groups10.616 5 2.123 1.809.114
Within Groups200.717 171 1.174 28. Infusing Web 2.0 technologies within my course content is a requirement for me
Total 211.333 176
Between Groups2.525 5 .505 .534.750
Within Groups161.554 171 .945 33. I find it difficult to find the time to attend faculty development programs
Total 164.079 176
Between Groups8.468 5 1.694 1.517.187
Within Groups190.967 171 1.117 34. I find it difficult to keep up with technology because it is constantly changing
Total 199.435 176
Between Groups19.724 5 3.945 3.317.007
Within Groups203.338 171 1.189 35. There is adequate computer access in most classrooms I teach in
Total 223.062 176
Between Groups17.986 5 3.597 3.014.012
Within Groups204.060 171 1.193 36. Students are far more advanced in technology than I am
Total 222.045 176
Between Groups5.251 5 1.050 .983.430
Within Groups182.658 171 1.068 37. It takes me a long time to learn how to use Web 2.0 technologies
Total 187.910 176
Between Groups10.314 5 2.063 1.934.091
Within Groups182.398 171 1.067
38. There are many incentives or reward programs available to faculty who attend
faculty development programs on campus
Total 192.712 176
Between Groups10.729 5 2.146 3.136.010
Within Groups117.011 171 .684 40. I am self-motivated
Total 127.740 176
technologies. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted. There
is no relationship between faculty members’ perception of the
impact of the barriers affecting technology integration and the
faculty members’ ability to utilize Web 2.0 technologies.
A third One Way ANOVA of survey questions relating to
barriers based on employment status was also conducted. The
results can be seen in Table 52.
Table 52 reflects the majority of the p-values being greater
than .05. That said, we do not reject the null hypothesis. There
was no significant difference between faculty members’ per-

S. A. ZELICK
80
Table 52.
One way ANOVA test based on employment status.
Sum of Squaresdf Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups7.047 6 1.174 .935.471
Within Groups213.473 170 1.256 8. Do you prefer to teach traditional face-to-face, hybrid, or online courses?
Total 220.520 176
Between Groups.972 6 .162 7.088.000
Within Groups3.886 170 .023 9. Do you have a personal (home) computer?
Total 4.859 176
Between Groups12.068 6 2.011 10.705.000
Within Groups31.943 170 .188 10. Do you have a computer issued from the University?
Total 44.011 176
Between Groups3.332 6 .555 .472.829
Within Groups200.171 170 1.177 11. In general, how technically proficient do you consider yourself to be?
Total 203.503 176
Between Groups2.374 6 .396 .435.855
Within Groups154.587 170 .909 13. In general, I learn best by
Total 156.960 176
Between Groups4.527 6 .755 .924.479
Within Groups138.840 170 .817 24. Learning to use Web 2.0 technologies is easy for me
Total 143.367 176
Between Groups5.646 6 .941 1.212.303
Within Groups132.015 170 .777
25. Learning to use Web 2.0 technologies is beneficial to me as a faculty member in
higher education
Total 137.661 176
Between Groups4.631 6 .772 .791.578
Within Groups165.922 170 .976 26. My students expect me to use Web 2.0 technology for instruction
Total 170.554 176
Between Groups6.001 6 1.000 .828.550
Within Groups205.333 170 1.208 28. Infusing Web 2.0 technologies within my course content is a requirement for me
Total 211.333 176
Between Groups11.977 6 1.996 2.231.042
Within Groups152.102 170 .895 33. I find it difficult to find the time to attend faculty development programs
Total 164.079 176
Between Groups6.446 6 1.074 .946.463
Within Groups192.989 170 1.135 34. I find it difficult to keep up with technology because it is constantly changing
Total 199.435 176
Between Groups6.773 6 1.129 .887.506
Within Groups216.289 170 1.272
35. There is adequate computer access in most classrooms I teach in
Total 223.062 176
Between Groups3.087 6 .514 .399.879
Within Groups218.958 170 1.288 36. Students are far more advanced in technology than I am
Total 222.045 176
Between Groups10.932 6 1.822 1.750.112
Within Groups176.977 170 1.041 37. It takes me a long time to learn how to use Web 2.0 technologies
Total 187.910 176
Between Groups3.936 6 .656 .591.737
Within Groups188.775 170 1.110
38. There are many incentives or reward programs available to faculty who attend
faculty development programs on campus
Total 192.712 176
Between Groups2.825 6 .471 .641.698
Within Groups124.916 170 .735 40. I am self-motivated
Total 127.740 176
ception based on employment status of the impact of the barri-
ers affecting technology integration and the faculty members’
ability to utilize Web 2.0 technologies. Therefore, the null hy-
pothesis is accepted. There is no relationship between faculty
members’ perception of the impact of the barriers affecting
technology integration and the faculty members’ ability to util-
ize Web 2.0 technologies.
The fifth research question was:
Is there a difference in male and female faculty members’
perceptions regarding their use of Web 2.0 technologies in their

S. A. ZELICK
courses?
The supporting hypothesis statements for the fifth research
question were:
H50 = There is no relationship between faculty members’
gender and perception regarding their use of Web 2.0 technolo-
gies in their courses.
H51 = There is a relationship between faculty members’
gender and perception regarding their use of Web 2.0 technolo-
gies in their courses.
The survey questions related to this research question were
the following:
 Survey Question 1: Please select your gender.
 Survey Question 22: Using Web 2.0 technologies improves
the quality of my teaching.
 Survey Question 23: Using Web 2.0 technologies enhances
the student’s experiences in the classroom.
 Survey Question 25: Learning to use Web 2.0 technologies
is beneficial to me as a faculty member in higher education.
 Survey Question 26: My students expect me to use Web 2.0
technology for instruction.
 Survey Question 27: There are no differences in what I
taught utilizing Web 2.0 technologies versus the traditional
classroom method.
 Survey Question 39: Teaching courses utilizing Web 2.0
technologies provides more flexibility than with the tradi-
tional face-to-face method.
 Survey Question 40: I am self-motivated.
A One Way ANOVA of survey questions relating to percep-
tion regarding their use of Web 2.0 technologies in their courses
based on gender was conducted. The results can be seen in
Table 53.
As Table 53 indicates, the p-values (Sig.) are .002, .000, .073,
.000, .118, .012, and .117 respectively. When the p-value is less
than the commonly accepted .05 value, we reject the null hy-
pothesis. In this case all of the p-values are less than .05 except
for three. That said, the null hypothesis is rejected. There was a
significant difference between faculty members’ gender and
perception regarding their use of Web 2.0 technologies in their
courses. Therefore, the alternate hypothesis is accepted. There
is a relationship between faculty members’ gender and percep-
tion regarding their use of Web 2.0 technologies in their
courses.
The sixth research question was:
Is there a difference in faculty members’ perceptions regard-
ing their use of Web 2.0 technologies in their courses respective
to their age?
The supporting hypothesis statements for the sixth research
question were:
H60 = There is no relationship between faculty members’ age
and perception regarding their use of Web 2.0 technologies in
their courses.
H61 = There is a relationship between faculty members’ age
and perception regarding their use of Web 2.0 technologies in
their courses.
The survey questions related to this research question were
the following:
 Survey Question 2: Which category below includes your
age.
 Survey Question 22: Using Web 2.0 technologies improves
the quality of my teaching.
 Survey Question 23: Using Web 2.0 technologies enhances
the student’s experiences in the classroom.
 Survey Question 25: Learning to use Web 2.0 technologies
is beneficial to me as a faculty member in higher education.
 Survey Question 26: My students expect me to use Web 2.0
technology for instruction.
Table 53.
One way ANOVA test based on gender.
Sum of Squaresdf Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups7.141 1 7.141 10.267.002
Within Groups121.718 175 .696 22. Using Web 2.0 technologies improves the quality of my teaching
Total 128.859 176
Between Groups10.831 1 10.831 16.424.000
Within Groups115.406 175 .659 23. Using Web 2.0 technologies enhances the student's experiences in the classroom
Total 126.237 176
Between Groups3.104 1 3.104 3.244.073
Within Groups167.449 175 .957 26. My students expect me to use Web 2.0 technology for instruction
Total 170.554 176
Between Groups13.616 1 13.616 19.209.000
Within Groups124.045 175 .709
25. Learning to use Web 2.0 technologies is beneficial to me as a faculty member in
higher education
Total 137.661 176
Between Groups2.587 1 2.587 2.464.118
Within Groups183.718 175 1.050
27. There are no differences in what I taught utilizing Web 2.0 technologies versus
the traditional classroom method
Total 186.305 176
Between Groups5.889 1 5.889 6.438.012
Within Groups160.088 175 .915
39. Teaching courses utilizing Web 2.0 technologies provides more flexibility than
with the traditional face-to-face method
Total 165.977 176
Between Groups1.782 1 1.782 2.476.117
Within Groups125.958 175 .720 40. I am self-motivated
Total 127.740 176

S. A. ZELICK
82
 Survey Question 27: There are no differences in what I
taught utilizing Web 2.0 technologies versus the traditional
classroom method.
 Survey Question 39: Teaching courses utilizing Web 2.0
technologies provides more flexibility than with the tradi-
tional face-to-face method.
 Survey Question 40: I am self-motivated.
A One Way ANOVA of survey questions relating to percep-
tion regarding their use of Web 2.0 technologies in their
courses based on age was conducted. The results can be seen in
Table 54.
As Table 54 indicates, the p-values (Sig.) are .001, .008, .111,
.027, .026, .100, and .010 respectively. When the p-value is less
than the commonly accepted .05 value, we reject the null hy-
pothesis. In this case all of the p-values are less than .05 except
for two. That said, the null hypothesis is rejected. There was a
significant difference between faculty members’ age and per-
ception regarding their use of Web 2.0 technologies in their
courses. Therefore, the alternate hypothesis is accepted. There
is a relationship between faculty members’ age and perception
regarding their use of Web 2.0 technologies in their courses. A
Bonferroni multiple comparison test was conducted on age to
see which pairs were significantly different. The results of the
test can be seen in Table 55.
Table 55 revealed that there are a few pairs of means that are
significantly different from each other.
Faculty members who were in the age range of 30 - 39 be-
lieved that using Web 2.0 technologies improves the quality of
their teaching significantly more than those faculty members
who were in the age range of 50 - 59 and 60 - 69. Those faculty
members who were in the age range of 30 - 39 believed that
using Web 2.0 technologies enhances the student’s experiences
in the classroom significantly more than the faculty members
who were in the age range of 50 - 59. The faculty members who
were in the age range of 30 - 39 believed that learning to use
Web 2.0 technologies is beneficial to them as a faculty member
in higher education significantly more than those faculty mem-
bers who were in the age range of 60 - 69. Faculty members
who were in the age range of 20 - 29 believed that there are no
differences in what they taught utilizing Web 2.0 technologies
versus the traditional classroom method significantly more than
the faculty member who were in the age ranges of 60 - 69 and
70+. Faculty members who were in the age range of 60 - 69
believe that they are self-motivated significantly more than the
faculty members who were in the age range of 20 - 29.
The seventh research question was:
Is there a difference in faculty members’ perceptions regard-
ing their use of Web 2.0 technologies in their courses respective
to their employment status?
The supporting hypothesis statements for the seventh re-
search question were:
H70 = There is no relationship between faculty members’
status and perception regarding their use of Web 2.0 technolo-
gies in their courses.
H71 = There is a relationship between faculty members’
status and perception regarding their use of Web 2.0 technolo-
gies in their courses.
The survey questions related to this research question were
the following:
 Survey Question 3: Please select the number of years you
have been teaching in higher education.
 Survey Question 4: Please select the number of years you
have been teaching at your University.
 Survey Question 5: Please select your current employment
status within the University.
 Survey Question 22: Using Web 2.0 technologies improves
the quality of my teaching.
 Survey Question 23: Using Web 2.0 technologies enhances
the student’s experiences in the classroom.
 Survey Question 25: Learning to use Web 2.0 technologies
is beneficial to me as a faculty member in higher education.
 Survey Question 26: My students expect me to use Web 2.0
technology for instruction.
 Survey Question 27: There are no differences in what I
taught utilizing Web 2.0 technologies versus the traditional
classroom method.
Table 54.
One way ANOVA test based on age.
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups14.757 5 2.951 4.423.001
Within Groups114.102 171 .667 22. Using Web 2.0 technologies improves the quality of my teaching
Total 128.859 176
Between Groups10.939 5 2.188 3.245.008
Within Groups115.298 171 .674 23. Using Web 2.0 technologies enhances the student's experiences in the classroom
Total 126.237 176
Between Groups8.626 5 1.725 1.822.111
Within Groups161.927 171 .947 26. My students expect me to use Web 2.0 technology for instruction
Total 170.554 176
Between Groups9.705 5 1.941 2.594.027
Within Groups127.956 171 .748
25. Learning to use Web 2.0 technologies is beneficial to me as a faculty member in
higher education Total 137.661 176
Between Groups13.284 5 2.657 2.626.026
Within Groups173.021 171 1.012
27. There are no differences in what I taught utilizing Web 2.0 technologies versus
the traditional classroom method Total 186.305 176
Between Groups8.656 5 1.731 1.882.100
Within Groups157.322 171 .920
39. Teaching courses utilizing Web 2.0 technologies provides more flexibility than
with the traditional face-to-face method Total 165.977 176
Between Groups10.729 5 2.146 3.136.010
Within Groups117.011 171 .684 40. I am self-motivated
Total 127.740 176

S. A. ZELICK
Table 55.
Bonferroni multiple comparison on age.
95% Confidence Interval
Dependent Variable (I) Which category below
includes your age?
(J) Which category below
includes your age?
Mean Difference
(I-J) Std. ErrorSig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
30 - 39 −.61250 .23712 .159 −1.3183 .0933
40 - 49 −.31250 .25530 1.000 −1.0725 .4475
50 - 59 .09861 .23712 1.000 −.6072 .8045
60 - 69 .04044 .24697 1.000 −.6947 .7756
20 - 29
70+ −.01250 .32839 1.000 −.9900 .9650
20 - 29 .61250 .23712 .159 −.0933 1.3183
40 - 49 .30000 .19608 1.000 −.2837 .8837
50 - 59 .71111* .17174 .001 .1999 1.2223
60 - 69 .65294* .18511 .008 .1019 1.2040
30 - 39
70+ .60000 .28480 .549 −.2478 1.4478
20 - 29 .31250 .25530 1.000 −.4475 1.0725
30 - 39 −.30000 .19608 1.000 −.8837 .2837
50 - 59 .41111 .19608 .562 −.1726 .9948
60 - 69 .35294 .20790 1.000 −.2659 .9718
40 - 49
70+ .30000 .30011 1.000 −.5934 1.1934
20 - 29 −.09861 .23712 1.000 −.8045 .6072
30 - 39 −.71111* .17174 .001 −1.2223 −.1999
40 - 49 −.41111 .19608 .562 −.9948 .1726
60 - 69 −.05817 .18511 1.000 −.6092 .4929
50 - 59
70+ −.11111 .28480 1.000 −.9589 .7367
20 - 29 −.04044 .24697 1.000 −.7756 .6947
30 - 39 −.65294* .18511 .008 −1.2040 −.1019
40 - 49 −.35294 .20790 1.000 −.9718 .2659
50 - 59 .05817 .18511 1.000 −.4929 .6092
60 - 69
70+ −.05294 .29306 1.000 −.9253 .8194
20 - 29 .01250 .32839 1.000 −.9650 .9900
30 - 39 −.60000 .28480 .549 −1.4478 .2478
40 - 49 −.30000 .30011 1.000 −1.1934 .5934
50 - 59 .11111 .28480 1.000 −.7367 .9589
22. Using Web 2.0 technologies
improves the quality of my
teaching
70+
60 - 69 .05294 .29306 1.000 −.8194 .9253
30 - 39 −.49167 .23842 .610 −1.2014 .2180
40 - 49 −.30357 .25670 1.000 −1.0677 .4606
50 - 59 .10833 .23842 1.000 −.6014 .8180
60 - 69 .05147 .24833 1.000 −.6877 .7907
20 - 29
70+ .07500 .33019 1.000 −.9079 1.0579
20 - 29 .49167 .23842 .610 −.2180 1.2014
40 - 49 .18810 .19716 1.000 −.3988 .7750
50 - 59 .60000* .17268 .010 .0860 1.1140
60 - 69 .54314 .18612 .060 −.0109 1.0972
30 - 39
70+ .56667 .28636 .741 −.2858 1.4191
20 - 29 .30357 .25670 1.000 −.4606 1.0677
30 - 39 −.18810 .19716 1.000 −.7750 .3988
50 - 59 .41190 .19716 .572 −.1750 .9988
60 - 69 .35504 .20903 1.000 −.2672 .9773
40 - 49
70+ .37857 .30175 1.000 −.5197 1.2768
20 - 29 −.10833 .23842 1.000 −.8180 .6014
30 - 39 −.60000* .17268 .010 −1.1140 −.0860
40 - 49 −.41190 .19716 .572 −.9988 .1750
60 - 69 −.05686 .18612 1.000 −.6109 .4972
23. Using Web 2.0 technologies
enhances the student’s
experiences in the classroom
50 - 59
70+ −.03333 .28636 1.000 −.8858 .8191

S. A. ZELICK
84
Continued
20 - 29 −.05147 .24833 1.000 −.7907 .6877
30 - 39 −.54314 .18612 .060 −1.0972 .0109
40 - 49 −.35504 .20903 1.000 −.9773 .2672
50 - 59 .05686 .18612 1.000 −.4972 .6109
60 - 69
70+ .02353 .29466 1.000 −.8536 .9007
20 - 29 −.07500 .33019 1.000 −1.0579 .9079
30 - 39 −.56667 .28636 .741 −1.4191 .2858
40 - 49 −.37857 .30175 1.000 −1.2768 .5197
50 - 59 .03333 .28636 1.000 −.8191 .8858
70+
60 - 69 −.02353 .29466 1.000 −.9007 .8536
30 - 39 −.43750 .25110 1.000 −1.1850 .3100
40 - 49 −.18750 .27035 1.000 −.9923 .6173
50 - 59 −.01528 .25110 1.000 −.7627 .7322
60 - 69 .15074 .26153 1.000 −.6278 .9293
20 - 29
70+ .36250 .34775 1.000 −.6727 1.3977
20 - 29 .43750 .25110 1.000 −.3100 1.1850
40 - 49 .25000 .20764 1.000 −.3681 .8681
50 - 59 .42222 .18187 .321 −.1191 .9636
60 - 69 .58824* .19602 .046 .0047 1.1718
30 - 39
70+ .80000 .30159 .131 −.0978 1.6978
20 - 29 .18750 .27035 1.000 −.6173 .9923
30 - 39 −.25000 .20764 1.000 −.8681 .3681
50 - 59 .17222 .20764 1.000 −.4459 .7903
60 - 69 .33824 .22015 1.000 −.3171 .9936
40 - 49
70+ .55000 .31780 1.000 −.3960 1.4960
20 - 29 .01528 .25110 1.000 −.7322 .7627
30 - 39 −.42222 .18187 .321 −.9636 .1191
40 - 49 −.17222 .20764 1.000 −.7903 .4459
60 - 69 .16601 .19602 1.000 −.4175 .7495
50 - 59
70+ .37778 .30159 1.000 −.5200 1.2755
20 - 29 −.15074 .26153 1.000 −.9293 .6278
30 - 39 −.58824* .19602 .046 −1.1718 −.0047
40 - 49 −.33824 .22015 1.000 −.9936 .3171
50 - 59 −.16601 .19602 1.000 −.7495 .4175
60 - 69
70+ .21176 .31033 1.000 −.7120 1.1356
20 - 29 −.36250 .34775 1.000 −1.3977 .6727
30 - 39 −.80000 .30159 .131 −1.6978 .0978
40 - 49 −.55000 .31780 1.000 −1.4960 .3960
50 - 59 −.37778 .30159 1.000 −1.2755 .5200
25. Learning to use Web 2.0
technologies is beneficial to me
as a faculty member in higher
education
70+
60 - 69 −.21176 .31033 1.000 −1.1356 .7120
30 - 39 −.50694 .28242 1.000 −1.3476 .3337
40 - 49 −.16964 .30408 1.000 −1.0748 .7355
50 - 59 .07083 .28242 1.000 −.7699 .9115
60 - 69 −.06250 .29416 1.000 −.9381 .8131
20 - 29
70+ −.06250 .39113 1.000 −1.2268 1.1018
20 - 29 .50694 .28242 1.000 −.3337 1.3476
40 - 49 .33730 .23355 1.000 −.3579 1.0325
50 - 59 .57778 .20455 .079 −.0311 1.1867
60 - 69 .44444 .22048 .681 −.2119 1.1008
30 - 39
70+ .44444 .33921 1.000 −.5653 1.4542
20 - 29 .16964 .30408 1.000 −.7355 1.0748
30 - 39 −.33730 .23355 1.000 −1.0325 .3579
50 - 59 .24048 .23355 1.000 −.4547 .9357
60 - 69 .10714 .24761 1.000 −.6299 .8442
26. My students expect me to
use Web 2.0 technology for
instruction
40 - 49
70+ .10714 .35744 1.000 −.9569 1.1712

S. A. ZELICK
Continued
20 - 29 −.07083 .28242 1.000 −.9115 .7699
30 - 39 −.57778 .20455 .079 −1.1867 .0311
40 - 49 −.24048 .23355 1.000 −.9357 .4547
60 - 69 −.13333 .22048 1.000 −.7896 .5230
50 - 59
70+ −.13333 .33921 1.000 −1.1431 .8764
20 - 29 .06250 .29416 1.000 −.8131 .9381
30 - 39 −.44444 .22048 .681 −1.1008 .2119
40 - 49 −.10714 .24761 1.000 −.8442 .6299
50 - 59 .13333 .22048 1.000 −.5230 .7896
60 - 69
70+ .00000 .34905 1.000 −1.0390 1.0390
20 - 29 .06250 .39113 1.000 −1.1018 1.2268
30 - 39 −.44444 .33921 1.000 −1.4542 .5653
40 - 49 −.10714 .35744 1.000 −1.1712 .9569
50 - 59 .13333 .33921 1.000 −.8764 1.1431
70+
60 - 69 .00000 .34905 1.000 −1.0390 1.0390
30 - 39 .70417 .29279 .259 −.1675 1.5758
40 - 49 .68750 .31524 .458 −.2510 1.6260
50 - 59 .74861 .29279 .171 −.1230 1.6202
60 - 69 .93750* .30496 .037 .0296 1.8454
20 - 29
70+ 1.32639* .41912 .028 .0787 2.5741
20 - 29 −.70417 .29279 .259 −1.5758 .1675
40 - 49 −.01667 .24212 1.000 −.7375 .7041
50 - 59 .04444 .21206 1.000 −.5869 .6757
60 - 69 .23333 .22857 1.000 −.4471 .9138
30 - 39
70+ .62222 .36730 1.000 −.4712 1.7157
20 - 29 −.68750 .31524 .458 −1.6260 .2510
30 - 39 .01667 .24212 1.000 −.7041 .7375
50 - 59 .06111 .24212 1.000 −.6597 .7819
60 - 69 .25000 .25670 1.000 −.5142 1.0142
40 - 49
70+ .63889 .38544 1.000 −.5086 1.7863
20 - 29 −.74861 .29279 .171 −1.6202 .1230
30 - 39 −.04444 .21206 1.000 −.6757 .5869
40 - 49 −.06111 .24212 1.000 −.7819 .6597
60 - 69 .18889 .22857 1.000 −.4916 .8693
50 - 59
70+ .57778 .36730 1.000 −.5157 1.6712
20 - 29 −.93750* .30496 .037 −1.8454 −.0296
30 - 39 −.23333 .22857 1.000 −.9138 .4471
40 - 49 −.25000 .25670 1.000 −1.0142 .5142
50 - 59 −.18889 .22857 1.000 −.8693 .4916
60 - 69
70+ .38889 .37707 1.000 −.7337 1.5114
20 - 29 −1.32639* .41912 .028 −2.5741 −.0787
30 - 39 −.62222 .36730 1.000 −1.7157 .4712
40 - 49 −.63889 .38544 1.000 −1.7863 .5086
50 - 59 −.57778 .36730 1.000 −1.6712 .5157
27. There are no differences in
what I taught utilizing Web 2.0
technologies versus the
traditional classroom method
70+
60 - 69 −.38889 .37707 1.000 −1.5114 .7337
30 - 39 −.50000 .24078 .590 −1.2168 .2168
40 - 49 −.64286 .25924 .212 −1.4146 .1289
50 - 59 −.63333 .24078 .140 −1.3501 .0835
60 - 69 −.94118* .25078 .004 −1.6878 −.1946
20 - 29
70+ −.83333 .34467 .250 −1.8594 .1928
20 - 29 .50000 .24078 .590 −.2168 1.2168
40 - 49 −.14286 .19911 1.000 −.7356 .4499
50 - 59 −.13333 .17439 1.000 −.6525 .3858
60 - 69 −.44118 .18797 .301 −1.0008 .1184
40. I am self-motivated
30 - 39
70+ −.33333 .30205 1.000 −1.2325 .5659

S. A. ZELICK
86
Continued
20 - 29 .64286 .25924 .212 −.1289 1.4146
30 - 39 .14286 .19911 1.000 −.4499 .7356
50 - 59 .00952 .19911 1.000 −.5832 .6023
60 - 69 −.29832 .21110 1.000 −.9268 .3301
40 - 49
70+ −.19048 .31697 1.000 −1.1341 .7531
20 - 29 .63333 .24078 .140 −.0835 1.3501
30 - 39 .13333 .17439 1.000 −.3858 .6525
40 - 49 −.00952 .19911 1.000 −.6023 .5832
60 - 69 −.30784 .18797 1.000 −.8674 .2517
50 - 59
70+ −.20000 .30205 1.000 −1.0992 .6992
20 - 29 .94118* .25078 .004 .1946 1.6878
30 - 39 .44118 .18797 .301 −.1184 1.0008
40 - 49 .29832 .21110 1.000 −.3301 .9268
50 - 59 .30784 .18797 1.000 −.2517 .8674
60 - 69
70+ .10784 .31009 1.000 −.8153 1.0310
20 - 29 .83333 .34467 .250 −.1928 1.8594
30 - 39 .33333 .30205 1.000 −.5659 1.2325
40 - 49 .19048 .31697 1.000 −.7531 1.1341
50 - 59 .20000 .30205 1.000 −.6992 1.0992
70+
60 - 69 −.10784 .31009 1.000 −1.0310 .8153
Note. *The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
 Survey Question 40: I am self-motivated.
A One Way ANOVA of survey questions relating to percep-
tion regarding their use of Web 2.0 technologies in their courses
based on number of years teaching in higher education was
conducted. The results can be seen in Table 56.
As Table 56 indicates, the p-values (Sig.) are .013, .004, .037,
.531, .659, and .549 respectively. When the p-value is less than
the commonly accepted .05 value, we reject the null hypothesis.
In this case all of the p-values are greater than .05. That said,
the null hypothesis is not rejected. There was no significant
difference between faculty members’ number of years teaching
in higher education and perception regarding their use of Web
2.0 technologies in their courses. Therefore, the null hypothesis
is accepted. There is no relationship between faculty members’
status and perception regarding their use of Web 2.0 technolo-
gies in their courses.
An additional One Way ANOVA of survey questions relat-
ing to perception regarding their use of Web 2.0 technologies in
their courses based on number of years teaching at their univer-
sity was conducted. The results can be seen in Table 57.
As Table 57 indicates, the p-values (Sig.) are .231, .304, .397,
.982, .838, and .077 respectively. When the p-value is less than
the commonly accepted .05 value, the null hypothesis is re-
jected. In this case all of the p-values are greater than .05. That
said, we do not reject the null hypothesis. There was no sig-
nificant difference between faculty members’ number of years
teaching at their university and perception regarding their use
of Web 2.0 technologies in their courses. Therefore, the null
hypothesis is accepted. There is no relationship between faculty
members’ status and perception regarding their use of Web 2.0
technologies in their courses.
A third One Way ANOVA of survey questions relating to
perception regarding their use of Web 2.0 technologies in their
courses based on employment status was conducted. The results
can be seen in Table 58.
As Table 58 indicates, the p-values (Sig.) are .101, .879, .578,
.303, .407, .681, and .698 respectively. When the p-value is less
than the commonly accepted .05 value, we reject the null hy-
pothesis. In this case all of the p-values are greater than .05.
That said, the null hypothesis is not rejected. There was no
significant difference between faculty members’ employment
status and perception regarding their use of Web 2.0 technolo-
gies in their courses. Therefore, the null hypothesis is accepted.
There is no relationship between faculty members’ status and
perception regarding their use of Web 2.0 technologies in their
courses.
A Bonferroni multiple comparison test was conducted on
number of years teaching in higher education to see which pairs
were significantly different. The test can be seen in Table 59.
Table 59 revealed that there are a few pairs of means that are
significantly different from each other. Faculty members who
have been teaching in higher education for 1 - 5 years believed
that using Web 2.0 technologies improves the quality of their
teaching significantly more than those faculty members who
have been teaching in higher education for 21+ years. Those
faculty members who worked in higher education for 1 - 5
years believed that using Web 2.0 technologies enhances the
student’s experiences in the classroom significantly more than
the faculty members who have taught in higher education for 11
- 15 years and those faculty members who have taught in higher
education 21+ years. The faculty members who have taught in
higher education for 6 - 10 years believed that learning to use
Web 2.0 technologies is beneficial to them as a faculty member
in higher education significantly more than those faculty mem-
bers who have taught in higher education for 21+ years.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to examine faculty members’
perception of Web 2.0 technologies on teaching and learning in
higher education compared to traditional classroom teaching
methods in programs at a higher education institutions to estab-
lish if relationships prevail in their delivery of courses through
the use of Web 2.0 technologies compared with traditional

S. A. ZELICK
Table 56.
One way ANOVA test based on years teaching in higher education.
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups9.094 4 2.274 3.281.013
Within Groups119.894 173 .693 22. Using Web 2.0 technologies improves the quality of my teaching
Total 128.989 177
Between Groups10.641 4 2.660 3.972.004
Within Groups115.854 173 .670 23. Using Web 2.0 technologies enhances the student's experiences in the classroom
Total 126.494 177
Between Groups7.856 4 1.964 2.609.037
Within Groups130.239 173 .753
25. Learning to use Web 2.0 technologies is beneficial to me as a faculty member in
higher education
Total 138.096 177
Between Groups3.074 4 .769 .794.531
Within Groups167.487 173 .968 26. My students expect me to use Web 2.0 technology for instruction
Total 170.562 177
Between Groups2.591 4 .648 .606.659
Within Groups183.714 172 1.068
27. There are no differences in what I taught utilizing Web 2.0 technologies versus
the traditional classroom method
Total 186.305 176
Between Groups2.232 4 .558 .765.549
Within Groups125.508 172 .730 40. I am self-motivated
Total 127.740 176
Table 57.
One way ANOVA test based on years teaching at your university.
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups4.084 4 1.021 1.414.231
Within Groups124.905 173 .722
22. Using Web 2.0 technologies improves the quality of my teaching
Total 128.989 177
Between Groups3.472 4 .868 1.221.304
Within Groups123.022 173 .711 23. Using Web 2.0 technologies enhances the student's experiences in the classroom
Total 126.494 177
Between Groups3.189 4 .797 1.022.397
Within Groups134.907 173 .780
25. Learning to use Web 2.0 technologies is beneficial to me as a faculty member in
higher education
Total 138.096 177
Between Groups.398 4 .099 .101.982
Within Groups170.164 173 .984 26. My students expect me to use Web 2.0 technology for instruction
Total 170.562 177
Between Groups1.541 4 .385 .359.838
Within Groups184.764 172 1.074
27. There are no differences in what I taught utilizing Web 2.0 technologies versus
the traditional classroom method
Total 186.305 176
Between Groups6.078 4 1.519 2.148.077
Within Groups121.662 172 .707
40. I am self-motivated
Total 127.740 176
classroom delivery of courses; their overall satisfaction; the
level of faculty development programs available; and their per-
ceived effectiveness and impact of faculty development and
issues and barriers affecting technology integration. This study
also examined the influence of gender, age, and employment
status on faculty members’ perceptions of Web 2.0 technolo-
gies on teaching and learning in higher education compared to
traditional classroom teaching methods.
With technology continuing to expand at a rapid rate and be-
ing ever changing (Rockart, Earl, & Ross, 1996), trying to con-
stantly be on the cutting edge of technology in higher education
is an interesting paradigm. “In some schools, the Internet and
other technologies are being integrated at the institutional level;
with a student’s complete academic experience—from applica-
tion through registration and tuition payment, to final examina-
tion and course grade-occurring on-line” (Gottwald, 2005: p. 2).
The rapidly growing technology infrastructure at institutions of
higher education to meet the instructional and research needs of
faculty, staff, and students (Alsaady, 2007) is making faculty
development with the use of technology a requirement. Be-
tween 2002 and 2006, online learning increased by 21.5% while
the entire higher education student body only increased by 1.5%
(Yates, 2010).
This study investigated faculty members’ perception of Web
2.0 technologies on teaching and learning in higher education
compared to traditional classroom teaching methods. The study
will also examine the effects of gender and age variables on
their adoption of technological approaches to teaching. The

S. A. ZELICK
88
Table 58.
One way ANOVA test based on employment status.
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups7.705 6 1.284 1.802.101
Within Groups121.154 170 .713 22. Using Web 2.0 technologies improves the quality of my teaching
Total 128.859 176
Between Groups1.755 6 .292 .399.879
Within Groups124.483 170 .732 23. Using Web 2.0 technologies enhances the student's experiences in the classroom
Total 126.237 176
Between Groups4.631 6 .772 .791.578
Within Groups165.922 170 .976 25. My students expect me to use Web 2.0 technology for instruction
Total 170.554 176
Between Groups5.646 6 .941 1.212.303
Within Groups132.015 170 .777
26. Learning to use Web 2.0 technologies is beneficial to me as a faculty member in
higher education
Total 137.661 176
Between Groups6.541 6 1.090 1.031.407
Within Groups179.764 170 1.057
27. There are no differences in what I taught utilizing Web 2.0 technologies versus
the traditional classroom method
Total 186.305 176
Between Groups2.825 6 .471 .641.698
Within Groups124.916 170 .735 40. I am self-motivated
Total 127.740 176
problem with advanced technological utilization by faculty in
higher education is that higher education institutions are in-
stalling state of the art technology into classrooms and faculty
members are expected to infuse this technology into their
teaching, but only about 20% of faculty members feel that they
are prepared to comply (Chuang, 2004). Internet usage among
18 - 29 years old college student is at a staggering 93% and
“44% of the nearly 53 million Internet users produce and share
digital content online” (Weyant & Gardner, 2010, p. 68). Not
only are these students ahead of the faculty when it comes to
technical skills and utilization, but the corporations that are
waiting for these students to graduate are expecting familiarity
of Web 2.0 technologies (Weyant & Gardner, 2010).
With technology continuing to expand at a rapid rate and be-
ing ever changing (Rockart et al., 1996), just keeping up with it
can be a daunting task in itself. “In some schools, the Internet
and other technologies are being integrated at the institutional
level; with a student’s complete academic experience—from
application through registration and tuition payment, to final
examination and course grade-occurring on-line” (Gottwald,
2005: p. 2). The rapidly growing technology infrastructure at
institutions of higher education to meet the instructional and
research needs of faculty, staff, and students (Alsaady, 2007) is
making faculty development with the use of technology a re-
quirement. Between 2002 and 2006, online learning increased
by 21.5% while the entire higher education student body only
increased by 1.5% (Yates, 2010). These are pretty alarming
statistics and with Web 3.0 moving fast upon us, institutions of
higher education need to put improving teaching and learning
through the use of Web 2.0 technologies as a priority in their
strategic plans so faculty members can learn not only how to
use Web 2.0 technologies, but how to successfully infuse Web
2.0 technologies into their curriculums to improve learning.
In order for faculty members’ to remain competitive and
sustainable in this digital age, professional development on the
use of technology and how to infuse technology into course
curricula is a requirement. Identifying the aspects of effective-
ness and potential impacts of faculty development will recog-
nize areas of success and failure and will contribute to improv-
ing the content of faculty development (Al-Washahi, 2007).
The results are expected to empower the faculty members to
actively infuse technology into their curriculum and classroom,
thus providing a state of the art experience for the student
community at institutions of higher education.
Discussion of Findings
Of 177 faculty members who participated in this research
study, the majority were male adjunct faculty members in the
age range of either 30 - 39 or 50 - 59 who has been teaching in
higher education for either 1 - 5 years or 21+ years and had
been teaching at their university for 1 - 5 years. In addition, the
majority taught undergraduate course utilizing the traditional
face-to-face teaching method and more surprisingly, traditional
face-to-face teaching method was the preferred teaching method.
When asked to rate their technical proficiency level, the major-
ity of the respondents felt they were either somewhat proficient
or proficient; and when the respondents were asked to rate their
technical proficiency level specifically to the Web 2.0 tech-
nologies that their University offers, the majority felt they were
somewhat proficient. Lastly, the majority of the respondents
learn best by doing.
Based on the results from the current level of Web 2.0 tech-
nologies use at their university, adjunct faculty members were
the most to have never utilized all of the Web 2.0 technologies
except for YouTube where the adjunct faculty members some-
times utilized that technology; professors often utilized Blog,
Skype and Twitter; assistant professors often utilized YouTube
and very often utilized Podcast.
Sixty-five or 36.7% of the faculty members agreed that using
Web 2.0 technologies improves the quality of teaching and 81
or 45.8% of the faculty members agreed that using Web 2.0
technologies enhances student’s experiences. Close to 40% of
the participants remained neutral regarding the level of ease to
learn to use Web 2.0 technologies. Almost half of the faculty
members (46.9%) agreed that learning to use Web 2.0 tech-

S. A. ZELICK
Table 59.
Bonferroni multiple comparisons for years teaching in higher education.
95% Confidence Interval
Dependent Variable
(I) Please select the number
of years you have been
teaching in higher education
(J) Please select the number
of years you have been
teaching in higher education
Mean Difference
(I-J) Std. ErrorSig.
Lower BoundUpper Bound
6 - 10 .08238 .18249 1.000 −.4365 .6013
11 - 15 .32298 .19954 1.000 −.2444 .8904
16 - 20 .29051 .21579 1.000 −.3231 .9041
1 - 5
21+ .58597* .17555 .010 .0868 1.0851
1 - 5 −.08238 .18249 1.000 −.6013 .4365
11 - 15 .24060 .20734 1.000 −.3490 .8302
16 - 20 .20813 .22302 1.000 −.4260 .8423
6 - 10
21+ .50359 .18436 .070 −.0206 1.0278
1 - 5 −.32298 .19954 1.000 −.8904 .2444
6 - 10 −.24060 .20734 1.000 −.8302 .3490
16 - 20 −.03247 .23718 1.000 −.7069 .6419
11 - 15
21+ .26299 .20125 1.000 −.3093 .8352
1 - 5 −.29051 .21579 1.000 −.9041 .3231
6 - 10 −.20813 .22302 1.000 −.8423 .4260
11 - 15 .03247 .23718 1.000 −.6419 .7069
16 - 20
21+ .29545 .21738 1.000 −.3226 .9136
1 - 5 −.58597* .17555 .010 −1.0851 −.0868
6 - 10 −.50359 .18436 .070 −1.0278 .0206
11 - 15 −.26299 .20125 1.000 −.8352 .3093
22. Using Web 2.0
technologies improves the
quality of my teaching
21+
16 - 20 −.29545 .21738 1.000 −.9136 .3226
6 - 10 .18192 .17939 1.000 −.3282 .6920
11 - 15 .58230* .19615 .034 .0245 1.1400
16 - 20 −.01186 .21213 1.000 −.6150 .5913
1 - 5
21+ .51087* .17256 .035 .0202 1.0015
1 - 5 −.18192 .17939 1.000 −.6920 .3282
11 - 15 .40038 .20381 .511 −.1792 .9799
16 - 20 −.19378 .21923 1.000 −.8172 .4296
6 - 10
21+ .32895 .18123 .712 −.1864 .8443
1 - 5 −.58230* .19615 .034 −1.1400 −.0245
6 - 10 −.40038 .20381 .511 −.9799 .1792
16 - 20 −.59416 .23315 .117 −1.2571 .0688
11 - 15
21+ −.07143 .19783 1.000 −.6340 .4911
1 - 5 .01186 .21213 1.000 −.5913 .6150
6 - 10 .19378 .21923 1.000 −.4296 .8172
11 - 15 .59416 .23315 .117 −.0688 1.2571
16 - 20
21+ .52273 .21368 .154 −.0849 1.1303
1 - 5 −.51087* .17256 .035 −1.0015 −.0202
6 - 10 −.32895 .18123 .712 −.8443 .1864
11 - 15 .07143 .19783 1.000 −.4911 .6340
23. Using Web 2.0
technologies enhances the
student’s experiences in the
classroom
21+
16 - 20 −.52273 .21368 .154 −1.1303 .0849
6 - 10 −.11670 .19020 1.000 −.6575 .4241
11 - 15 .26863 .20797 1.000 −.3227 .8600
16 - 20 .16798 .22491 1.000 −.4715 .8075
1 - 5
21+ .44071 .18296 .171 −.0795 .9610
1 - 5 .11670 .19020 1.000 −.4241 .6575
11 - 15 .38534 .21610 .763 −.2291 .9998
16 - 20 .28469 .23245 1.000 −.3763 .9456
6 - 10
21+ .55742* .19215 .042 .0110 1.1038
1 - 5 −.26863 .20797 1.000 −.8600 .3227
6 - 10 −.38534 .21610 .763 −.9998 .2291
16 - 20 −.10065 .24720 1.000 −.8035 .6023
25. Learning to use Web 2.0
technologies is beneficial to
me as a faculty member in
higher education
11 - 15
21+ .17208 .20975 1.000 −.4244 .7685

S. A. ZELICK
90
Continued
1 - 5 −.16798 .22491 1.000 −.8075 .4715
6 - 10 −.28469 .23245 1.000 −.9456 .3763
11 - 15 .10065 .24720 1.000 −.6023 .8035
16 - 20
21+ .27273 .22656 1.000 −.3715 .9169
1 - 5 −.44071 .18296 .171 −.9610 .0795
6 - 10 −.55742* .19215 .042 −1.1038 −.0110
11 - 15 −.17208 .20975 1.000 −.7685 .4244
21+
16 - 20 −.27273 .22656 1.000 −.9169 .3715
6 - 10 −.20252 .21569 1.000 −.8158 .4108
11 - 15 −.05590 .23584 1.000 −.7265 .6147
16 - 20 .04150 .25505 1.000 −.6837 .7667
1 - 5
21+ .17787 .20748 1.000 −.4121 .7678
1 - 5 .20252 .21569 1.000 −.4108 .8158
11 - 15 .14662 .24506 1.000 −.5502 .8434
16 - 20 .24402 .26360 1.000 −.5055 .9936
6 - 10
21+ .38038 .21790 .826 −.2392 1.0000
1 - 5 .05590 .23584 1.000 −.6147 .7265
6 - 10 −.14662 .24506 1.000 −.8434 .5502
16 - 20 .09740 .28033 1.000 −.6997 .8945
11 - 15
21+ .23377 .23786 1.000 −.4426 .9101
1 - 5 −.04150 .25505 1.000 −.7667 .6837
6 - 10 −.24402 .26360 1.000 −.9936 .5055
11 - 15 −.09740 .28033 1.000 −.8945 .6997
16 - 20
21+ .13636 .25692 1.000 −.5942 .8669
1 - 5 −.17787 .20748 1.000 −.7678 .4121
6 - 10 −.38038 .21790 .826 −1.0000 .2392
11 - 15 −.23377 .23786 1.000 −.9101 .4426
26. My students expect me
to use Web 2.0 technology
for instruction
21+
16 - 20 −.13636 .25692 1.000 −.8669 .5942
6 - 10 −.22540 .22656 1.000 −.8697 .4189
11 - 15 .14010 .25056 1.000 −.5724 .8526
16 - 20 −.03162 .26790 1.000 −.7934 .7302
1 - 5
21+ .05929 .21793 1.000 −.5604 .6790
1 - 5 .22540 .22656 1.000 −.4189 .8697
11 - 15 .36550 .26013 1.000 −.3742 1.1052
16 - 20 .19378 .27687 1.000 −.5936 .9811
6 - 10
21+ .28469 .22887 1.000 −.3662 .9355
1 - 5 −.14010 .25056 1.000 −.8526 .5724
6 - 10 −.36550 .26013 1.000 −1.1052 .3742
16 - 20 −.17172 .29683 1.000 −1.0158 .6724
11 - 15
21+ −.08081 .25266 1.000 −.7993 .6377
1 - 5 .03162 .26790 1.000 −.7302 .7934
6 - 10 −.19378 .27687 1.000 −.9811 .5936
11 - 15 .17172 .29683 1.000 −.6724 1.0158
16 - 20
21+ .09091 .26986 1.000 −.6765 .8583
1 - 5 −.05929 .21793 1.000 −.6790 .5604
6 - 10 −.28469 .22887 1.000 −.9355 .3662
11 - 15 .08081 .25266 1.000 −.6377 .7993
27. There are no differences
in what I taught utilizing
Web 2.0 technologies
versus the traditional
classroom method
21+
16 - 20 −.09091 .26986 1.000 −.8583 .6765
6 - 10 −.01373 .18726 1.000 −.5462 .5188
11 - 15 .10225 .20710 1.000 −.4867 .6912
16 - 20 −.02569 .22143 1.000 −.6554 .6040
1 - 5
21+ −.23024 .18013 1.000 −.7425 .2820
1 - 5 .01373 .18726 1.000 −.5188 .5462
11 - 15 .11598 .21501 1.000 −.4954 .7274
16 - 20 −.01196 .22885 1.000 −.6627 .6388
40. I am self-motivated
6 - 10
21+ −.21651 .18917 1.000 −.7545 .3214

S. A. ZELICK
Continued
1 - 5 −.10225 .20710 1.000 −.6912 .4867
6 - 10 −.11598 .21501 1.000 −.7274 .4954
16 - 20 −.12795 .24534 1.000 −.8256 .5697
11 - 15
21+ −.33249 .20883 1.000 −.9263 .2614
1 - 5 .02569 .22143 1.000 −.6040 .6554
6 - 10 .01196 .22885 1.000 −.6388 .6627
11 - 15 .12795 .24534 1.000 −.5697 .8256
16 - 20
21+ −.20455 .22305 1.000 −.8388 .4297
1 - 5 .23024 .18013 1.000 −.2820 .7425
6 - 10 .21651 .18917 1.000 −.3214 .7545
11 - 15 .33249 .20883 1.000 −.2614 .9263
21+
16 - 20 .20455 .22305 1.000 −.4297 .8388
Note. *The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
nologies is beneficial to them, however, only 26% of the re-
spondents felt that their students expected them to use Web 2.0
technology for education.
The majority of the respondents felt that there are differences
in what they taught utilizing Web 2.0 technologies versus the
traditional classroom method and infusing Web 2.0 technolo-
gies within their course content was not a requirement for the
majority of the participants. With regards to faculty develop-
ment opportunities, the majority of the participants felt that
there were many faculty development opportunities available to
learn how to use Web 2.0 technologies and felt that there are
many faculty development programs available while they were
on campus. With regards to the varied proficiency levels of the
faculty development programs and the effectiveness of the pro-
grams, the majority of the participants remained neutral. Not
surprisingly, the majority of the participants agreed that they
found it difficult to find the time to attend faculty development
programs. The majority of the participants found it difficult to
keep up with technology because it is constantly changing.
The majority of the participants agreed that students are far
more advanced in technology than they are; however the major-
ity felt that it does not take a long time to learn how to use Web
2.0 technologies. When it comes to incentives or reward pro-
grams, the majority of the participants felt that there were not
many available to faculty who attend development programs on
campus. The majority of the participants agreed that teaching
courses utilizing Web 2.0 technologies provides more flexibil-
ity than with the traditional face-to-face method, and Almost
half (86 or 48.6%) of the faculty participants agree that they are
self-motivated and 61 or 34.5% of the faculty participants
strongly agree that they are self-motivated.
Conclusion
Based on the non-parametric chi-squared test and the one-
way ANOVA tests that were conducted in the previous chapter,
the following conclusions can be made:
 There is a relationship between faculty members’ percep-
tion of teaching college courses utilizing Web 2.0 technolo-
gies versus the traditional classroom method.
 There is no relationship between faculty members’ percep-
tion of the level of development programs and the creation
of course content utilizing Web 2.0 technologies.
 There is no relationship between faculty members’ percep-
tion of development programs affecting technology integra-
tion and their effectiveness.
 There is no relationship between faculty members’ percep-
tion of the impact of the barriers affecting technology inte-
gration and the faculty members’ ability to utilize Web 2.0
technologies.
 There is a relationship between faculty members’ gender
and perception regarding their use of Web 2.0 technologies
in their courses.
 There is a relationship between faculty members’ age and
perception regarding their use of Web 2.0 technologies in
their courses.
 There is no relationship between faculty members’ status
and perception regarding their uses of Web 2.0 technologies
in their courses.
Limitations
This research study was conducted using part time and full
time faculty members teaching at a public university in the
United States. Generalizations to faculty members in other
colleges or universities may not be relevant.
Recommendations for Practice
Based on the conclusions above, recommendations for prac-
tice include having focus groups and lunch-and-learns to openly
discuss the faculty members’ perceptions of teaching college
courses utilizing Web 2.0 technologies versus the traditional
classroom method. In addition, providing one-on-one attention
to the faculty members may help the faculty members work
through their perceptions. Although there is no relationship
between the faculty members’ perception of the level of devel-
opment programs and the creation of course content utilizing
Web 2.0 technologies and no relationship between faculty mem-
bers’ perception of development programs affecting technology
integration and their effectiveness, it would be advantageous
for public universities to determine the requirement level of
infusing Web 2.0 technologies into courses that their university
will follow and then devise specific development programs to
assist the faculty from beginner to expert level with input from
the faculty members. The majority of the participants in this
study agreed that they learn best by doing, so the programs
need to be hands-on in order to be labeled as effective.
As the study found that there is a relationship between fac-
ulty members’ gender and perception regarding their use of
Web 2.0 technologies in their courses, public universities should
create focus groups for males and females to understand the

S. A. ZELICK
92
difference between the male’s perception and the female’s per-
ception. Reviewing the results with highest count indicates
overall, the male faculty members had a higher rate on the lack
of utilization with all Web 2.0 technologies while the female
faculty members had a higher rate of utilization with Blogs,
Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. As the study also found that
there is a relationship between faculty members’ age and per-
ception regarding their use of Web 2.0 technologies in their
courses, the focus groups should also be coordinated by age
groups and the age groups who utilize Web 2.0 technologies
more often should consider running the focus groups for the age
groups who utilize Web 2.0 technologies the least. Reviewing
the results with highest count indicates overall, participants in
the age range of 60 - 69 have never utilized Blogs, Facebook, or
Wiki; participants in the age range of 50 - 59 have never util-
ized Podcast, Second Life, Skype, Twitter or YouTube; par-
ticipants in the age range of 40 - 49 very often utilize Twitter
and Wiki; participants in the age range of 30 - 39 often utilize
Blog, Facebook, Skype, Twitter, and YouTube; participants in
the age range of 20 - 29 often utilize Second Life.
Recommendations for Future Research
The following recommendations are made for future re-
search:
1) Whereas this study only included the faculty members’
current employment status, future studies should develop a
study to include the faculty members’ department to determine
the impact of the faculty members’ academic department on the
perception of Web 2.0 technologies.
2) Whereas this study only included public universities in the
United States, future studies should develop a study to include
all higher education institutions to determine the impact of the
type of institution on the perception of Web 2.0 technologies.
3) Whereas this study included a One-Way Analysis of Vari-
ance (ANOVA), future research should include a Two-Way
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to include two independent
variables for additional statistical analysis.
4) Whereas this study included eight specific Web 2.0 tech-
nologies (Blogs, Facebook, Podcast, Second Life, Skype, Twit-
ter, Wiki, and YouTube), future research should include discus-
sion boards and journals and add course management systems
such as Blackboard, Collaborate, Moodle, Prezi and Wimba as
this was feedback received from the pilot study.
5) Whereas this study included a definition of terms and a
neutral option in the survey, future research should include a
definition of each Web 2.0 technology specified in the survey
as well as an option that says “I don’t know” as this was feed-
back received from the pilot study.
6) Whereas this study included any level of Web 2.0 tech-
nology use, future research should develop a study to compare
a higher education institution that has a requirement to infuse
Web 2.0 technologies within the faculty members’ course con-
tent to one that does not have the requirement.
7) Whereas this study included adjuncts as the majority of
the faculty participants, future research should focus on full
time faculty participants as a comparison of results.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my doctoral mentor and committee
chair, Dr. Don Gottwald, for his ability to push me beyond my
limits and patiently help me along the way when I needed it. I
would also like to thank Dr. Bernard Sharum and Dr. Ram
Misra, who were gracious enough to also be on my doctoral
committee. They were two very inspiring faculty members who,
along with Dr. Gottwald, provided the support to help me suc-
cessfully complete my dissertation. I simply cannot thank them
enough. I was extremely blessed to have such a great commit-
tee.
In addition, I would like to thank to Dr. Yanling Sun, Cui,
Andy-Guoqiang, Dr. Jinxia He, and Pamela Fallivene for their
initial review of the survey and feedback, which helped struc-
ture the pilot survey. I would also like to thank all of the faculty
members who took the time to complete the pilot survey as well
as the main survey. If it weren’t for them, this study would not
be possible.
REFERENCES
Alexander, B. (2008). Web 2.0 and emergent multiliteracies. Theory
into Practice, 47, 150-160. doi:10.1080/00405840801992371
Alsaady, A. (2007). Planning strategy and the use of information tech-
nology in higher education: A comparative analysis of two universi-
ties in Michigan. Doctoral Dissertation, Minneapolis, MN: Capella
University.
Al-Washahi, M. (2007). The perceived effectiveness and impact of edu-
cational technology faculty development activities in the College of
Education at Sultan Qaboos University. Doctoral Dissertation, Ath-
ens, OH: Ohio University.
Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and impli-
cations for education. Bristol, JISC Technology and Standards Wa-
tch.
Baasandorj, D. (2010). Faculty development program needs at Mongo-
lian State Universities: Content and strategies. Doctoral Dissertation,
West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
Baker, R., Harrison, J., Thornton, B., & Yates, R. (2010). Podcasting in
higher education: Does it make a difference? American Journal of
Business Education, 3, 7-10.
Barnatt, C. (2009). Higher education 2.0. International Journal of
Management Educatio n, 7, 47-56. doi:10.3794/ijme
Chuang, H. (2004). Sustainable faculty development: Issues in tech-
nology for teacher education. Doctoral Dissertation, Ames, IA: Iowa
State University.
Cooper, D., & Schindler, P. (2008). Business research methods (10th
ed.). New York, McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance
of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models.
Management Science, 35, 982-1003. doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
Dreher, C., Reiners, T., Dreher, N., & Dreher, H. (2009). Virtual worlds
as a context suited for information systems education: Discussion of
pedagogical experience and curriculum design with reference to se-
cond Life. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20, 211-224.
Facebook (2012). Fact Sheet. Retrieved from
http://newsroom.fb.com/content/default.aspx?NewsAreaId=22
Fillion, G., Limayem, M., Laferrière, T., & Mantha, R. (2006). Inte-
grating ICT into higher education: A study of onsite vs online stu-
dents’ perceptions. Allied Academies International Conference. Aca-
demy of Educational Leadership. Proceedings, 11, 7-10.
Fuller, M. (2011). Social media in higher education: Building mutually
beneficial student and institutional relationships through social me-
dia. Master’s Thesis, Johnson City, TN: East Tennessee State Uni-
versity.
Gilmore, S., & Warren, S. (2007). Emotion online: Experiences of tea-
ching in a virtual learning environment. Human Relations, 60, 581-
604. doi:10.1177/0018726707078351
Gottwald, W. D. (2005). A comparison of student perceptions regard-
ing online courses and traditional courses: A case study. Doctoral

S. A. ZELICK
Dissertation, Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.
Grainger, R., & Tolhurst, D. (2005). Organisational factors affecting
teachers’ use and perception of information & communications tech-
nology. In Proceedings of the 2005 south east asia regional compu-
ter science confederation (Searcc) conference (pp. 13-22), Darling-
hurst, Australian Computer Society, Inc.
Halawi, L., Pires, S., & McCarthy, R. (2009). An evaluation of e-learn-
ing on the basis of bloom’s taxonomy: An exploratory study. Journal
of Education for Business, 84, 374-380.
doi:10.3200/JOEB.84.6.374-380
Harris, A., & Rea, A. (2009). Web 2.0 and virtual world technologies:
A growing impact on is education. Journal of Information Systems
Education, 20, 137-144.
Hazari, S., North, A., & Moreland, D. (2009). Investigating pedagogi-
cal value of wiki technology. Journal of Information Systems Educa-
tion, 20, 187-198.
Hikmet, N., Taylor, E., & Davis, C. (2008). The student productivity
paradox: Technology mediated learning in schools. Communications
of the ACM, 51, 128-131. doi:10.1145/1378727.1389974
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (2008).
NETS for teachers 2008.
http://www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/nets-t-standards.pdf?sfvrsn=2
King, J., Gurbaxani, V., Kraemer, K. L., McFarlan, F., Raman, K. S., &
Yap, C. S. (1994). Institutional factors in information technology in-
novation. Information Systems Research, 5, 139-169.
doi:10.1287/isre.5.2.139
Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (2009). Essentials of Management In-
formation Systems, Eighth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pear-
son Education.
Lee, G. (2010). Second Life as an educational platform for collabora-
tive learning by the millennial generation at a laptop university.
Doctoral Dissertation, Minneapolis, MN: Walden University.
Li, L., & Pitts, J. (2009). Does it really matter? Using virtual office
hours to enhance student-faculty interaction. Journal of Information
Systems Education, 20, 175-185.
Lim, W. M., & Ting, D. H. (2012). E-shopping: An analysis of the
technology acceptance model. Modern Applied Science, 6, 49-62.
doi:10.5539/mas.v6n4p49
McCarthy, J. (2010). Blended learning environments: Using social
networking sites to enhance the first year experience. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 26, 729-740.
Newman, J. (2007). The effects of synchronous voice and video tools on
acceptance of online communications by students in undergraduate
technology courses. Doctoral Dissertation, Reno, NV: University of
Nevada.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2011). FAQ.
http://www.p21.org/overview/p21-faq
Partnerships for 21st Century Skills (2011). Framework for 21st Cen-
tury Learning. Retrieved from
http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/1.__p21_framework_2-pager
.pdf
Partnerships for 21st Century Skills (2011). State Initiatives. Retrieved
from http://www.p21.org/state-initiatives
Rich, M. (2008). Millennial students and technology choices for infor-
mation searching. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods,
6, 73-76.
Rockart, J. F., Earl, M. J., & Ross, J. W. (1996). Eight imperatives for
the new IT organization. Sloan Management Review, 38, 43-55.
Robey, D., & Boudreau, M. (1999). Accounting for the contradictory
organizational consequences of information technology: Theoretical
directions and methodological implications. Information Systems Re-
search, 10, 167-185. doi:10.5539/mas.v6n4p49
Sahin, I., & Thompson, A. (2006). Using Rogers’ theory to interpret
instructional computer use by COE faculty. Journal of Research on
Technology in Educati on , 39, 81-104.
Sibbet, D. (1997). 75 years of management ideas and practice: 1922-
1997. Harvard Business Review, 75, 2-12.
Swanson, R. A., & Holton III., E. F. (2005). Research in organizations:
Foundations and methods of inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-
Koehler Publications.
Thompson, A. D. (2005). Scientifically based research: Establishing a
research agenda for the technology in teacher education community.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37, 331-337.
Velez, A. (2010). Creating and sustaining virtual communities of prac-
tice by operationalizing constructs of preparation, collegiality, and
professional development. Doctoral Dissertation, Minneapolis, MN:
Capella University.
Wang, Y., & Braman, J. (2009). Extending the classroom through sec-
ond life. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20, 235-247.
Wankel, C. (2009). Management education using social media. Or-
ganization Management Journal, 6, 251-262.
doi:10.1057/omj.2009.34
Weyant, L. E., & Gardner, C. L. (2010). Web 2.0 applications usages:
Implications for management education. Journal of Business, Society
& Government, 2, 67-78.
Williams, J., & Chinn, S. (2009). Using web 2.0 to support the active
learning experience. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20,
165-174.
Yates, S. (2009). Current faculty development practices for alternative
delivery systems in Christian higher education institutions: A quail-
tative study. Doctoral Dissertation, Louisville, KY: The Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary.