The Perception of Web 2.0 Technologies on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: A Case 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 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 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 technologies on teaching and learning in higher education compared to traditional classroom 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 education 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 relationship between faculty members'age and perception regarding their use of Web 2.0 technologies in their courses.

Share and Cite:

Zelick, S. (2013). The Perception of Web 2.0 Technologies on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: A Case Study. Creative Education, 4, 53-93. doi: 10.4236/ce.2013.47A2010.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Alexander, B. (2008). Web 2.0 and emergent multiliteracies. Theory into Practice, 47, 150-160. doi:10.1080/00405840801992371
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and impli cations for education. Bristol, JISC Technology and Standards Wa tch.
[5] Baasandorj, D. (2010). Faculty development program needs at Mongo lian State Universities: Content and strategies. Doctoral Dissertation, West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
[6] 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.
[7] Barnatt, C. (2009). Higher education 2.0. International Journal of Management Education, 7, 47-56. doi:10.3794/ijme
[8] Chuang, H. (2004). Sustainable faculty development: Issues in tech nology for teacher education. Doctoral Dissertation, Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
[9] Cooper, D., & Schindler, P. (2008). Business research methods (10th ed.). New York, McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
[10] Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[11] 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
[12] 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.
[13] Facebook (2012). Fact Sheet. Retrieved from
[14] 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.
[15] 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.
[16] 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
[17] Gottwald, W. D. (2005). A comparison of student perceptions regard ing online courses and traditional courses: A case study. Doctoral Dissertation, Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.
[18] 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.
[19] 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
[20] 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.
[21] Hazari, S., North, A., & Moreland, D. (2009). Investigating pedagogi cal value of wiki technology. Journal of Information Systems Educa tion, 20, 187-198.
[22] 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
[23] International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (2008). NETS for teachers 2008.
[24] 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
[25] Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (2009). Essentials of Management In formation Systems, Eighth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pear son Education.
[26] 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.
[27] 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.
[28] 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
[29] McCarthy, J. (2010). Blended learning environments: Using social networking sites to enhance the first year experience. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26, 729-740.
[30] 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.
[31] Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2011). FAQ.
[32] Partnerships for 21st Century Skills (2011). Framework for 21st Cen tury Learning. Retrieved from
[33] Partnerships for 21st Century Skills (2011). State Initiatives. Retrieved from
[34] Rich, M. (2008). Millennial students and technology choices for infor mation searching. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 73-76.
[35] Rockart, J. F., Earl, M. J., & Ross, J. W. (1996). Eight imperatives for the new IT organization. Sloan Management Review, 38, 43-55.
[36] 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
[37] Sahin, I., & Thompson, A. (2006). Using Rogers’ theory to interpret instructional computer use by COE faculty. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39, 81-104.
[38] Sibbet, D. (1997). 75 years of management ideas and practice: 1922 1997. Harvard Business Review, 75, 2-12.
[39] Swanson, R. A., & Holton III., E. F. (2005). Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler Publications.
[40] 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.
[41] 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.
[42] Wang, Y., & Braman, J. (2009). Extending the classroom through sec ond life. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20, 235-247.
[43] Wankel, C. (2009). Management education using social media. Or ganization Management Journal, 6, 251-262. doi:10.1057/omj.2009.34
[44] Weyant, L. E., & Gardner, C. L. (2010). Web 2.0 applications usages: Implications for management education. Journal of Business, Society & Government, 2, 67-78.
[45] Williams, J., & Chinn, S. (2009). Using web 2.0 to support the active learning experience. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20, 165-174.
[46] 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.

Copyright © 2021 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.