This thesis examines the use of Web 2.0 tools as learning activities among adult higher education faculty. A survey was conducted of faculty at Empire State College and Granite State College to understand their familiarity and use of tools like YouTube, Facebook, Skype, and blogs. The results showed that while many faculty were familiar with these tools for personal use, only about 30% used them in their coursework. Barriers to use included a lack of time to learn tools and concerns about students' technology capabilities. However, most faculty expressed interest in learning more about integrating Web 2.0 tools to enhance online learning experiences for adult students.
HONOURABLE LAWRENCE BANDASOA TABASE funeral brochure
Cit presentation
1. Short synopsis of UAlbany Master’s thesis: “Web 2.0 Tool Use as a Learning Activity among Adult Higher Education Faculty” Mike Fortune
2. Learning Activity? The use of a Web 2.0 tool in a blended or fully online environment. Not as a content or resource tool, but to engage students with pedagogical content. Inspired by use of Web 2.0 tools in Alex Pickett’s ETAP 687 course at UAlbany.
3. Participating Institutions “adult-friendly institutions” Empire State College, New York State (approx. 60 count) Granite State College, New Hampshire (approx. 20 count) SurveyMonkey survey (anonymous) IRB approval at UAlbany and ESC
4. Literature Review Detail of Web 2.0 use as a learning activity in higher education. Began with short descriptions of the C.o.I. Model, Andragogy, Social Constructivism and Connectivism. Citing of empirical evidence of use as a learning activity. Included text based tools (Twitter, Facebook, blogging, wikis), video (VoiceThread), audio podcasting,SL, etc.
6. Question 2 “What is your area of study?” Many identified as cross-discipline! Majority taught “Cultural Studies,” B, M & E (Business, Management and Economics) or Education (was the most fully-online) Smallest number included History and Science, Math & Technology instructors
7. Question 3 “What, to you, makes a successful online learning experience?” More online teaching=deeper perspective Six answered “I don’t know” or “N/A.” Most popular terms used were “presence,”“clarity,” and “feedback.” Large number referred to meaningful discussion board interaction.
8. Question 4 Faculty were given a list of 25 popular Web 2.0 tools in higher education and asked to identify those they were familiar with.
9.
10. Question 5 “Which of these tools do you use in your personal life?”
11. Question 5 Most stated using YouTube and/or Facebook. Next most popular was Skype.
12. Question 6 “Do you use any Web 2.0 tools in your Coursework?”
13. Question 6 25 respondents, or 30%, stated a one word “No.” “Not yet”“Not really”“n/a” etc.: 9 out of 80. 16 respondents stated a one word “Yes.” Those who answered positive, accompanied by stated tools equaled 28. 5 respondents gave a list of 5 or more tools.
14. Question 7 “Do your students use Web 2.0 tools for your course, even if you don’t require it?”
15. Question 8 “Which Web 2.0 tools, from the list are you unfamiliar with?”
16. Question 9 “Have you considered (but not yet) integrating Web 2.0 tools in online learning for adult learners? Also, what might be some deterrents or drawbacks to you?”
18. Response to Q9 Those that don’t already indicated that they would if the following situations were address: Ability to personally install any tools on institution computers. Time to research the tools. Perceived lack of technology capability on the part of students. Time for faculty to experiment with any tool to determine how it could be usefully integrated for learning purposes in their study area.
19. Other findings Faculty that made tool use mandatory for students reported no student adaptation problems. Many confused students referencing Wikipedia and viewing YouTube videos as a learning activity.
20. There is hope! Most stated that they wanted to learn more about various Web 2.0 tools. The vast majority of faculty surveyed showed in Q3 to already have a seasoned perspective of online learning.
