the role of web 2.0 in developing information literacy...
TRANSCRIPT
THE ROLE OF WEB 2.0 IN DEVELOPING INFORMATION LITERACY
FOR HIGHER EDUCATION STUDENTS — A STUDY BASED ON
STUDENTS FROM UNIVERSITIES IN UK
A study submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Information Systems
at
THE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD
by
Chaofeng Xiao
September 2013
1
Abstract
Background
The literature was related to many varied aspects including Web 2.0 definition, information
literacy conception, framework and requirements in the development of Web 2.0 among
higher education students in UK. In the previous studies, it also revealed Web 2.0 tools has
the huge impact in current learning environment around higher education students. But the
role of Web 2.0 was still not clearly identified in developing information literacy for higher
education students in UK.
Aims
The aim of the research was to analyze influences of Web 2.0 in developing information
literacy of current higher education students in order to make them better use of the
information in the Web 2.0 environment. Some recommendations were proposed toward
improving students’ information literacy.
Methods
The research was conducted with the combination of quantitative and qualitative methods.
Questionnaire was used for getting the number about how many students use web 2.0
applications and their experiences. 69 students responded the online questionnaire. Four
semi-structured interviews were conducted to get more holistic and insightful information
about how and why students are using Web 2.0 and their improvement of information literacy.
Results
Internet was very prevalent among higher education students in UK. However, students’ use
of different Web 2.0 resources is quite variable. Even though the percentage of entertainment
and socialization by using Web 2.0 tools and technology was much higher than that of study,
students thought Web 2.0 tools were helpful for their study. The questionnaires and
interviews stated information is contributed seldom, and more people like to browse others’
information. Information security and privacy problems and more judgement and evaluation
ability are critical in students’ using of Web 2.0. Using web 2.0 tools has enhanced most
students’ level and ability of specific aspects of information literacy according to SCONUL
seven pillars model of IL.
2
Conclusions
It provides a comparatively comprehensive picture about students’ web 2.0 experiences and
its relationships with information literacy, as well as some presented information literacy
problems. According to the results of research, Students should develop their information
literacy from three aspects of information awareness, information technology, and
information ethics in Web 2.0 environment.
3
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my supervisor, Ms Sheila Webber, for
providing me with valuable materials and professional guidance in every stage of my
dissertation. Also thank all participants for their active participation and help in this research.
Without them, I would not have been able to complete my dissertation.
At last, I would like to thank my parents and all my friends for their encouragement and
support.
4
Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... 3
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................. 4
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Chapter 1 Outline ............................................................................................................................... 8
1.1 Web 2.0 generation and information challenge ............................................................................ 8
1.2 Why is Web 2.0 explored in developing IL for Higher education students in UK? ..................... 8
1.3 Research aim and objectives ......................................................................................................... 9
Chapter 2 Literature Review ........................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 11
2.2 Web 2.0 ....................................................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Information literacy .................................................................................................................... 13
2.4 The importance of IL in Higher education .................................................................................. 14
2.5 Key types of Web 2.0 applications linking with IL .................................................................... 15
2.6 Information literacy problems in the web2.0 environment ......................................................... 20
2.7 Instructional and developed framework of Information literacy in the Web 2.0 environment ... 20
Chapter 3: Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 22
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 22
3.2 Research methods ....................................................................................................................... 22
3.2.1 Quantitative research & qualitative research ....................................................................... 22
3.2.2 Research methods used in this study .................................................................................... 22
3.2.3 The reason of choosing research methods of this study ....................................................... 23
3.3 Data collection ............................................................................................................................ 23
3.3.1Literature search .................................................................................................................... 23
3.3.2 Questionnaire ....................................................................................................................... 24
3.3.3 Semi- structured Interviews ................................................................................................. 25
3.4 Data analysis and presentation .................................................................................................... 27
3.4.1 Data analysis of questionnaire ............................................................................................. 27
3.4.2 Data analysis of interviews .................................................................................................. 27
3.5 Limitations and potential problems ............................................................................................. 28
3.6 Ethical aspects ............................................................................................................................. 28
Chapter 4: Results of the questionnaire ............................................................................................ 30
4.1 University students’ web experiences ......................................................................................... 30
5
4.1.1The popularity of Internet in higher education ..................................................................... 30
4.1.2 The situation of using Web 2.0 platform and digital divide ................................................. 31
4.2 Information behaviour ................................................................................................................ 36
4.2.1 The ways of getting the information .................................................................................... 36
4.2.2 Information contribution ...................................................................................................... 36
4.3 Experiences on Web 2.0 tools and technology ........................................................................... 39
4.3.1 Study / entertainment by using Web 2.0 tools ..................................................................... 39
4.3.2 Information reliability for study ........................................................................................... 41
4.3.3 Personal privacy and security problem ................................................................................ 42
4.4 The relationship between information literacy and Web 2.0 ...................................................... 42
Chapter 5 Results of semi-structured interview ............................................................................... 44
5.1 Reasons of using Web 2.0 tools and its help for study ............................................................... 44
5.2 Examples and perceptions on improvement of information literacy in using Web 2.0 .............. 46
5.3 Information reliability and considerations in using Web 2.0 tools and technology .................... 47
5.3.1 Critical considerations and judgment on information reliability ......................................... 48
5.3.2 Considerations in using Web 2.0 tools and technology ....................................................... 48
Chapter 6: A combined discussion on literature and results of questionnaire and interview ..... 49
6.1 Students’ web experiences on Web 2.0 tools and technology .................................................... 49
6.2 Information behaviour and digital divide .................................................................................... 50
6.3 Information reliability, security and privacy ............................................................................... 51
6.4 Students’ perceptions on improvement of information literacy by using web 2.0 tools ............. 52
Chapter 7: Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 53
7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 53
7.2 Achievement of research aim ad objectives ................................................................................ 53
7.3 Important points and key findings .............................................................................................. 54
7.4 Recommendation for developing students’ information literacy ................................................ 55
7.5 Recommendations for further research ....................................................................................... 56
References ............................................................................................................................................ 58
Appendices ........................................................................................................................................... 64
Appendix 1: Research Ethics Form .................................................................................................. 64
Appendix 2: Participant Information Sheet /Consent Form .............................................................. 72
Appendix 3: Letter of Approval ........................................................................................................ 75
Appendix 4: Questionnaire (Online Survey) .................................................................................... 76
Appendix 5: Interview Guide ............................................................................................................ 82
6
Appendix 6: Sample of Interview Transcript .................................................................................... 83
Appendix 7: Access to Dissertation .................................................................................................. 86
Appendix 8: Address & First Employment Destination Details ....................................................... 87
7
List of Figures
Figure 1. SCONUL (2011) seven pillars model of information literacy .................................... 14
Figure 2. Using devices (Total participants = 69).................................................................... 30
Figure 3. Finding information for study among different resources ........................................ 31
Figure 4. Frequency of Web 2.0 (blogs) use (Total participants = 69) .................................... 32
Figure 5. Frequency of Web 2.0 (RSS feeds) use (Total participants = 69) ............................ 32
Figure 6. Frequency of Web 2.0 (Wikis) use (Total participants = 69) ................................... 33
Figure 7. Frequency of Web 2.0 (Photo share communities) use (Total participants = 69) .... 33
Figure 8. Frequency of Web 2.0 (video sharing) use (Total participants = 69) ....................... 33
Figure 9. Frequency of Web 2.0 (social websites) use (Total participants = 69) .................... 34
Figure 10. Frequency of Web 2.0 (tags) use (Total participants = 69) .................................... 34
Figure 11. Frequency of Web 2.0 (instant messaging) use (Total participants = 69) .............. 35
Figure 12. Frequency of Web 2.0 (micro blogs) use (Total participants = 69) ....................... 35
Figure 13. The situation of updating blog (Total participants = 69) ........................................ 37
Figure 14. The situation of adding or editing Wikis (Total participants = 69) ........................ 37
Figure 15. The situation of uploading photos (Total participants = 69) .................................. 37
Figure 16. The situation of uploading videos (Total participants = 69) .................................. 38
Figure 17. Using web 2.0 tools for study or entertainment (Total participants = 69) ............. 39
Figure 18. Using Web 2.0 tools for study (Total participants = 69) ........................................ 40
Figure 19. Information reliability for study (Total participants = 69) ..................................... 41
Figure 20. Considering personal privacy and security problem (Total participants = 69) ...... 42
Figure 21. Using Web 2.0 tools has improved IL (Total participants = 69) ............................ 43
Figure 22. Why using Web 2.0 tools and its help for study..................................................... 45
Figure 23. Improvement of information literacy in using Web 2.0 ......................................... 46
Figure 24. Information reliability and considerations in using Web 2.0 ................................. 47
8
Chapter 1 Outline
1.1 Web 2.0 generation and information challenge
The 21st century is the era of rapid development of technology and growth of information.
One of the most prominent features is the extensive use of social media. According to the
latest research undertaken in the USA by the Pew Research Centre’s Internet & American
Life Project in 2012, Duggan and Brenner (2013) said there is an average rate of 67 per cent
of respondents use social media in their routine life. In addition, the use among young people
(age from 18 to 29) is higher than any age span, with a number of 83 percent. The reason for
the popularity of it is that people can more easily access and publish information freely with
the aid of Web 2.0, which is a different network mode before Web 2.0. The characteristics of
Web 2.0 include real-time interaction, open sharing and user-centric services etc. It means
that network resources are no longer provided exclusively by network operators. Instead, they
are developed by numerous users. Web 2.0 main technology applications include Blogs,
Wikis, Tag, SNS (Social networking Services), RSS (Really Simple Syndication), P2P (Peer
to Peer), and IM (Instant Messaging). Many of the most popular websites are Web 2.0 sites
such as Wikipedia, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Flickr etc. (eBizMBA, 2013).
In this changing Web 2.0 era, dealing with information is one challenge higher education
students have to face, so information literacy is very important as an integral part of the
information age (Murniati, 2011). The level of information literacy has a crucial role in a
society which is flooded with information all the time. People who have mastered knowledge
and information can improve their living conditions and seize advantages. Information
literacy is changing the higher-education students’ information behaviour under Web 2.0
environment (Godwin, 2007). With the technology’s changes under the Web 2.0 network
environment, the Web 2.0 environment has the new requirements in developing the
information literacy for higher-education students.
1.2 Why is Web 2.0 explored in developing IL for Higher education
students in UK?
Web generation has a huge impact on both academic and real life of current college students.
Web 2.0 technologies are wildly used in university campuses today. Some students check
their Twitter, Facebook every day so that these information behaviours have become a part of
9
their daily lives. Web 2.0 tools such as YouTube, Wikipedia, Facebook and Blogs can enable
students to create and publish information on the web and make friends through diverse ways
of representation (O’Reilly, 2005). Students of educational contributions of Web 2.0
applications in higher education have identified that Web 2.0 technologies improve students’
communication skills, and also provide lots of opportunities to be adopted for formal learning
(Ebner et al., 2010). McLoughlin and Lee (2007) pointed out Web 2.0 applications can
support learners in getting connected and cooperating with each other via different platforms
and furthermore, develop analytical and critical thinking to master the flood of information.
The social features of the Web 2.0 are also a very important aspect in the learning
environment. Boyd (2007) thought that the Web 2.0’s social features can help learning and
teaching activities focusing on student-centered learning.
By the above mentioned studies, Web 2.0 has the huge impact in current learning
environment around higher education students. These require us to address and study these
issues in depth and improve the students’ ability of evaluating and managing information. In
the Web 2.0 generation, Web 2.0 has redefined how information is identified, located,
organised and applied, so the importance of IL is undoubted in Web 2.0 generation
(Magnuson, 2013). We need to enhance student’s information literacy to better let Web 2.0
technology, internet serves the students. Also, by solving the information literacy problems
under the Web 2.0 environment, and promote the development of Web 2.0 better.
1.3 Research aim and objectives
In the Web 2.0 environment, the higher education students should enhance their information
literacy in order to make better use of the information.The aim of the research is to analyze
influences of Web 2.0 in developing information literacy of current higher education students.
The research intends to answer the question “How do university students feel that Web 2.0
technology affects their information literacy?” Based on the answer to this question, the
recommendations will be made for developing information literacy in university students
based on the study’s findings about the relationship between Web 2.0 applications and
information literacy.
Research objectives:
Identify the existing research linking Web 2.0 applications and information literacy
10
Identify Web 2.0 applications used and experienced by a sample of university students
Investigate which aspects of information literacy Web 2.0 applications were being
used for
Evaluate potential information literacy problems in the Web 2.0 environment
Make recommendations for developing information literacy in university students
based on the study’s findings about the relationship between Web 2.0 applications and
information literacy.
11
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
This chapter reviews previous studies about Web 2.0 and information literacy with six
sections. But there hasn’t been any research specifically asking students whether they feel
Web 2.0 has developed their information literacy. It starts with definitions of Web 2.0 and
information literacy, and then followed by the importance of IL in higher education.
Secondly, the key types of Web 2.0 applications linking with IL are introduced. At last, the
last two sections review information literacy problems and instructional framework of IL in
the Web 2.0 environment.
These literatures resources were acquired by university of Sheffield library resources and
searching by using Google scholar, university of Sheffield database ‘StarPlus’ and Emerald
etc. Also I searched some Chinese resources including journals and recent reports which
would be searched by a database called CNKI to help understanding of the research.
2.2 Web 2.0
The literature includes many articles about Web 2.0 studies. These are related to many varied
aspects including its definition, advantages and technology required in the development of
Web 2.0. According to the definition proposed by Tim O'Reilly (2005), Web 2.0 is “the
changing trends in the use of World Wide Web technology and Web design that aim to
enhance creativity, communications, secure information sharing, collaboration and
functionality of the Web”. Two main features of Web 2.0 technologies are multi-way
communication and collaborative information creation and retrieval (Luo, 2009). Web 2.0
applications such as blogs, Wikis and social media, represented by productions such as
Facebook, YouTube, Wikipedia and del.icio.us are the good examples to represent the
characteristics of Web 2.0. The types of applications are described in more detail in section
2.4. The Web 2.0 environment caused an increase in the volume of information, since
everyone can be an author on the web, as described graphically by Keen (2007).
Web 2.0 emphasizes online collaboration and sharing among users. O'Reilly (2005)
mentioned Six Rules for Successful Web 2.0 Applications:
Users add value – the extents to users add their own data and value to your application.
12
Network effects by default – user data is produced as a side-effect when they use the
application.
The perpetual beta – add new features to existing user experience. O'Reilly (2005)
recommended managing users as real time testers and instructing them about the
services so that users know how to use new features.
Software above the level of a single device – applications that are limited to single
device are less valuable. Design the applications across multiple types of device.
Data is the next ‘Intel inside’ – having a unique and hard- to-recreate data source is an
Intel-style unique source competitive advantage.
A platform beats an application every time – Web 2.0 platform provide web interfaces
and reuse data services of others because they are built of a network of cooperating
data services.
“Collaboration, contribution and community are the order of the day and there is a
sense in which some think that a new ‘social fabric’ is being constructed before our eyes.”
(Anderson, 2007, p.4)
Some important features about Web 2.0 popular sites include users as the most
important part, the capability to connect users via links, the feature to post text, photo, videos,
comments and ratings and other technical features including the third-party API, embedding
other types of content and communication tools (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008). It is
inevitable to change the thinking mode with the upgrading of Internet.
As mentioned above, the whole information environment is transferred to a new information
age. The last web generation is the read only Web 1.0 that shows the information statically,
however the current read/write Web 2.0 provides a platform for creating information
dynamically (Luo, 2009). The increasing Web 2.0 technology gets more and more attention
from the library world (Luo, 2009). Also Churchill (2009) thinks the integration of Web 2.0
applications will be the new learning generation. Hence, the educational value of Web 2.0
will be recognised by more and more people. For both entertainment and study, Web 2.0 is
playing a significant role in our lives. Web 2.0 is thus a new opportunity in developing
information literacy for higher education students.
13
2.3 Information literacy
Paul Zurkowski who is the president of the ICT (Information Technology Association) used
the term “information literacy” which is applied for the first time in 1974 (Warnken, 2004).
Warnken (2004) mentioned ALA (American Library Association) identified IL as a basic
ability to search for and use the information effectively in 1989. In 1998, the IL standard of
student learning was released (ALA, 1998). The papers provide an instructional framework
for those students who are not fully information literate. Information Literacy has been
defined by numerous authors and professional associations. USA’s Association of College
and Research Libraries (2000) regards Information literacy as
“A set of abilities requiring individuals to recognize when information is needed and
have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information”. (p.270)
Information Literacy is defined by SCONUL (2011) as
“Information literate people will demonstrate an awareness of how they gather, use,
manage, synthesise and create information and data in an ethical manner and will have the
information skills to do so effectively.”(p.3)
With the changing technology, information literacy’s concept is also updated constantly.
In the modern era, information literacy has become a basic quality to everybody regardless of
ages and levels. There are lot of frameworks for IL as a basis in developing IL. In the UK, the
SCONUL (2011) seven pillars model is common for higher education. It includes:
1. identify the needed information
2. assess current knowledge and identify the gaps
3. plan the strategies for locating information
4. locate and access the information
5. review the process and compare and evaluate the information
6. organise information professionally and ethically
7. apply the knowledge gained
14
Figure 1. SCONUL (2011) seven pillars model of information literacy
The core model (Figure 1) is defined for information literacy development in higher
education. The expected levels of information literacy seven pillars may be different in
different information environment based on different ages, and also different education
background and experience (SCONUL, 2011).
2.4 The importance of IL in Higher education
Changing technology especially Web 2.0 is affecting higher education from seeking
information to applying information. The big influence of Web 2.0 technology is how
information is identified, located, organised and applied. To some extent, the critical thinking
is the most important to deal with these information (Murniati, 2011). Technology is playing
an important role on information delivery (Warken, 2004). It is prevalent that computers
connected with servers have a large capacity to store information. Electronic books have
become a main reading source and even maybe replace printed books.
In the past, the main information sources are the TV, radio and printed works etc. people just
need to analyse the content to get their needed information. Nowadays, when the huge flow
of information is spread on the Internet in Web 2.0 services, people have to filter and digest
the information using their critical thinking and analytical skills. Information synthesis and
understanding is the necessary ability to critically analyse and advisably apply the
information (Murniati, 2011). Many obsolete things would have been great inventions in the
15
past. For example, the first computer that increased computing speeds was a big technology
breakthrough in that time. After many years, many popular technologies such as Web 2.0
may become very common and even out of date. Mackey & Jacobson (2011) stressed the
information literacy need to be reframed because of the new social media environment. The
information literacy for the first generation of the web called Web 1.0 is not adapted for Web
2.0 because their core definitions are different. If Web 3.0 appears, the information literacy
needs to be redefined to adapt for the current web generation. Higher education students’
learning cannot leave out the Internet and World Wide Web, but information literacy is the
key to use these technologies better. So information literacy cannot be separated from current
web generation and new technologies.
2.5 Key types of Web 2.0 applications linking with IL
There are lots of Web-based services or applications that reflect Web 2.0 functions. However,
in this section, we will explore and review some relatively mature applications include Blogs,
wikis, RSS, social networking, multimedia sharing, Instant Messaging and tagging and social
bookmarking. The key characteristics of each application will be identified, and reviewed
literature linking the applications with information literacy.
Blogs
Jorn Barger proposed the term of weblog first in 1997, and blog is arranged with the most
recent time in a kind of online journal style according to a simple webpage that is constituted
by posts including information, personal diaries or links (Doctorow et al., 2002). The posting
and commenting process are the nature features of blogs. The primary authors that writing
their web pages and comment contributors can communicate with each other in any time and
any place where can access to Internet. A new term of “blogosphere” is developed by many
people engaged in blogging to express a world under their own internet environment
(Anderson, 2007).
As the main characteristic of Web 2.0 is user-centeredness and open sharing, the creation of
blogs functions as a “global brain” for users through all over the world to exchange thoughts
and ideas. The blogger publishes his writing through an entry, which is accessible to readers
to comment. And through the comments and reactions, the relationship is built between
people who even never meet before (Click and Petit, 2010). Richardson (2006) advised
16
students can use blogs to publish their information, discuss and collaborate in group work and
peer review the works of each other. Therefore, for higher-education students, blogs can offer
great help in improving their information literacy. It can enhance their writing skills and
promote the process of exchanging knowledge and community, which further facilitates their
deep learning (Windham, 2007). Churchill (2009) thinks the blog system can integrate other
Web 2.0 applications on education. For example, RSS could help students to manage the
access to information. Tagging can tag their own or others’ posts, and digital repositories
such as YouTube can store students and teachers’ resources. These aided Web 2.0 tools can
present the blog system’s functions better. Ebner & Maurer (2007) points out that the use of
blogosphere could help to change the content of the lecture to the student-focus learning in
master course on Graz University of Technology. Hence, the importance of Web 2.0
approaches in higher education is undeniable, and also it is changing the role of lecturers to
aid students’ study.
RSS and Syndication
RSS, which can be understood as “Really Simple Syndication”, is “at the heart of Web 2.0”.
It is a kind of format to describe and synchronize the website content. The process that the
user collects the information from the websites with feeds is known as syndication (Anderson,
2007). You can subscribe to the technical articles at work, also can subscribe to the blogs
with the common interest. In short, you can order anything that you are interested in by RSS
feeds. For example, when you want to watch the updated news, you do not have to visit the
numerous web pages. As long as you subscribe the contents that you need to an RSS reader
such as Google reader, the content will appear automatically.
With the help of RSS feeds, all the services of Web 2.0 are linked together. Therefore, the
main advantage of RSS is the fast and convenient feature of browsing information (Godwin,
2007). It is feasible for learners to establish their “information world”, evaluating and picking
out the useful information from the knowledge flows (Valenza, 2007). Through this way, the
capacity of analysing and critical thinking and access skill is improved effectively.
Wikis
Wiki is defined as a collection of web pages which is used for readers to edit and modify
content (Luo, 2009). This easy access is criticized by some teachers who say it leads to a lack
17
of credibility of particular information on Wikis, especially on Wikipedia, the most popular
example of a Wiki. However, it is favoured by students and treated as an important way of
gaining knowledge (Godwin, 2007). A majority of students like to frequently use Wikipedia
in participating in the early stage of researching a subject in US (Head & Eisenberg, 2010).
Wikipedia’s success makes people understand the concept of wiki in common as a joint tool.
Most wiki pages provide an edit button to users to change or even delete the contents.
Duffy (2008) listed several advantages of wikis for learners, which involving developing
research projects, adding their own thoughts and searching for knowledge. All of them are
based on the two main characteristics of wiki, which are “the fluid editing process and the
support of collaboration” (Luo, 2009). Therefore, it explains wiki’s flexibility and open
access. It is an efficient method to improve higher education students’ information literacy.
Some problems are undeniable because of its openness and the problems of malicious editing
and tampering is happened to Wikipedia (Stvilia et al., 2005). However, many of these
mistakes and vandalism will be refined very fast by self-moderation process. Besides, the
access right that is set to registered users only is used to do the professional or project wikis
(Cych, 2006). Hence, students need to develop their abilities of managing and evaluating
information to use Wikis effectively.
Social Networking and Micro blog
Social networking is an “online place” for interactions among users through building their
own profiles and personal networks (Lenhart and Madden, 2007). Facebook and Twitter are
the most popular and largest social networking websites. Facebook allows users to post their
own information including their status, photographs, personal profiles and favourite movies
and music. In 2012, the Facebook have exceeded 845 million users, and is changing the way
of people’s communication and sharing information. Four billion pieces of information are
shared everyday including over 250 million uploaded photos, and over 7 million websites and
applications integrates with Facebook (Facebook, 2012). A further example of people-based
social networking site is LinkedIn, on which people could create profile about their
professional life.
Facebook is the largest SNS, but there are lots of other websites focus on the social aspect.
The newest and most interesting SNS is Twitter which is a Web 2.0 type called ‘Micro blog’
because its character is like sharing the information and opinions (Kwak et al., 2010). As with
18
blogs, micro blogs are normally published in reverse chronological order. Twitter allows
users to publish their status or statements called ‘tweets’ with 140 characters’ limitation.
Twitter is different from Facebook as the users don’t need to post much information about
themselves to find ‘friends’ (Huberman, Romero, & Wu, 2009). Hence, Twitter’s anonymity
makes those people who are shy or not willing to publish their private information has a good
platform to communicate.
The application of these social networks among higher education students should be given
attention. And use of social media can provide more future employment possibilities
(Windham, 2006). For example, the LinkedIn makes many people connect with each other
from different areas. It also requires the ethical use of visual, auditory and textual material on
these social network sites. This aspect of IL becomes more and more important, so that social
media sites could let today’s higher education students be aware of such ethical issues.
Multimedia sharing
YouTube (Video sharing), Flickr (photo sharing) and Odeo(podcast) represent three types of
multimedia sharing. These popular sites also express the important features of Web 2.0(Click
& Petit, 2010). YouTube was founded in February, 2005, and people can view, upload and
share the video clips. Almost every student is familiar with YouTube because it has the most
popular and updated videos with lots of categories’ topics around the world. Hence, no matter
what the teaching and learning or on the entertainment, YouTube has become an important
means to get the needed information. Online photo sharing like Flickr has led to large volume
of photographs available on the Internet. “Searching, viewing, archiving and interacting with
such collections have broad social and practical importance.” However, the collection is more
and more difficult to understand and search because of the increasing scale (Kennedy et al.,
2007).
More and more people take part in the sharing and exchanging their own produced audios,
videos and photos (Anderson, 2007). Hence, the users are not only consumers, but also
contributors of the web. The Digital media technology like digital camera and video camera
become more and more mature, it has been adopted widely to develop the multimedia sharing
rapidly. In order to engage effectively with multimedia, the abilities to manage information
become more and more important around higher education students.
19
Instant Messaging
Instant messaging is a real-time communication of allowing communication between two or
above people at a go through Internet (Nardi, Whittaker, & Bradner, 2000). The instant
messaging applications include MSN Messenger, QQ, and Skype etc. The reason why Instant
Messaging tools are very popular is that it provides good interactivity for users from different
locations (Yao, 2011). A survey of 268 Canadian university students demonstrated that 97%
of respondents were users of IM (Quan-Haase, 2007).
We can see lots of people using IM for keeping in touch with family and friends, arranging
important work tasks and meetings, and asking short questions. Efficiency, immediacy and
visibility are important reasons for people choosing IM tools than email and voicemail (Nardi,
Whittaker, & Bradner, 2000). IM have been used for entertainment, study and work as a
social interaction tool (Huang, & Leung, 2011). Godwin (2007, February) mentioned instant
messaging is a very popular communication tool for students. This method could help those
students who are shy to communicate better. Also, more and more teachers have already used
IM tools as a way of improving their teaching effects (Yao, 2011). However, information
security is still a problem. The skills of identifying, analysing and evaluating information are
still a challenge for higher education students in order to use the IM tools more effectively.
Tagging and social bookmarking
Tags can be used to classify your entries. Anderson mentioned (2007) that tagging involves
adding a keyword to a website information, picture or video to describe these contents. Now,
the concept of tagging have been extended to a new concept called tag clouds which
frequency information of using tag from different users is showed as a ‘cloud’.
Social bookmarking could facilitate getting resources. Social bookmarking’s main function is
storing, organising and sharing website bookmarks (Click & Petit, 2010). You could browse
the related websites that you are interested in, and then put the collection to the bookmark
service sites like del.icio.us to find the people who have the same collection. Then browse
these people’s collections and find some people who have the same interest. At last, you can
add these people into your own network, and track these people’s latest collection so that you
can quickly access to research resources and the latest resources.
20
Delicious and Diigo are two examples of popular social bookmarking websites. Bookmarks
can be marked in more than one category, but the tags just mark the information in one
category (Anderson, 2007). The delicious site users can create tags like words or phrases that
can categorize the content like the blogs or websites (Click & Petit, 2010). We can search the
tags easily, and retrieve the information more effectively. Under the context of seminar
course in the history department of University of Sheffield, Wood (2011) mentioned using
diigo.com site to enable students managing the primary sources of history inquiry and
reflected resources in history class directly. The abilities of evaluating and organising
information are required to use the tagging and social bookmarking well for HE students.
2.6 Information literacy problems in the web2.0 environment
Information literacy has become a basic requirement for a person because the volume of
abundant information is spread with variable ways of access. In the flood of information,
unfiltered information with multiple types of resource is still increasing. This has led to
problems of authority, validity and reliability, and poses more challenges for society (Bundy,
2004). Hence, Web 2.0 generation affects developing IL from the new information resource
type, information access skill, information evaluation, innovation, communication,
cooperation and social responsibility for higher education students.
The Web 2.0 technologies are needed in their study and lives around the higher education
students. However, some problems and disadvantages have appeared. It produces low quality
content on the websites with limited security; it is just electronic junk if the information is not
selected; the diversified offer of technologies is necessary; everyone can edit and write
information, thus creating a community without rules (Grosseck, 2009). These disadvantages
require us to solve problems from Information awareness, information technology, and
information ethics.
2.7 Instructional and developed framework of Information literacy in the
Web 2.0 environment
Conrad (2008) put forward that the new Web 2.0 world is characterized by
“Technological advancement and the blurring of boundaries between formalized
learning and the informality of popular culture” (p.157)
21
in the field of education. Web 2.0 generation is changing the learning culture that guiding
learners’ uses and appreciation of technology. Information literacy is important around higher
education students, and can impact their lives and study in the Web 2.0 environment. The
information age make us have the Internet, TV and other resources available for us 24 hours
per day. Even though lots of information is got very fast and easily, it doesn’t mean all of
them are useful or even true. These propose new challenges in evaluating, managing and
using information in an ethical and legal manner. This requires our information literacy can
adapt to the trend of Web 2.0 generation. Information literacy is not just a skill, but also is a
core information practice. Previously, Weigand (1999) suggested a reason why theoretical
development is lacked in information literacy and in library and information science area.
Bundy (2004) mentioned Information literacy education should create more opportunities for
self-learning where students can get the needed information, create knowledge and strengthen
their critical thinking by using different information resources. He proposed the information
literacy framework around six standards about information processing which can be
concluded into “Recognize — find — evaluate — manage – apply – use”. The framework
provides the basic principles and practice to develop IL education. In 1999, the SCONUL
introduced seven pillars model of information skills to develop information literacy in higher
education. SCONUL (2011) seven pillars model is updated for the constantly changing
information world.
Špiranec and Zorica (2010) propose a new standard of IL called IL 2.0 as the updated IL
standard because the special environment created and characteristics of the Web 2.0 cannot
adapt to the earlier information environment. Godwin (2007) said if we can grasp the chance
of the Web 2.0, it will develop new understanding of what technology allows, new skills
learning and new working ways. The new instructional framework of information literacy
should be developed under the Web 2.0 environment. In our teaching, we have explicitly to
teach the creation and communication of information to students which can raise students’
awareness of formulating context in using information and foster the critical thinking,
reflection and ethical use of material as well (Godwin, 2007).
22
Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 Introduction
In order to achieve the research aims and objectives, the research was conducted with the
combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. Data collection and analysis from
questionnaires and interviews were used to investigate influences of Web 2.0 in developing
information literacy of current higher education students in UK. This chapter gives a detailed
description about research methods used in this study. It explains the difference between
these methods and why they are appropriate in this research, and then describe what I did in
data collection and analysis. Finally, the limitations of the research and ethical considerations
are presented.
3.2 Research methods
3.2.1 Quantitative research & qualitative research
Quantitative research is appropriate for quantifiable measures. However, qualitative methods
are appropriate when the study is complex, social and not amenable to quantification
(Liebscher, 1998). Compared to quantitative research, qualitative research can present more
subjective opinions of human experience and behaviour (Connaway& Powell, 2010). Also
Connaway& Powell (2010) notes while the big volume of basic research has used the
quantitative research, there is an increasing tendency to combine this with qualitative
approach in recent years. Qualitative research plays an important role in exploratory research.
3.2.2 Research methods used in this study
The research aims to investigate influences of Web 2.0 in developing information literacy of
current higher education students in UK, where the research question involving statistics of
students’ experience on Web 2.0 tools, how to use Web 2.0 platform and why they use these
and their feelings. In many situations of doing the research, the effective mixture of different
approaches can provide more complete and deeper understanding of the research problem
(Connaway& Powell, 2010). The research aim would be achieved by applying the balanced
combination of quantitative and qualitative approach. Quantitative and qualitative data are
collected from both questionnaires and semi-structured interviews.
23
3.2.3 The reason of choosing research methods of this study
The questionnaire was designed as an online survey. Questionnaire is appropriate to get the
number about how many students use web 2.0 applications and their experience. The
advantages of questionnaire are summarised by Connaway& Powell (2010). Firstly, the
online questionnaire is easier to keep participants’ anonymity for getting the frank answers.
Secondly, questionnaire is organised so that the quantitative data are easy to “collect and
analyse”. In addition, questionnaire can collect large volume of data in a relative short time.
Interviews enable us to get more holistic and insightful information about how and why they
are using Web 2.0 and their improvement of information literacy. Connaway& Powell (2010:
172) mentioned the interview can be better for “revealing information that is complex or
emotionally laden”. Compared with questionnaire, it can get more detailed information about
the interviewee’s thoughts and feelings, and it is more reliable with mutual influence and
interaction. However, the objects’ scope and the amount of information are small.
Johnson & Turner (2003) mentioned the mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods
could get “more accurate and completed description” of the environment under the inquiry.
The combined data collection methods that have different disadvantages also can provide
“convergent-divergent evidence” for the research problems (Johnson & Turner, 2003, p.298).
By the above description, it can be said be complementary relationship between questionnaire
and interview. So the combination of questionnaire and interview is applied in this research.
3.3 Data collection
3.3.1Literature search
Literatures including books, journals, research reports and conference papers provide reliable
data support and evidence. These resources in English were searched by using Google scholar,
university of Sheffield database ‘StarPlus’ and Emerald etc. Also I searched some Chinese
resources including journals and recent reports which would be searched by a database called
CNKI.
At the beginning, the data collection on this topic was conducted by some recommended
books and journal articles from the supervisor. Then search engines such as Google, Baidu
were used frequently to find some updated relevant resources according to the relative topics
24
and some important authors on this topic. By looking at these resources, some important
references and citation could be searched further so that the scope of the literature on this
topic could be expanded to find more data and evidence. Apart from these methods, the
professional database resources and the university library resources are also very important.
Both of them are searched by the key words according the knowledge that you mastered and
some important books and articles on this topic. At last, the researcher ensured these
resources have provided enough literature and data support corresponding with the research
aims and objectives.
3.3.2 Questionnaire
Connaway and Powell (2010) said questionnaires can be appropriate for attitude
measurement. It can keep participants’ anonymity to encourage frank answers. The
researcher used an online questionnaire tool to conduct the survey by sending a link to the
university students. Most respondents are from student volunteers provided by University of
Sheffield. Through sending university email to the list of student volunteers, it got a very fast
response by students that are interested in the topic. Besides, the questionnaire is good and
easy for collecting and analysing the data because it can be constructed, and is easy to
administer (Connaway& Powell, 2010). Questionnaire facilitates gathering data on what Web
2.0 applications students are using in a way that enables quantitative analysis. It is also
possible to ask in each case whether students feel they have used them for particular aspects
of IL, using an existing IL framework e.g. do they use Facebook to help identify their
information need, to gather and evaluate information etc. (e.g. using the 7 Pillars of
Information Literacy). The common used online questionnaire design tool, Google Docs, use
the advantages of Internet to ensure the questions are well organized, and the responses are
completed. The online questionnaires were sent to university students using an URL link in
the Email. When the respondents reached the reuqired quota, the link of questionnaire was
closed.
Design of questionnaire
The questionnaire was designed with closed questions and was targeted at students from the
Universities in the UK who use the Internet. It was estimated that it would take
approximately 10 minutes to complete the online survey. Closed questions were used because
they are easy to answer, and save time. In addition, closed questions have advantages in the
25
measurement of level, extent, frequency, and some grade issues. And the standardization of
its answers could facilitate statistical analysis and comparison. In order to supplement some
questions’ options, the option ‘others’ was added in some questions so that we can get
sufficient information from different participants.
The questionnaire was designed in two parts. One part is basic personal information from
question 1 to 6 which asks gender, type of study, programme and the devices used by
participants. The other part is the main research questions about using of Web 2.0
applications and the improvement of information literacy from question 7 to 16. It includes
the students’ web experiences, information behaviour and experiences on Web 2.0 tools and
technology. This part meets the research objectives of identifying Web 2.0 applications used
and experiences by a sample of university students and investigating which aspects of
information literacy Web 2.0 applications were being used for.
Sampling
In this survey, 69 responses were received. It was mainly a self-selecting sample made from
university students in the UK by the Email or paper. The link was attached in the Email to
send to students who are studying in the universities of UK. Some copies were also
distributed to the researcher’s friends and classmates in University of Sheffield. From the
received responses, we can see the students are from over 15 different programmes around
Bachelor students, Master students and PhD students. Male students and the female students
account for 41% and 59% respectively from the 69 respondents.
3.3.3 Semi- structured Interviews
Compared with questionnaires, the personal contact of the interview encourages persons to
respond fully, and also provides a greater capacity for the correction of misunderstandings
(Connaway & Powell, 2010). Interviews in this study aimed to explore the issues on the
relationships between Web 2.0 and information literacy in depth. Interviews are valuable
when you want to ask people why or how they are doing something, so a smaller sample of
those people who answered the questionnaire or have experience could be asked about why
they used the Web 2.0 applications for particular information activities (e.g. if Facebook
helped them identify their information need, how did it do that, why did they think it was
helpful for that). In order to understand students’ experience and thoughts in depth, the
interviews are flexible so that the interviewees also could say anything about the web2.0 and
26
information literacy except some basic designed questions. So the semi- structured Interviews
are a good way to collect the data of this part. I did a pilot interview to get relative good
results.
Design of interview
Before the interview, the participant information sheet was distributed to the interviewee,
after reading it, then two copies of the consent form was signed by interviewer and
interviewee. Every interview took approximately 30 minutes. There were four fixed
categories of questions to be asked based on the questionnaire.
Based on the interviewee’s answers from question 13 in questionnaire, some
questions about using various Web 2.0 tools for study and entertainment were asked
further. For example, when it used for study, why it was used and if it was helpful for
study.
Based on the interviewee’s answers from question 14 in questionnaire, some
questions were asked about reliability of different Web 2.0 tools.
The feelings about whether Web 2.0 tools have improved information literacy based
on IL seven pillars model.
What to consider when you read and use information from internet.
Based on interviewee’s answers, the interviewer continued to ask the questions in detail if
necessary. All interviews were recorded by the digital recorder, and then these audio files
were transcribed. Chinese interviewees were interviewed in Chinese: translations into English
were made to discuss results with the supervisor, and to present quotations in the results
section.
Sampling
As Connaway and Powell (2010) said, sampling is one of the most important steps in the
research survey. Sampling method is also used in the interview. Four representative students
who answered the questionnaire are invited to conduct the interview. Two male and two
female students are from different programmes, so it provides a reasonably representative
sample for the research. According to the answers of interviewees who answered the
questionnaire, information literacy problems in depth and different perspectives of students
could be better to be understood.
27
3.4 Data analysis and presentation
After the data collection, analysing and interpreting the results of questionnaire and interview
should be planned in advance. The process of collected data analysis and presentation
involves “coding the responses or placing each item in the appropriate category; tabulating
the data; and performing appropriate statistical computations” (Connaway & Powell, 2010).
3.4.1 Data analysis of questionnaire
Some basic graphs like bar charts and pie charts were built automatically based on each
question because the questionnaire was made with the Google Docs survey tool. These
percentages and key numbers from each option can be seen and understood easily so that
these basic statistical data provide support to analyse usage and the frequency of Web 2.0
tools and technology comprehensively. Responses from the online questionnaire were
exported to Microsoft Excel to build some comprehensive graphs to deliver the important
data towards the situations and attitudes of Web 2.0 usage. All of these graphs are used in the
data analysis part to provide the clear descriptions in different themes.
These graphics are built from different categories such as programmes, level of study and
gender etc. by Excel. According to these graphics, we can see the ratio of students and trends
about usage and the frequency of Web 2.0 tools and technology by comparing and analysing
these data. Interpretations are conducted from the similarities, differences and trends among
these descriptive statistics and coded data. Some findings were compared with previous
research to get the basis.
3.4.2 Data analysis of interviews
After the interviews were transcribed into text, the researcher interpreted the responses. The
researcher classified the data from the interview transcripts by the interview questions, and
then filtered them by theme according to the research aim and questions.The chosen detailed
responses from every interviewee are summarized by the researcher and reported in two
tables (See Figure 21& Figure 22). These key grouped and categorized responses provide
support to analyze interviewees’ perceptions about the relationship between Web 2.0 and IL
and reasons of using Web 2.0 tools in depth. Finally, some findings from the data analysis
28
were compared with previous research to get the basic theories corresponding with research
aims and objectives.
3.5 Limitations and potential problems
In the questionnaire, 69 university students responded the questionnaire regarding to the role
of Web 2.0 in developing information literacy for higher education students in UK. The size
of the sample is one of the greatest limitations of the online surveys. The number of samples
is not enough to reflect the overall situations and characteristics of using web 2.0 applications
around the university students in UK. Due to the limitation of time, it was hard to confirm the
responders’ qualifications and control the survey sample so that the authenticity and quality
of the sample cannot be ensured. Besides, since the researcher does not have a lot of
experience, it is hard to design perfect questions for the questionnaire and evaluate their
answers effectively.
With regard to the interviews, just four people who are students from the University of
Sheffield were interviewed because of the limitation of time. The speed of interview is slow
because some unnecessary problems may be taken lots of time sometimes. As the sample is
small and the people from the same university, it cannot reflect the general situation and
universality of the research completely. The quality of the survey results are often affected by
interviewee’s mood, attitude, interviewing techniques and other factors. The researcher tries
to inspire the interviewees to express their true opinions, but cannot control various effects
such as attitudes of expression and ways of communication. As some investigations from
Chinese students, the translations of interview transcripts are needed in data collection and
analysis. Due to the researcher’s capability, it may lead to some translation error or some
meaning misunderstanding.
3.6 Ethical aspects
Connaway and Powell (2010) identified that a lot of ethical issues or concerns should be paid
attention in any research involving human beings. This research has received ethics approval
from the Information School, University of Sheffield. The research is classified into low risk.
The data which I collect will be fully anonymous and will only be used in this research. The
Participants is the students from the Universities in the UK. Three documents about ethics
29
that are Research ethics review form, Information sheet and consent form and Research ethics
approval letter are adhered in the appendix.
The basic principle is there is no harm to the participants with the data collection
(Connaway& Powell, 2010).This research questions didn’t cover very sensitive subjects, nor
any problems of racial, political opinions, religious beliefs, and physical or mental health
conditions, so there should not be any special risk associated with the research. I will make
sure the interviewees are happy to talk with me, and don’t demand too much of their time
when I am interviewing. All interviewees are asked to sign the consent form. The people
whom I am interviewing are informed what will happen with the data I collect. When the
active or passive participants’ personal data needs to be provided or accessed, they could
monitor our research activities about their data so that the data can be used appropriately. The
data will be collected and stored in some safe places such as the encrypted folder. After the
whole research project, I will keep the data in a unique safe place or destroy them according
the participants’ requirements to ensure anonymity and confidentiality.
30
Chapter 4: Results of the questionnaire
4.1 University students’ web experiences
4.1.1The popularity of Internet in higher education
It is found almost every student has the electronic products. With the social development of
technology, a wide range of electronic products bring the convenience to people's lives and
entertainment.
Figure 2. Using devices (Total participants = 69)
As can be seen from the graph Figure 2, it showed 64 students use the laptop computers
among 69 participants. After this, there are 52 students use the mobile phones. It is found
over 90% of students use laptops and/or mobile phones. However, there are just 8 persons
have the video camera. These indicate laptops and mobile phones become the main devices to
access Internet nowadays. However, there are 5 people not using laptops. According to the
responses, these 5 people use desktop computers instead of using laptops. Also there are
some students using all of these devices listed in Figure 2.
64
53
35 34
29 25
8
3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Laptopcomputer
Mobilephone
Desktopcomputer
Digitalcamera
Mp3, Mp4or ipod
Tablet oripad
Videocamera
Other
Using Devices
31
Figure 3. Finding information for study among different resources
(Total participants = 69)
Figure 3 shows the higher education students the situation of searching information for their
study. High percentage of the students uses the Internet to search information for their study.
It shows 86% of students always use the search engine such as Google, 80% of students often
use online database, journals and magazines and 46% of students are using Wikipedia to find
information. The paper sources are also important for students to find information. 71% of
the students are often using books and approximate 60% of students use journals and
magazines. These data indicates the web resources provide a large volume of information for
study. More and more electronic documents and books become more and more popular with
students. For a long period of time, electronic sources and paper sources will show their
respective features and advantages.
4.1.2 The situation of using Web 2.0 platform and digital divide
Web 2.0 technology and application are changing people’s study and lives. Some main Web
2.0 tools and websites including Blog, Wiki, Tag, SNS, and RSS etc. are the core of the Web
2.0 generation. According to the survey (from Figure 4 to Figure 12), almost every student
uses two or above Web 2.0 tools.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
59 55
49 41
32 24
19
7
Finding information for study
32
Figure 4. Frequency of Web 2.0 (blogs) use (Total participants = 69)
Blog improves Internet from information sharing to resources sharing and idea sharing. It is
an important tool for exchanging, transferring and sharing knowledge. The pie chart shows
that over 70% of students go to read other’s blogs a few times in one month. However, there
are 7% students never browse other people’s blogs. As can be seen from Figure 4, over 90%
of the students have some experience with blogs while some students have no experience
with blogs. From a holistic point of view, students have a high degree of perception on the
blog, but the blog usage need to be strengthened further.
Figure 5. Frequency of Web 2.0 (RSS feeds) use (Total participants = 69)
RSS feeds can be understood as a kind of technology pushing messages from websites to
desktop. RSS has provided a way to change from passive browsing to active pushing of
information, and is a new tool for knowledge acquisition and mining. As is indicated in the
chart (Figure 5), nearly half of students say they never use RSS. 25% of students just know a
little, and use it occasionally. Just 18% of students are familiar with RSS, and often use it.
RSS need to attract more publicity around universities in UK, especially for university
libraries about RSS application and promotion.
33
Figure 6. Frequency of Web 2.0 (Wikis) use (Total participants = 69)
Wikis is a hypertext system based on the concept of common authoring, and has become an
important means of sharing and building knowledge. Figure 6 show nearly half of the sample
students often use the wikis. The students that never use the wikis just account for 4%. These
means Wikis is very popular tool to help students get the information.
Figure 7. Frequency of Web 2.0 (Photo share communities) use (Total participants = 69)
The photo share communities have become the important way of Web 2.0 application. It
doesn’t only provide photo sharing, but also can be as a platform of communication for
online community. Flickr is one of the main presented websites about photo sharing. Figure
7 shows 33% of students have never browsed the photo sharing websites while just 9% of
students browse the photo sharing websites daily. The majority of students know it little, and
don’t use it frequently. Photo-sharing tools have not applied widely yet around university
students in UK.
Figure 8. Frequency of Web 2.0 (video sharing) use (Total participants = 69)
Video websites allows users to publish, view and share video works by Internet. Its fast and
visualized feature increase more people’s interest compared other ways of media. As is
indicated in the Figure 8, over 70% of the students often watch the video sharing websites.
34
However, just 6% of students don’t watch the online videos. Nearly 30% of students watch
the online videos every day. The indicated data explains the popularity of video sharing
websites.
Figure 9. Frequency of Web 2.0 (social websites) use (Total participants = 69)
Social Networking Software (SNS) provides a service that creating networks of relationships,
and help users to meet their various requirements through individual networks of
relationships. It is also the important platform for exchanging and sharing knowledge.
According to Figure 9, we can see 71% of students use the SNS every day. Almost all
students understand and use the social networking websites. Thus we see that SNS provides a
good platform of interconnection for their socializing network.
Figure 10. Frequency of Web 2.0 (tags) use (Total participants = 69)
Tags are used to categorise content. Meanwhile, tag has the function of clustering and sharing.
Tag is the important information organization and communication tool. It can be used with
bookmarking to achieve the integration and classification of knowledge. Figure 10 shows 28%
of students never use the tag; most of the students understand a little, and don’t often use it.
These indicate tag usage rate is low around university students in UK. The tag’s convenience
need be understood and spread further in the students to make them choose tag as study tools.
35
Figure 11. Frequency of Web 2.0 (instant messaging) use (Total participants = 69)
IM (Instant messaging) is real-time communication system, and is the important information
communication tool such as MSN, Skype. As we can see from Figure 11, over 80% of
students are using QQ, MSN and Skype etc. According to the survey, IM’s features of
convenience, real-time communication make it become frequent use communication software
for students.
Figure 12. Frequency of Web 2.0 (micro blogs) use (Total participants = 69)
Micro blogs provide pubic opinions, new hot topics and the various aspects of knowledge
about study with strong real-time feature. Figure 12 shows just 28% of students doesn’t use
micro blogs and 72% of sample students are blog users; nearly half of the sample students
often use the micro blogs. Thus we can see that University students are a quite big group as
blog consumers. Among students, Micro blogs as a new media is not dominant. According to
Figure 9 and Figure 11, the usage rate of IM and SNS is higher compared with Micro blogs.
It is worth noticing that for both IM and micro blogs there are groups of people who use it
frequently (63% for IM and 45% for micro blogs using it at least a few times a week) and
numbers using it infrequently or never (32% for IM and 47% for micro blogs) without many
people using them in a moderate amount. It perhaps indicates that people develop strong
preference or habits to either like or dislike using these communication channels. This is in
contrast to RSS (where a majority 70% used it infrequently) and social websites (where 93%
used it frequently).
In general, students’ use of Web 2.0 resources is quite variable. It can be concluded from the
data on UK university students to show limitations in using network resources. For example,
36
tagging and book marking, RSS service can play a role of integrating and optimizing personal
knowledge base and building a network learning environment. However, these network
resources are used little by university students. Digital divide is also an issue among students.
Blogs and Wikis are as the basic web 2.0 tools or platform on the Internet. However, there are
7% of students have never read others’ blogs in Figure 4, also there are 4% of students have
never looked at the information from Wikis in Figure 6. These indicate a small part of
students who may not be good at using Internet, and even their growth is not along with
increasing technology.
4.2 Information behaviour
4.2.1 The ways of getting the information
As shown from Figure 4 to Figure 12, Today’s university students are using Web 2.0 tools
such as Facebook, MSN, Blogs, Wikis and etc. frequently in their study and lives. According
to responses, there are 64 students using the laptop computers among 69 participants, and the
other 5 students use the desktop computers. It could be evident that most students are
growing with current web generation, and they are willing to get the information from the
Internet.
As mentioned in Figure 3, when students find information for study, over 80% students look
for information from Internet. Sometimes, students want to get answers immediately in this
era of requiring efficiency. Speaking to classmates, professors or lecturers is the least option.
The next least option is visiting the Wikipedia. This may be because students have been told
to avoid using Wikipedia for study at the anecdotal level. The researcher himself has been
told not to use Wikipedia for the essays. The Books, Journals and magazines are still the main
way of getting the information for study. Thus we can see that paper sources are still
comprehensive and authoritative for study.
4.2.2 Information contribution
In this information society, the mass media has become a two way communication model.
The former past passive acceptance of information is turned into the initiative, equality and
real-time two-way communication. Each person is not only the information recipient, but also
is the information sender with double information behavior.
37
Figure 13. The situation of updating blog (Total participants = 69)
As can be seen from the chart Figure 13, there are 65% students have not established their
own blogs to update the blogs. Just 15% students update their blogs at least a few times in a
week. Compared with Figure 4, there are 70% students browsing bogs at least a few times in
one month while students who update the blogs at least a few times in one month just
comprise 22% in Figure 13. It indicates most students like to browse the other people’s blogs
even though they have not their own blogs so the information contribution of blogs is
relatively small.
Figure 14. The situation of adding or editing Wikis (Total participants = 69)
Figure 14 shows just 3 students often add or edit content on the wiki platform from 69
students while over 80% students never added or edited the content. As shown in the Figure 6,
there are over 70% students browsing information on the Wikis at least a few times one
month. These data in Figure 14 are in inverse ratio with Figure 6. These means students’
collaborative construction on Wikis needs to be improved.
Figure 15. The situation of uploading photos (Total participants = 69)
38
As is indicated in the Figure 15, nearly 80% students have ever uploaded photos, and 50%
students upload the photos at least a few times in one month. Just 22% students never
uploaded the photos. These indicate the situation of uploading photos is quite good, and
students like to upload the photos compared with other types of resources.
Figure 16. The situation of uploading videos (Total participants = 69)
Figure 16 shows 70% students never uploaded the videos. Even though 30% students upload
the videos, most of them upload the videos infrequently. Also there are 70% students looking
at videos at least a few times a week according to Figure 8, but only 1% students from Figure
16 contributed information at the same rate.
Comparing and contrasting results for different media, most Web 2.0 tools are used quite
prevalently, but the majority of medias are contributed information seldom by students except
for photos where there is a spectrum from frequent to infrequent contribution.
39
4.3 Experiences on Web 2.0 tools and technology
4.3.1 Study / entertainment by using Web 2.0 tools
Figure 17. Using web 2.0 tools for study or entertainment (Total participants = 69)
The purpose of the graph figure 17 is to compare the different web 2.0 tools and technology
for study or entertainment around higher education students. As shown from Figure 17, over
70% students are using blogs for entertainment; just 25% students are using blogs for study.
Combine with Figure 4, it indicates most students use blogs for sharing and browsing other
people’s resources or expressing their feelings, and only small number of people uses it to
assist learning. There are nearly 80% students using Wikis for study, and the students who
use it for entertainment just account for 34%. But interestingly, this is the only web 2.0 tool
where there is more use for study than entertainment according to Figure 17. Nearly half of
students never use the RSS or news feeds for study or entertainment. Majority of people who
are using RSS feeds, are using it for study, though it is still large number of using it for
entertainment. For social media sites such as Flickr and YouTube and social networking sites
such as Facebook, these two web 2.0 tools are used on neither study nor entertainment
49%
9% 22%
62% 70%
54%
23%
46%
0%
32% 13%
1%
1%
1%
13%
1%
25% 45%
16%
32% 22%
26%
42% 20%
26% 14%
49%
4% 7% 19% 22%
32%
Blogs Wikis RSS or newsfeeds
Social mediasites (e.g.
Flickr,Youtube)
Socialnetworkingsites (e.g.Facebook)
InstantMessaging(e.g. MSN,
Skype)
Forums Micro blog(e.g. Twitter)
Web 2.0 tools for study and entertainment
Entertainment Study Both Neither
40
comprises 4% and 7% respectively in 69 participants, and students who use them for study
account for the percentage 33% and 23%. Interestingly, over 90% students use them for
entertainment. The instant messaging and micro blogs are used for entertainment and leisure
account for a much larger percentage than study. From the Figure 17, only the forums present
a situation that is relatively average percentage for study and entertainment.
Figure 18. Using Web 2.0 tools for study (Total participants = 69)
As can been seen from Figure 17, the use of Web 2.0 tools and technology for entertainment
was much higher than that of study. But on the specific Web 2.0 tools, there are more
students using Wikis for study than entertainment, and for the forums, students using it for
study and entertainment comprise over 50% respectively. Figure 18 shows students who did
both study and entertainment and those who just did study by using Web 2.0 tools. According
to Figure 18, Wikis and Forums are used for study exceed half of students in 69 participants.
This indicates most of these listed Web 2.0 tools are not the main tools to study for students.
Compared with Figure 3, most students prefer to use online database, journals and magazines
and search engine such as Google.
32%
13% 1%
13% 1% 0% 1% 1%
45%
42%
32% 16%
26% 25% 22% 20%
Wikis Forums Social mediasites (e.g.
Flickr,Youtube)
RSS or newsfeeds
InstantMessaging(e.g. MSN,
Skype)
Blogs Socialnetworkingsites (e.g.Facebook)
Micro blog(e.g. Twitter)
Using Web 2.0 tools for study
Only for Study Both for study and entertainment
41
4.3.2 Information reliability for study
In this information society, various kinds of information are in the rapid growth. However,
how to make good use of information, identify information, improve the reliability of
information and integrate and extract reliable information is very important obviously.
Figure 19. Information reliability for study (Total participants = 69)
Figure 19 shows different students’ opinions about information reliability for study based the
option from very reliable to very unreliable. As can be seen from the graph, the number of
students who think the Web 2.0 tools are very reliable is quite small. For example, none of
students think it is very reliable on Blogs, social networking sites and Micro blogs (see Figure
19). The chart indicates majority of people thinks the information reliability from Web 2.0
tools is neutral. Students who think the information is unreliable from most Web 2.0 tools are
more than those who think they are reliable. Except forum where a balance is close (32%
reliable and 28% unreliable), only on Wikis, number of students who think it is reliable (48%)
are more than those who think it is unreliable (11%). These data identify the role of Wikis as
shown in Figure 17 which can be used more for study than entertainment compared with
other Web 2.0 tools and technology.
0%
7%
1% 0% 1% 3%
0%
19%
41%
16% 19%
16%
29%
7%
42% 41%
48%
33%
48%
41%
48%
30%
10%
26%
36%
26% 25% 29%
9%
1%
9% 12%
9%
3%
16%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Blogs Wikis Social mediasites (e.g.
Flickr,Youtube)
Socialnetworkingsites (e.g.Facebook)
InstantMessaging(e.g. MSN,
Skype)
Forums Micro blog(e.g. Twitter)
Very reliable Reliable Neutral Unreliable Very unreliable
42
4.3.3 Personal privacy and security problem
In the Web 2.0 era, when we are facing so many social networking and sharing applications,
personal privacy and security problem are still concerned very much. People get more space
to speak and publish information, at the same time, personal information security problem are
also increasing.
Figure 20. Considering personal privacy and security problem (Total participants = 69)
The pie chart (Figure 20) shows 94% students often set some rights of access or hide some
personal important information. Just 6% students think it doesn’t matter for them. It indicate
most people concern their own personal privacy and information security problem, and just
small number of students doesn’t care the security problem or has vague understanding about
personal privacy and information security problems of current Web 2.0 generation.
4.4 The relationship between information literacy and Web 2.0
Under the Web 2.0 environment, new ways of learning need higher education students to
have higher level’s information literacy. To some extent, different Web 2.0 tools’ appearance
and using especially social media software help improving information literacy of university
students.
Yes, I set up some rights of access or
hide some important
information 94%
No, It doesn’t matter
6%
Considering personal privacy and security problem when
using Web 2.0 tools
43
Figure 21. Using Web 2.0 tools has improved IL (Total participants = 69)
The purpose of Figure 21 is to show whether participants think that using Web 2.0 tools has
improved their information literacy. The respondents answered whether Web 2.0 tools have
improved the ability of specific aspects of IL or not. As can be seen from Figure 21, nearly or
over half of students think they gained skills or improved ability in searching for information,
evaluating information, managing information and presenting information. The results also
reflect the capacity of searching and evaluating information is relatively higher while they do
not think that their skills of presenting information has been improved so much. It is worth to
be mentioned that average one quarter of participants are felt unable to make a judgement
about whether their IL was improved according to Figure 21. It may imply some students
lacked of confidence in assessing their own information literacy.
65% 64% 59% 49%
9% 17%
17%
17%
26% 19% 23%
33%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Improved skill insearching forinformation
Better at evaluatinginformation
Improved ability ofmanaging information
Improved ability ofpresenting information
Yes No Not sure
Using Web 2.0 tools has improved IL
44
Chapter 5 Results of semi-structured interview
Four representative students who answered the questionnaire are invited to conduct the
interview to present qualitative results. It is aimed to explore the issues on Web 2.0 using and
information literacy in depth. The chosen detailed responses from every interviewee are
summarized by the researcher in three tables (Figure 22, Figure 23 and Figure 24). Their
results are discussed in more depth after each table.
5.1 Reasons of using Web 2.0 tools and its help for study
Interviewee 1 Interviewee 2 Interviewee 3 Interviewee 4
usages of blog
-access to ideas
and experience
from others
-beneficial for
study
-recording
personal
feelings
- read others’
blogs for leisure
purpose
- read others’
blogs to get
some experience
-just for
entertainment
- read others’
blogs to get
some
professional
knowledge and
experience
- helpful for
study
usages of Wikis
-most important
tool to get
information
-use for study
-search
information fast
-Touch with
some new
concepts
- get some
general
understandings
-search some
unknown things
- use for study
- important tool
to understand
unclear or
unknown things
-use for study
usages of social
media sites (e.g.
Flickr, YouTube)
-massive and
up-to-date news
-relax and
entertainment
-free resources
-helpful for
study
- many free
resources of
entertainment
- not often use it
for study
because of
wasting time
than reading
book
-abundant
resources about
entertainment
-more use for
entertainment
-helpful for
study
-volume of
study and
entertainment
resources
- often use it for
study and
entertainment
45
Interviewee 1 Interviewee 2 Interviewee 3 Interviewee 4
usages of social
networking (e.g.
Facebook,
RenRen)
-get latest news
from friends
-facilitate
people’s
communication
-entertainment
- interaction
with friends
- for leisure and
entertainment
- sharing
resources
-group talking
about study
-interaction with
friends
-know the
situations
among friends
-communicate
with friends
-entertainment
usages of Instant
messaging (e.g.
Skype, QQ)
-connect with
parents in China
-convenient and
low charge
-helpful for
study
- meet personal
requirements for
making friends
- use it for study
sometimes
- fast response
-chat with
friends and
parents
-talk about
something about
study
-convenient and
fast
- connect with
parents and
friends
-helpful for
study
Figure 22. Why using Web 2.0 tools and its help for study
According to Table Figure 22, the data from five frequently used Web 2.0 tools by the
interviewees revealed the reasons why they use these web 2.0 tools and their help for study.
For blogs, they stressed the main purpose of using blogs is for leisure time and entertainment.
Interviewees can get knowledge and experience of others by blogs, meanwhile, it also can
help them sharing experience and recording feelings. Besides, two participants mentioned the
blogs are helpful for their study. As interviewee 1 said:
“There are many blogs designed for language learners. It provides some help in improving
my English.”
For Wikis, interviewee 1 said getting the information is fast by Wikis. All of them thought
Wikis are useful for their study, and can help them getting general understanding about some
new concepts or unknown things. As interviewee 2 said:
“When I touch with concept things at first time, I will go to Wikis to get the general
understanding, and then go to the professional database or websites to understand in depth.”
For social media sites such as Flickr, YouTube and social networking websites such as
Facebook, the four interviewees use them more for entertainment because of abundant free
resources and sharing information. They use YouTube to study occasionally because of its
visual sense. YouTube is a visual medium which can be more easily recognizable by users, as
46
it presents not only thoughts but also physical images (Rotman et al., 2009). Most people use
Facebook to conduct interaction and communication with friends. Just interviewee 3 uses
Facebook to conduct group talking for study.
For instant messaging, all of them use it to connect with friends or parents because it is
convenient and instant. Also its usefulness is obvious for students’ study around four
interviewees. As interviewee 3 said:
“I often use it to talk about study with my classmates or friends if we are in different place.
By IM, I often transfer files to others.”
5.2 Examples and perceptions on improvement of information literacy in
using Web 2.0
Interviewee 1 Interviewee 2 Interviewee 3 Interviewee 4
Relationship
between web
2.0 tools and IL
-IL is improved
through using
web 2.0
-capacity of
selecting,
evaluating and
applying
information
- IL is improved
- ability of
gathering and
evaluating
information
- can’t not make
sure IL is
improved
-IL is improved
-skills of
identifying ,
evaluating and
managing
information
Examples of
using web 2.0 in
improving IL
-using Wikis in
identifying,
locating and
accessing
information
-applying
knowledge from
blog
-Google Scholar
in gathering
information
-search engine
in evaluating
information
-using blogs,
wikis in
identifying and
evaluating
information
-using Google
scholar or
library database
in managing
information
Figure 23. Improvement of information literacy in using Web 2.0
As can be seen from Figure 23, interviewees claimed using Web 2.0 tools have enhanced
their level of information literacy expect interviewee 3 can’t make sure IL is improved. By
the further question, interviewee 3 has a vague understanding about IL. Interviewees 1, 2, 4
47
think their capacity are improved in different degree by using Web 2.0 tools and technology
related to selecting, evaluating, managing and applying information. For example,
interviewee 1 thinks Wikis improves his capacity in identifying the needed information, and
also the capacity of applying knowledge gained from blogs is improved. Interviewee 4 thinks
his ability of managing information is also improved by using Google scholar and library
database. As he said:
“I often look for useful materials about my courses from Google scholar and Star Plus. I
copy these references of relative information to my file so that it facilitates searching in the
future.”
5.3 Information reliability and considerations in using Web 2.0 tools and
technology
Interviewee 1 Interviewee 2 Interviewee 3 Interviewee 4
reliability of
information on
Web 2.0 tools
-unreliable
information in
all web 2.0 tools
-judge
information
based on
personal
experience,
advice from
surroundings
and news from
public media
-some
information is
unreliable
-judge the
information by
professional
websites about
ranking of
information,
references and
personal
experience
- can’t make
sure the
reliability
accurately
-judge by
personal habits
and experience
-lots of
information are
unreliable
-judge by the
authorized
websites and
personal
experience
Considerations
of reading and
publishing
online
-reliability of the
information
-authority of
publisher
-ethical issues
and copyright
-privacy
- looking for
information that
is relative with
what he wants
-authoritative
websites
-set some
corresponding
rights
-privacy of
personal
information
-Truth of
information
-personal
privacy and
information
security
-reliability and
validity of
information
- ethical issues
and copyright
Figure 24. Information reliability and considerations in using Web 2.0
48
5.3.1 Critical considerations and judgment on information reliability
Figure 24 shows interviewee’s opinions about information reliability and how to judge the
information reliability of Web 2.0. Three interviewees think lots of information is unreliable
on the Web 2.0 platform, and need to be judged by themselves except interviewee 3 can’t
make sure the reliability accurately. Concerning perceptions of their judgments, all of them
judge the information by personal experience and habits. Meanwhile, they also judge the
information through the professional and authorized websites and surroundings and news
from public media except interviewee 3.
5.3.2 Considerations in using Web 2.0 tools and technology
According to interviewees’ responses in Figure 24, all of them are concerned about
information quality, security and personal privacy problems. Interviewees 1 and 2 think the
authoritative websites or authority of publisher is quite significant because these resources
could help them justifying information security and reliability. Interviewees 1 and 4 have
awareness on ethical and copyright issues of using Web 2.0 tools. As interviewee 4 said:
“Some people don’t consider authority of the information and feel free to download work of
others when publish information. Undoubtedly, these violate the law and moral rules. I often
pay attention to these problems.”
49
Chapter 6: A combined discussion on literature and results of
questionnaire and interview
After the results of questionnaire and interview are analysed, the researcher would discuss
these main findings, and compare their results associated with literature review in this
research including their differences and similarities in this chapter.
6.1 Students’ web experiences on Web 2.0 tools and technology
According to the results from the questionnaire, students’ high percentage of Internet use
indicates Internet is very prevalent among higher education students in UK. Most students
often use web resources as it is provide big volume of abundant information for study and
entertainment. The reason of popularity is people can more easily access and publish
information under Web 2.0 environment. According to Paul Anderson (2007), more people
make a reference to Web 2.0 technologies which facilitates a “socially connected Web”
where people can add or edit the information. However, it is a much lower level of
contributing or publishing than using information in this study.
From the results of the questionnaire, interview and literature, most of them often use
different kinds of Web 2.0 tools such as blogs, Wikis, social media sites, social networking
sites frequently. However, students’ use of Web 2.0 resources is quite variable. Tagging and
book marking, RSS service is in low utilization. From a practical view, people often develop
strong preference or habits to either like or dislike using these communication channels.
The percentage of entertainment and socialization by using Web 2.0 tools and technology
was much higher than that of study. This indicates most common Web 2.0 tools are not the
main tools to study for students. These tools’ using by students may be because they want to
keep pace with current Web 2.0 generation in peer group. As noted in questionnaire, most
students prefer to use online database, journals and magazines and search engine such as
Google for study.
According to the responses of interview, because of different Web 2.0 tools’ features and
advantages, most students think they are helpful for their study even though they use them
more for leisure time and entertainment. Hence, Web 2.0 is used widely to provide a good
support for personal learning, and becomes a fast and efficient channel to access to
50
knowledge. As Churchill (2009) said the integration of Web 2.0 applications will be the new
learning generation.
Therefore, it can be concluded students use the Web 2.0 tools and technology prevalently for
study and leisure, and prefer to use Web 2.0 technologies for entertainment and socialization.
Students’ use of Web 2.0 resources is quite variable. This could reflect their level of
information literacy and interests on Web 2.0.
6.2 Information behaviour and digital divide
According to the results of questionnaire, almost everyone have their own devices such as
laptop or desktop, and most students look for information from Internet. It could be evident
that most students are growing with current web generation, and they are willing to get the
information from the Internet. The recent literature presented this view. According to Pew
Research Centre’s Internet & American Life Project in 2012, there is an average rate of 67
per cent of respondents use social media in their routine life. The young people (age from 18
to 29) is higher than any age span (Duggan & Brenner, 2013).
Each person is not only the information recipient, but potentially also is the information
sender in current Web 2.0 generation. However, from the results of questionnaire and
interview, information is contributed seldom, and more people like to browse others’
information. For example, according to the results of questionnaire, there are 70% students
looking at videos at least a few times a week, but only 1% students contributed information at
the same rate. Improving students’ information literacy make getting information and
publishing information keep a balance to build our information society so that we can get and
share more information and knowledge. Good information environment promotes
independent learning, communication and cooperation better.
Digital divide also should be come into notice among students. Blogs and Wikis are as the
basic web 2.0 tools or platform on the Internet. However, as found from questionnaire, there
are 7% of students have never read others’ blogs, also there are 4% of students have never
looked at the information from Wikis. These indicate a small part of students who may not be
good at using Internet, and even their growth is not along with increasing technology. Van
Deursen & Van Dijk (2011) pointed out if people with low skill level of internet don’t find
51
information online when the information relevant to daily life is still increasing, they will
become disadvantaged.
From the literature and questionnaire, it can be found using internet have become a necessary
means to get information especially among higher education students. Information
contribution is less than using information may because people want to get the information
faster than publishing the information, or their information skills need to be improved further.
A small part of students might have not realized the importance of online, and even they just
have a vague understanding to current web generation.
6.3 Information reliability, security and privacy
As found from the survey, students who think the information is unreliable from most web
2.0 tools are more than those who think they are reliable. Most students think information
reliability from Web 2.0 is neutral. This will need our more judgement and evaluation skills.
From interview, this is consistent with questionnaire. Some issues about information
reliability are produced in this collaborative Web 2.0 era. For example, on Wikipedia,
Goodchild (2007) stressed errors often appeared result in edits because Wikipedia lacks of
the delivered authority of recognized publisher, experts or qualifications of contributors.
According to recent literature, questionnaire and interview, personal privacy and information
security problem are still concerned very much. Web 2.0 services have become very popular
with users, however, its characteristics of interaction also give hackers more chances (Lawton,
2007). According to the results of questionnaires ad interviews, most students often set some
rights of access or hide some personal important information on Facebook, Twitter etc. Just
small number of students doesn’t care the security problem. It indicates they may have vague
understanding about personal privacy and information security problems of current web 2.0
generation. From the interviewees’ responses, they often judge the information reliability by
personal experience and habits firstly. Then some students use professional and authorized
websites, surroundings and news from public media to judge information reliability. However,
some students are also concerned with ethical and copyright issues.
Therefore, Understanding information security and privacy problems and more judgement
and evaluation ability are critical for applying information in current web generation. A
52
trustworthy Web 2.0 environment needs to be created so that we can make good use of
information, identify information in Web 2.0 environments.
6.4 Students’ perceptions on improvement of information literacy by using
web 2.0 tools
According to the survey and interview, to some extent, using web 2.0 tools has enhanced
most students’ level and ability of specific aspects of information literacy according to
SCONUL seven pillars model of IL. Over half of students think they have gained skills or
improved capacities in related to searching for information, evaluating information, managing
information and presenting information. There are one quarter of participants are lacked of
awareness of their improvement of IL. It indicates some students’ knowledge of information
literacy is deficient. The concept and education of information literacy need to be popularized
further in high education students.
As can be seen from recent literature, Godwin (2007) mentioned the web 2.0 environment is
increasing the significance of information literacy. This means we should use Web 2.0 tools
and technology to help us improve information literacy. Not all students are skilled in Web
2.0 platform with high information literacy (Luo, 2009). This view is proved by one
interviewee. The interviewee can not make sure IL is improved. By the further question, he
has a vague understanding about IL.
Therefore, it can be concluded most students can have a basic information awareness to make
sure their levels of information literacy. Information literacy is the integrating concept with
the process of the times. However, some students are still not clear to the new requirements
of changing information environment, and keep the roles of traditional information recipients.
New ways of learning and living require higher education students to have higher level’s
information literacy in the Web 2.0 era.
53
Chapter 7: Conclusion
7.1 Introduction
Information literacy is a multi-level, diversified and integrating concept with the progress of
times. When the information environments become Web 2.0, it is playing the important role
in developing students’ information literacy. This chapter will conclude the achievements of
research aim and objectives. Important points and key findings are reviewed and briefly
discussed. At last, the recommendations for developing students’ information literacy and
further research are made.
7.2 Achievement of research aim ad objectives
The aim of the research is to analyze influences of Web 2.0 in developing information
literacy of current higher education students. The research intends to answer the question
“How do university students feel that Web 2.0 technology affects their information literacy?”
Based on the answer to this question, the recommendations hope to be made for developing
information literacy in university students based on the study’s findings about the relationship
between Web 2.0 application and information literacy.
The research is investigated by both questionnaires and interviews. Number of participants is
one of the greatest limitations of online surveys. Regarding to interviews, just four people
who are students from the University of Sheffield are interviewed because of the limitation of
time. The number of participants is not enough to reflect the overall situations and
comprehensive characteristics in depth of using web 2.0 applications around the university
students in UK. So, more participants need to be identified with the research to get an overall
deeper reflection towards the role of Web 2.0 in developing information literacy. Even
though it has some limitations of study, the research provides a comparatively comprehensive
picture about students’ web 2.0 experiences and its relationships with information literacy, as
well as some presented information literacy problems. According to the results of survey and
recent literature, recommendations for developing information literacy in university students
based on the study’s findings about the relationship between Web 2.0 application and
information literacy are made (see section 7.4).
54
7.3 Important points and key findings
Regarding to the analysed results of students’ web experiences on Web 2.0 tools and
technology, it was found usage of Web 2.0 is very prevalent among higher education students
in UK, and most of them use are skilled in using them. Various kinds of Web 2.0 tools which
are used frequently are blogs, Wikis, social media sites, social networking sites. However,
tagging and book marking, RSS service is in low utilization. These indicate students’ use of
Web 2.0 resources is quite variable. It may be interpreted students often have different
preference or limited skills or capabilities on using different web 2.0 tools. Regarding the
Web 2.0 tools for study and entertainment, most students think Web 2.0 tools are helpful to
their study even though more percentage of using Web 2.0 tools and technology are for
entertainment and socialization according to the survey and interview. Web 2.0 is used
widely to provide a good support for personal learning. However, some students’ awareness
of information is not enough in their study and lives.
In addition, information behaviour and digital divide are worth noting. Most students are
willing to get information from internet, and growing with current web generation. According
to the results of questionnaire and interview, information is contributed seldom, and more
people like to use or browse others’ information. There still are a small part of students who
may not be good at using Internet, and even their growth is not along with increasing
technology.
Understanding information security and privacy problems and more judgement and
evaluation ability are critical for applying information in current web generation. From the
results of questionnaires ad interviews, it was found most students often set some rights of
access or hide some personal important information on Facebook, Twitter etc. Just small
number of students doesn’t care the security problem.
Regarding Information literacy, it was found from results over half of students think they
have gained skills or improved capacities in related to searching for information, evaluating
information, managing information and presenting information. There are one quarter of
participants are lacked of awareness of their improvement of IL, even some students have a
vague understanding about information literacy. It indicates some students’ knowledge of
information literacy is deficient in Web 2.0 environment.
55
7.4 Recommendation for developing students’ information literacy
Information literacy under the Web 2.0 network environment not only include proficiency
use of modern information technology to obtain information, and more importantly,
capabilities of using network resources for self-learning, communication and collaboration
and a strong sense of social responsibility and participation.
Based on the results of literature, questionnaire and interview, these IL problems can be
divided into three categories: information awareness, information technology, and
information ethics according to the perspective of our information literacy in Web 2.0
generation. On information awareness, some students lack of awareness of basic information,
information protection and security. On information technology, most students are skilled and
growing with changing technology. However, a small part of students lack of basic
information capacity, and have a vague understanding to current Web 2.0 generation and
information literacy. On information ethics, personal privacy could be explored, and may
infringe others’ copyright unintentionally because of low level of information literacy.
Faced with huge information every day, the researcher makes some recommendations for
developing information literacy in university students of UK according to the results of
research and existed information literacy problems.
Conduct self-assessment. After accomplishing their coursework or essay every time,
students need to submit one feedback or reflection about improvement of information
literacy according to the updated SCONUL seven pillars of information literacy
model in higher education.
Provide some courses about information literacy. Enable students to understand the
meaning of information literacy, and master the ways of information literacy training
and information retrieval methods to obtain information, and cultivate their awareness
of information, information ethics and social responsibility.
Integrate information technology with students’ curriculum. By combining
information technology with courses, it could help accomplishing course objectives
better and exercising students’ abilities of information technology.
56
Focus on building information literacy environment. (1) The construction of campus
information environment: optimization of resources to provide students with access to
information in the vast space (2) The construction of digital library: it is an important
place to develop students' information literacy. For example, build better electronic
information rooms, CD-ROM and Internet resources retrieval service etc.
Web 2.0 has provided us with a good network environment. It is only one network stage in
technology development. In the future, there will be Web 3.0, Web 4.0 etc. are appeared.
With the continuous development of network technology, it will give higher education
students’ information literacy development brings more challenges.
7.5 Recommendations for further research
Further research about the role of Web 2.0 in developing information literacy around
higher education students in UK by involving more participants in questionnaire and
interviewees can be conducted.
According to the results of questionnaire and interview, the situation of using Web 2.0,
levels of information literacy and produced information problems are delivered by 69
university students of UK including four interviewees. A larger sample of
questionnaire and interview can investigate how to affect their development of
specific aspects on information literacy by using different Web 2.0 tools in depth.
A research of the impact of Web 2.0 environment to information literacy education of
higher education students can be conducted.
According to the results of the research, students’ web experiences on Web 2.0 tools
and technology and information literacy levels are presented. Hence, by analysing
Web 2.0 environment and students’ perceptions on using Web 2.0 tools and
technology further, a new information literacy education model could be proposed.
57
A research of digital divide among higher education students in UK under current
Web 2.0 generation can be conducted.
From some results of the research, this study could provide a comprehensive outline
of digital divide among higher education students in UK. Based on this, some
proposed solutions could bring more challenges and opportunities to some students
and make them become information literate in the Web 2.0 generation.
(Word-count: 14,504 words)
58
References American Library Association. (1998). Information Literacy Standards for Student Learning:
standards and Indicator: Chicago, USA.
Anderson, P. (2007) What is Web 2.0?: ideas, technologies and implications for education.
1(1), Bristol, UK: JISC.
Association of College and Research Libraries (2000) Information Literacy Competency
Standards for Higher Education, American Library Association (ALA),
http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency.cfm
Boyd, D. (2007). Social network sites: Public, private, or what. Knowledge Tree, 13(1), 1-7.
Bundy, A. (2004). Australian and New Zealand information literacy framework. Principles,
standards and practice, 2.
Churchill, D. (2009). Educational applications of Web 2.0: Using blogs to support teaching
and learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 179-183.
Click, A. & Petit, J. (2010) ‘Social networking and Web2.0in information literacy’, The
International Information & Library Review, 42(2), 137-142.
Connaway, L. S., & Powell, R. R. (2010). Basic research methods for librarians. ABC-CLIO.
Conrad, D. (2008), “Reflecting on Strategies for a New Learning Culture: Can We Do It?”
Journal of Distance Education, 22 (3), 157–162.
Cormode, G. & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008) Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0.
First Monday, 13(6),
http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2125/1972
CYCH, L. (2006). Social Networks. In: Emerging Technologies for Education, BECTA (ed.).
Becta ICT Research: Coventry, UK.
59
Doctorow, C. (Ed.). (2002). Essential blogging: selecting and using weblog tools. Oreilly &
Associates Incorporated.
Duffy, P. (2008) ‘Engaging the YouTube Google-Eyed Generation: Strategies for Using
Web2.0 in Teaching and Learning’, in Ciussi, M. and Freitas, E.G. (2012), Leading Issues in
e-Learning Research, 1, 41-70.
Duggan, M., & Brenner, J. (2013). The demographics of social media users—2012.
Washington, DC: Pew Internet Project
eBizMBA. (2013). Top 15 most popular Web 2.0 Websites: August 2013. eBizMBA,
http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/web-2.0-websites.
Ebner, M., Lienhardt, C., Rohs, M., Meyer, I. (2010). Microblogs in higher education- a
chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning? Computers & Education, 55 (1),
92-100.
Ebner, M., & Maurer, H. (2007). Blogging in higher education. In World Conference on E-
Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, 2007(1), 767-774,
http://www.editlib.org/p/26424.
Facebook. (2012). Statistics of Facebook. Palo Alto, CA: Facebook.
http://newsroom.fb.com/content/default.aspx?NewsAreaId=22.
Godwin, P. (2007) Information Literacy Meets Web2.0: How the New Tools Affect Our Own
Training and Our Teaching, New Review of Information Networking, 13 (2), 101-112.
Godwin, P. (2007, February). The Web 2.0 challenge to information literacy. In Inforum,
2007, (13).
Goodchild, M. F. (2007). In the World of Web 2.0. International Journal, 2, 24-32.
Grosseck, G. (2009) To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher education? Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences 1, 478–482.
Head, A. J., & Eisenberg, M. B. (2010). How today’s college students use Wikipedia for
course-related research. First Monday, 15(3).
60
Huang, H., & Leung, L. (2011). Instant Messaging Addiction among Teenagers: Abstracting
from the Chinese Experience. In Addiction Medicine (pp. 677-686). Springer New York.
Huberman, B.A., Romero, D.M., Wu, F. (2009). Social networks that matter: Twitter under
the micro-scope, First Monday, 14 (1).
Johnson, B., & Turner, L. A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods research.
Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, 297-319.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities of Social Media. Business horizons, 53(1), 59-68
Keen, A. (2007) The cult of the amateur: how today’s internet is killing our culture and
assaulting our economy. London: Nicholas Brearley.
Kennedy, L., Naaman, M., Ahern, S., Nair, R., & Rattenbury, T. (2007). How flickr helps us
make sense of the world: context and content in community-contributed media collections. In
Proceedings of the 15th international conference on Multimedia (pp. 631-640). ACM.
Kwak, H., Lee, Changhyun, H., & Moon, S. (2010). What is Twitter, a Social Network or a
News Media? In Proceedings ofthe 19th World-Wide Web (WWW) Conference, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Lawton, G. (2007). Web 2.0 creates security challenges. Computer, 40(10), 13-16.
Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). Social networking websites and teens: An overview.
Pew/Internet.
Liebscher, P. (1998). Quantity with Quality? Teaching Quantitative and Qualitative Methods
in an LIS Master's Program. Library Trends, 46(4), 668-80.
Luo, L. (2009) ’Web 2.0 Integration in Information Literacy Instruction: An Overview’, the
Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36 (1), 32–40.
Mackey, T. P., & Jacobson, T. E. (2011). Reframing information literacy as a metaliteracy.
College & Research Libraries, 72(1), 62-78.
61
Magnuson, M. L. (2013). Web 2.0 and Information Literacy Instruction: Aligning
Technology with ACRL Standards. The Journal of Academic Librarianship.
McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M.J.W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning:
Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. Proceedings of
ASCILITE Conference (pp.664-673). Singapore.
Murniati, C. T. (2011). INFORMATION LITERACY IN HIGHER EDUCATION. Celt-
Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching and Literature, 11(2), 160-169.
Nardi, B. A., Whittaker, S., & Bradner, E. (2000, December). Interaction and outeraction:
Instant messaging in action. In Proceedings of Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work (CSCW) (pp. 79–88). New York: ACM Press.
O'Reilly, T. (2005) What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next
Generation of Software,
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
Quan-Haase, A. (2007). Instant messaging on campus: Use and integration in students'
everyday communication. The Information Society, 24(2), 105–115.
Rainie, L. (2007) Web 2.0 and the Internet world. Internet Librarian at Monterey, California,
http://www.pewinternet.org/presentation_display.asp?r_108.
Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts and other powerful web tools for classrooms.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Rotman, D., Golbeck, J., & Preece, J. (2009). The community is where the rapport is--on
sense and structure in the youtube community. In Proceedings of the fourth international
conference on Communities and technologies (pp. 41-50). ACM.
SCONUL (Society of College, National and University Libraries) (2011) Information Skills
in Higher Education: a SCONUL position paper,
http://www.sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/coremodel.pdf
62
Špiranec, S. & Zorica, M. (2010) Information Literacy 2.0: hype or discourse refinement?
Journal of Documentation, 66 (1), 140-153.
Stvilia, B., Twidale, M. B., Gasser, L., & Smith, L. C. (2005, October). Information quality
discussions in Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 2005 international conference on knowledge
management (pp. 101-113). O'Reilly.
Valenza, J.K. (2007) Web 2.0 meets information fluency.
http://www.sdst.org/shs/library/documents/influency.doc.
Van Deursen, A., & Van Dijk, J. (2011). Internet skills and the digital divide. New Media &
Society, 13(6), 893-911.
Warnken, P. (2004). The impact of technology on information literacy education in libraries.
The journal of academic librarianship, 30(2), 151-156.
Weigand, W. (1999), “Tunnel visions and blind spots: what the past tells us about the present:
Reflections on the twentieth-century history of American librarianship”, Library Quarterly,
69 (1), 1-29.
Windham, C. (2006) Getting past Google: perspectives on information literacy from the
millennial mind. EDUCAUSE ELI Paper, 3.
http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/getting-past-google-perspectives-information-
literacy-millennial-mind
Windham, C. (2007) Reflecting, writing, and responding: reasons students blog, Available at:
http://connect.educause.edu/library/abstract/ReflectingWritingand/39344
Wood, J. (2011). Helping students to become disciplinary researchers using questioning,
social bookmarking and inquiry-based learning. Practice and Evidence of Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 6(1), 3-26.
63
Yao, X. (2011). Enhancing Classroom Education with Instant Messaging Tools. In Internet
Computing & Information Services (ICICIS), 2011 International Conference on (pp. 82-85).
IEEE.
64
Appendices
Appendix 1: Research Ethics Form
The University of Sheffield Proposal for
Information School Research Ethics Review
Project Title: The role of web2.0 in developing information literacy for higher-education students
A study based on students from the Universities in the UK
Start Date: March 1, 2013 End Date: September 2, 2013
Principal Investigator (PI):
(student for supervised UG/PGT/PGR research)
Chaofeng Xiao
Email: [email protected]
Supervisor:
(if PI is a student)
Ms Sheila Webber
Email: [email protected]
Indicate if the research: (put an X in front of all that apply)
Involves adults with mental incapacity or mental illness, or those unable to make a personal decision
Involves prisoners or others in custodial care (e.g. young offenders)
Involves children or young people aged under 18 years of age
Involves highly sensitive topics such as ‘race’ or ethnicity; political opinion; religious, spiritual or other beliefs; physical or mental health conditions; sexuality; abuse (child, adult); nudity and the body; criminal activities; political asylum; conflict situations; and personal violence.
Students Staff This proposal submitted by: This proposal is for: Undergraduate Specific research project × Postgraduate (Taught) – PGT Generic research project Postgraduate (Research) – PGR This project is funded by:
N/A
65
Please indicate by inserting an “X” in the left hand box that you are conversant with the
University’s policy on the handling of human participants and their data.
×
We confirm that we have read the current version of the University of Sheffield Ethics
Policy Governing Research Involving Human Participants, Personal Data and Human
Tissue, as shown on the University’s research ethics website at:
www.sheffield.ac.uk/ris/other/gov-ethics/ethicspolicy
66
Part B. Summary of the Research
B1. Briefly summarise the project’s aims and objectives: (This must be in language comprehensible to a layperson and should take no more than one-half page. Provide enough information so that the reviewer can understand the intent of the research)
Summary:
With technology’s changes in the Web 2.0 network environment, there is a more complex
Web 2.0 environment in which higher education students have to develop their information
literacy. The aim of the research is to analyze influences of Web 2.0 in developing
information literacy of current higher education students. The research intends to answer the
question “how do university students feel that Web 2.0 technology affects their information
literacy?” Firstly, I will need to identify the existing research linking Web 2.0 applications
and Web 2.0 applications used and experienced by a sample of university students. Secondly,
I investigate which aspects of information literacy Web 2.0 applications were being used for.
Thirdly, I will evaluate the potential information literacy problems in the Web 2.0
environment. Finally, I will make recommendations for developing information literacy in
university students based on the study’s findings about the relationship between Web 2.0
application and information literacy.
B2. Methodology: Provide a broad overview of the methodology in no more than one-half page.
Overview of Methods:
Questionnaires and interviews will be used. Questionnaires are suitable to gather data on
what Web 2.0 applications people are using in a way that enables quantitative analysis. It
might also be possible to ask in each case whether people feel they have used them for
particular aspects of IL, using an existing IL framework. Interviews are valuable when you
want to ask people why or how they are doing something, so a smaller sample of those people
who answered the questionnaire or have experience will be asked about why they used the
Web 2.0 applications for particular information activities.
If more than one method, e.g., survey, interview, etc. is used, please respond to the questions in Section C for each method. That is, if you are using both a survey and interviews, duplicate the page and answer the questions for each method; you need not duplicate the information, and may simply indicate, “see previous section.”
67
C1. Briefly describe how each method will be applied --- Step 1
Method (e.g., survey, interview, observation, experiment):
The step one of the research will use a questionnaire.
Description – how will you apply the method?
I will make the questionnaire from university students in the UK by the online survey tool,
email or paper with the mixture of optional and compulsory questions. The students are the
people that I know or in the student list that information school provides.
About your Participants
C2. Who will be potential participants?
The potential participants are higher education students who use web2.0 applications or who
are my classmates and friends in the University of Sheffield or other universities in UK.
C3. How will the potential participants be identified and recruited?
Potential participants will respond to the sent request by face to face, the email or telephone.
C4. What is the potential for physical and/or psychological harm / distress to
participants?
There is no particular harm and distress to the participants associated with the research
subject.
C5. Will informed consent be obtained from the participants?
× Yes No
If Yes, please explain how informed consent will be obtained?
Brief information will be supplied at the start of the questionnaire with an opportunity to get a
full information sheet. After this, completion will imply consent.
If No, please explain why you need to do this, and how the participants will be de-briefed?
C6. Will financial / in kind payments (other than reasonable expenses and compensation
for time) be offered to participants? (Indicate how much and on what basis this has been
decided)
No Financial payments will be offered to participants
68
About the Data
C7. What data will be collected? (Tick all that apply)
Print Digital Participant observation Audio recording Video recording Computer logs Questionnaires/Surveys × × Other: Other:
C8. What measures will be put in place to ensure confidentiality of personal data, where
appropriate?
The questionnaires associated with personal data will be anonymous. After the research, I
will keep the data in a unique safe place or destroy them according the participants’
requirements.
C9. How/Where will the data be stored?
I will collect and store the data on my supervisor’s computer or in the encrypted folder on my
computer. The paper questionnaire will be converted to the digital from for analysis.
C10. Will the data be stored for future re-use? If so, please explain
The stored data will not be reused in the future.
About the Procedure
C11. Does your research raise any issues of personal safety for you or other researchers involved
in the project (especially if taking place outside working hours or off University premises)? If so,
please explain how it will be managed.
During the project process, the questionnaires will happen in the university or at home. No
personal safety issues will be raised.
69
C1. Briefly describe how each method will be applied --- Step 2
Method (e.g., survey, interview, observation, experiment):
The step two of the research will use an interview.
Description – how will you apply the method?
A smaller sample of those people who answered the questionnaire or have experience could
be invited to participate in the interview, which will happen in the meeting room at the
information school or the information commons library. Before the interview, the
Information Sheet/Consent Form will be read and signed, and then the interview commence.
When all interview questions are answered, the interviewee will be thanked.
About your Participants
C2. Who will be potential participants?
The potential participants are higher education students who answered the questionnaire or
have experience in the University of Sheffield or other universities in UK.
C3. How will the potential participants be identified and recruited?
Potential participants will respond to the sent request by face to face, the email or telephone.
C4. What is the potential for physical and/or psychological harm / distress to
participants?
There is no particular harm and distress to the participants associated with the research
subject.
C5. Will informed consent be obtained from the participants?
× Yes No
If Yes, please explain how informed consent will be obtained?
Participants will be distributed with information sheet/ consent form at the beginning of the
interview. They are invited to ask any questions about the research. The consent form is
signed when all questions are answered.
If No, please explain why you need to do this, and how the participants will be de-briefed?
70
C6. Will financial / in kind payments (other than reasonable expenses and compensation
for time) be offered to participants? (Indicate how much and on what basis this has been
decided)
No Financial payments will be offered to participants
About the Data
C7. What data will be collected? (Tick all that apply)
Print Digital Participant observation Audio recording × Video recording Computer logs Questionnaires/Surveys Other: Other:
C8. What measures will be put in place to ensure confidentiality of personal data, where
appropriate?
The audio of interview will only be transferred into text for academic purpose. After the
research, I will keep the data in a unique safe place or destroy them according the participants’
requirements.
C9. How/Where will the data be stored?
I will collect and store the data on my supervisor’s computer or in the encrypted folder on my
computer. The audio will be transferred into the text.
C10. Will the data be stored for future re-use? If so, please explain
The stored data will not be reused in the future.
About the Procedure
C11. Does your research raise any issues of personal safety for you or other researchers involved
in the project (especially if taking place outside working hours or off University premises)? If so,
please explain how it will be managed.
During the project process, the interviews will happen in the university or at home. No any
personal safety issues will be raised.
71
The University of Sheffield Research Ethics Review
Information School Declaration
Title of Research Project: The role of web2.0 in developing information literacy for higher
education students a study based on students from the Universities in UK
We confirm our responsibility to deliver the research project in accordance with the University of
Sheffield’s policies and procedures, which include the University’s ‘Financial Regulations’, ‘Good
Research Practice Standards’ and the ‘Ethics Policy Governing Research Involving Human
Participants, Personal Data and Human Tissue’ (Ethics Policy) and, where externally funded, with the
terms and conditions of the research funder.
In submitting this research ethics application form I am also confirming that:
The form is accurate to the best of our knowledge and belief.
The project will abide by the University’s Ethics Policy.
There is no potential material interest that may, or may appear to, impair the independence and objectivity of researchers conducting this project.
Subject to the research being approved, we undertake to adhere to the project protocol without unagreed deviation and to comply with any conditions set out in the letter from the University ethics reviewers notifying me of this.
We undertake to inform the ethics reviewers of significant changes to the protocol (by contacting our academic department’s Ethics Coordinator in the first instance).
we are aware of our responsibility to be up to date and comply with the requirements of the law and relevant guidelines relating to security and confidentiality of personal data, including the need to register when necessary with the appropriate Data Protection Officer (within the University the Data Protection Officer is based in CiCS).
We understand that the project, including research records and data, may be subject to inspection for audit purposes, if required in future.
We understand that personal data about us as researchers in this form will be held by those involved in the ethics review procedure (e.g. the Ethics Administrator and/or ethics reviewers) and that this will be managed according to Data Protection Act principles.
If this is an application for a ‘generic’ project all the individual projects that fit under the generic project are compatible with this application.
We understand that this project cannot be submitted for ethics approval in more than one department, and that if I wish to appeal against the decision made, this must be done through the original department.
Name of the Student (if applicable):
Chaofeng Xiao
Name of Principal Investigator (or the Supervisor):
Ms Sheila Webber
Date: June 13, 2013
72
Appendix 2: Participant Information Sheet /Consent Form
Participant Information Sheet
Researchers
Researcher: Chaofeng Xiao Supervisor: Ms Sheila Webber
[[email protected]] [[email protected]]
Purpose of the research
In the Web2.0 environment, the higher education students need to enhance information
literacy in order to make better use of the information. The aim of the research is to analyze
influences of Web2.0 in developing information literacy of current higher education students.
The research intends to answer “how do university students feel that Web2.0 technology
affects their information literacy?” Based on the answer to this question, the study hopes to
make recommendations for developing information literacy in university students based on
the study’s findings about the relationship between Web 2.0 application and information
literacy.
Who will be participating?
I am inviting the students from universities in the UK who use Web 2.0 applications or who
are my classmates and friends in the University of Sheffield or other universities in UK.
What will you be asked to do?
I will ask you to complete a brief questionnaire anonymously. Then you may be asked to
conduct a small interview about the effects of Web2.0 on information literacy of students
from universities in UK. It will take 15 to 40 minutes.
What are the potential risks of participating?
There is no particular harm and distress to the participants associated with the research
subject.
The University of Sheffield. Information School
The role of web2.0 in developing information literacy for
higher education students A study based on
students from the Universities in the UK
73
What data will we collect?
The questionnaire will be distributed by paper or online survey. I will gather data on what
Web 2.0 applications people are using and whether people feel they have used them for
particular aspects of IL. The interviews will be audio recorded, will ask why people used the
Web 2.0 applications for particular information activities and how to develop their
information literacy.
What will we do with the data?
I will be only analyzing the data for my Master’s dissertation. The data will be collected and
stored in a safe place such as an encrypted folder. The stored data will not be reused in the
future. I will keep the data in a unique safe place or destroy them according the participants’
requirements.
Will my participation be confidential?
The collected data during the interview and questionnaire will be anonymised. The
recordings of interview will be stored in the encrypted folder. No identifying information
will be recognized. I will ensure that what participants tell me will be kept anonymous and
confidential. I can’t guarantee that the participants will not talk about their participation.
What will happen to the results of the research project?
The results of the research project will be publicly available after my Master’s dissertation is
completed. You could contact the information school in University of Sheffield if you want
to know the results of the research.
74
Participant Consent Form
Title of Research Project:
“The role of web2.0 in developing information literacy for higher education students
a study based on students from the Universities in the UK”
Name of Researcher: Chaofeng Xiao
1. I confirm that I have read and understand the description of the research project, and that I have
had an opportunity to ask questions about the project.
2. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time without
any negative consequences.
3. I understand that I may decline to answer any particular question or questions, or to do any of
the activities. If I stop participating at all time, all of my data will be purged.
4. I understand that my responses will be kept strictly confidential, that my name or identity will not
be linked to any research materials, and that I will not be identified or identifiable in any report or
reports that result from the research.
5. I give permission for the research team members to have access to my anonymised responses.
6. I give permission for the research team to re-use my data for future research as specified above.
7. I agree to take part in the research project as described above.
Participant Name (Please print) Participant Signature
Researcher Name (Please print) Researcher Signature Date
Note: If you have any difficulties with, or wish to voice concern about, any aspect of your participation in this study, please contact Dr. Angela Lin, Research Ethics Coordinator, Information School, The University of Sheffield ([email protected]), or to the University Registrar and Secretary.
75
Appendix 3: Letter of Approval
Information School Research Ethics Panel
Letter of Approval
Date: 8th July 2013
TO: Chaofeng Xiao
The Information School Research Ethics Panel has examined the following application:
The role of web2.0 in developing information literacy for higher education students: A study
based on students from Universities in the UK
Submitted by: Chaofeng Xiao
And found the proposed research involving human participants to be in accordance with the
University of Sheffield’s policies and procedures, which include the University’s ‘Financial
Regulations’, ‘Good Research Practice Standards’ and the ‘Ethics Policy Governing Research
Involving Human Participants, Personal Data and Human Tissue’ (Ethics Policy).
This letter is the official record of ethics approval by the School, and should accompany any
formal requests for evidence of research ethics approval.
Effective Date: 8th July 2013
Dr Angela Lin
Research Ethics Coordinator
76
Appendix 4: Questionnaire (Online Survey)
77
78
79
80
81
82
Appendix 5: Interview Guide
1. I’m going to ask you about what Web 2.0 tools you use for study or entertainment.
For each one based on question 13 of questionnaire:
Why do you use it? When you use it for study? Does it help for your study?
2. Based on question 14 of questionnaire: How reliable do you think the following are for
your study? I will ask you why do you think is that reliable/ unreliable? How do you judge
the reliability of the information for internet?
Web 2.0 tools list (For question 1&2):
1. Blogs 5. Social networking sites (e.g. Facebook)
2. Wikis 6. Instant Messaging (e.g. MSN, Skype)
3. RSS or news feeds 7. Forums
4. Social media sites (e.g. Flickr, YouTube) 8. Micro blog (e.g. Twitter)
3. I am going to ask you where you feel any Web 2.0 tools have improved your information
literacy.
Why has it improved you information literacy? Or why has it made your IL worse?
Which web 2.0 tools improved your ability for each aspect of IL 7 pillars model (Figure 1),
give me some examples?
4. Nowadays, anyone can publish and spread information. What should you consider when
you read and use information from internet?
83
Appendix 6: Sample of Interview Transcript
I – Interviewee R – Researcher
R: I will talk about some most commonly used web 2.0 tools for your study or entertainment.
Let’s start from the blog. Why do you use it? Do you think it helps your study?
I: Well, blog is a perfect internet platform for me to access to ideas and experience from
others. Many social celebrities have their own blogs and from their blogs I can get some
latest and interesting news about them. Besides, it is beneficial to my study as well. For
example, there are many blogs designed for language learners. It provides some help in
improving my English.
R: How do you use blogs to improve your English?
I: I could study from others’ opinions or experiences according to their professional articles
or summaries about English study, and some useful links are also good resources.
R: The same question goes to Wikis. What’s your idea about it?
I: Wikis is one of the most important tools I use to get information. The information in it is
deliberate and easy to understand. And, I mainly use it for study. When I get some unknown
knowledge during my study, I usually solve it through searching on the wikis. In addition, the
greatest advantage of using wikis is that it is a fast way in getting information.
R: Yes, I agree. How about some social media sites, like Flickr and YouTube?
I: YouTube is fantastic! I use it every day. The resource on it is massive and up to date. I use
it for relax and entertainment every day. Also, all these resource are totally free. That is really
helpful and convenient. It is possible for me to get some video for study on it. The visual
information is vivid and helpful in my study.
R: Could you give me some examples about study?
I: For example, there are many English learning programmes in BBC. I learn lots of
knowledge like history, culture, policy of English speaking countries which enrich my
information and promote my interest in English learning at the same time.
R: And, the social networking sites, like Facebook or RenRen (for Chinese users)?
84
I: Basically, I browse the news in my RenRen almost every day. Through it, I can get the
latest news about my friends. I have a sense that distance between people is shorten through
using it. People communicate more frequently and share ideas with each other. Honestly
speaking, I don’t use it for study. The function of it to me is entertainment.
R: And, the last one, what do you think of Instant Messaging, for example, Skype or QQ?
I: They are necessary in my daily life. When I study in UK, I usually use Skype to connect
with my parents who live in China. It is very convenient and low in charge. Besides, QQ is
the most important tool I use to connect with my friends. We chat and share interesting things
on it. Besides, it is also helpful to my study. For example, the students of my major sets up a
chatting group in QQ. Through it, we can discuss the problems of our studies and get help
from others. It is really useful, I think.
R: Ok, nice answer. Now, based on your understanding towards these web2.0 tools, what do
you think the information on it, reliable or not? And how do you judge the reliability of the
information in the internet?
I: In my opinion, all of these tools involve some unreliable information. Take Wikis for
example, some information on it is lacking authority and may cause misleading to the readers.
Besides, some people use social networks and instant messaging like QQ for cheating and
some illegal purposes.
For me, I usually judge the reliability of the information on it based on my personal
experience. Besides, through the public media, like TV and newspaper, I also gain some
knowledge of how to identify the real news and fake information. Finally, some advices from
my surroundings like my parents and friend are also helpful for me to judge them.
R: Ok, in the following part, I will ask you some questions about your feelings of web 2.0
and information literacy. Do you think web 2.0 tools improve your information literacy or
reduce it? (SCONUL IL 7 pillars model has been shown and explained to the interviewee)
I: Well, I think, my information literacy is improved through using web 2.0 tools. First, I can
pick the useful information through the massive information flow. Then, I can evaluate the
reliability of information and identify the useful ones. And I also apply the information I
gained into my study and life.
85
R: Which web 2.0 tools improved your ability for each aspect of IL 7 pillars model, please
give me some examples.
I: For example, using Wikis improves my capacity in identifying the needed information. It is
also helpful for me to locate and access the information. Another example is based on my
experience in using blogs. My capacity of applying the knowledge I gained from blogs is
improved.
R: Ok, let’s turn to the last question. As we all know, nowadays anyone can publish and
spread information on the internet. What should you consider when you read and publish
information in the internet?
I: To this question, I think, first I will consider the reliability of the information. Then, the
authority of publisher is also needed to pay attention to. Besides, some elements, like ethical
issues and copyright is important when I intend to publish my personal idea on the internet.
And, in the last, I often protect my privacy and escape to reveal my personal information on
the internet.
R: That is the end of the interview, thank you very much for your time and participation!
I: You are welcome.
86
Appendix 7: Access to Dissertation