TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2014, volume 13 issue 4

INTEGRATION OF WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN LEARNING A PROGRAMMING COURSE

Dr. Nazatul Aini Abd Majid
Center of Artificial Inteligence (CAIT), Faculty Information Science and Technology(FTSM), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM),
Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
[email protected]

ABSTRACT
Web 2.0 tools are expected to assist students to acquire knowledge effectively in their university environment.
However, the lack of effort from lecturers in planning the learning process can make it difficult for the students
to optimize their learning experiences. The aim of this paper is to integrate Web 2.0 tools with learning strategy
in order to enhance the motivation of the students to use the Web 2.0 tools. The integration of the tools in
learning a programing course is based on PQR strategy, which includes three components: Preview, Questions
and Reflect. The study sample consisted of 39 undergraduate students for identifying their preference towards
the use of Web 2.0 tools which include Blog, Youtube, Google Form and Padlet. The results show that the
perception of students towards the use web 2.0 tools was positive. Hence, it was possible to integrate a learning
strategy with specific Web 2.0 tools, and, thus, facilitate blended learning.

KEYWORDS: Web 2.0 tools, teaching and learning, programming course

INTRODUCTION
Collaboration, social-networking, as well as knowledge generation and sharing have been identified as the key
learning technology trends that will reshape the education worldwide (Brown & Adler, 2008; Hargadon, 2008).
Higher education is undergoing a major transformation enabled by Information Technology (IT), such as Web
2.0 tools, which support the key learning trends (Grosseck, 2009). Moreover, Web 2.0 tools provide on-demand
applications for students in retrieving and sharing knowledge in a distributed environment. This supports the
need for a new approach, as suggested by Brown and Adler (2008) who explained:
“We now need a new approach to learning – one characterized by a demand-pull rather than the
traditional supply-push mode of building up an inventory of knowledge in students’ heads”.

Students treat everything offered by Web 2.0 tools as a service. In fact, this is a concept of cloud computing
where applications reside in the cloud (O'Reilly, 2008). Google docs spreadsheets are a cloud application
(O'Reilly, 2008) where students from different locations can co-edit the same document simultaneously (Qiyun
& Huay Lit, 2009). Moreover, students can share knowledge, give comments, support ideas or retrieve new
knowledge whilst networking with their friends at the same time by using a prominent example of social
networking services, Facebook (Uzunboylu, Bicen, & Cavus, 2011). Thus, integrating Web 2.0 tools for higher
education offers many advantages, as stated by Grosseck (2009), which include: easier and faster access to
information, when and where it is needed; sharing accumulated experiences and resources; and compatibility
with the elements of the educational field and the existing contextual dynamics.

More and more higher education institutions are taking advantage of Web 2.0 tools, including the University of
Leeds, University of Brighton and University of Edinburgh. In the University of Warwick, for example, blogs
are being widely used with 4,540 blogs that have changed the social context for students in this university
(Franklin & Van Harmelen, 2007). One of the leading universities in Malaysia, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
(UKM), is also moving towards implementing the use of Web 2.0 in teaching and learning. Training has been
given to the interested staff about Web 2.0, for example, Web 2.0 workshop series concerning presentation tools,
content creation tools, research tools, survey/voting tools and collaborative tools. In fact, an e-book entitled
‘Web 2.0 Research Tools: A Quick Guide’ has been published online by the co-director of the Academic
Development Centre in UKM. This e-book is accessible for free at http://www.scribd.com/doc/95039625. This
situation, together with the recent progress in many higher institutions, has shown the role of Web 2.0 tools in
transforming the teaching and learning environment into a new era.

In the transformation, however, the best way to leverage the use of Web 2.0 tools needs to be found in order to
optimize the teaching and learning activity. Since the teaching approaches of the lecturer can influence the
attitude of their students, which are now mostly from digital natives (Margaryan, Littlejohn, & Vojt, 2011), some
frameworks based on the Web 2.0 learning design have been developed in order to promote more confidence in
learning using Web 2.0 tools. Bower et al. (2010), for example, provide a comprehensive list that categorizes the
Web 2.0 tools into knowledge types, pedagogies, modalities and synchronicities. In addition, Grosseck (2009)
provides a table for integrating Web 2.0 technologies in educational applications in higher education. However,
there is still a lack of research that integrates the Web 2.0 tools into the teaching and learning strategy,

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

88
 TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2014, volume 13 issue 4

particularly in computer science courses. Therefore, the objective of this research is to integrate the Web 2.0
tools with learning strategy in a programming course in a higher education institution, UKM. A blog was used
to integrate various education resources from different web 2.0 tools. A questionnaire was given to 39
programming students in order to assess the preference of students towards the use of web 2.0 tools in their
learning.

LITERATURE REVIEW
A variety of strategies that integrate Web 2.0 tools in the teaching-learning environment can be found in the
literature in this twenty-first century. The movement from conventional teaching methods (supply-pull mode) to
service-oriented teaching methods (demand-pull mode) has been inspired by the use of cloud computing
applications: Web 2.0 tools. Inspired by the definition of cloud computing by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST)(Mell & Grance, 2009) and cloud manufacturing by Xu (2012), cloud education may be
defined as a model for enabling ubiquitous, convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of
configurable education resources (e.g., education software tools, education contents and education support) that
can be mapped with Web 2.0 tools, and teaching and learning strategy. In order to develop a teaching plan using
web 2.0 tools, three factors should be under considerations. These factors are:
1. Education resources - what resources are used in the learning system using Web 2.0 tools?
2. Strategy selection layer - which learning strategy is selected for planning the teaching and
3. Implementation layer - how frequently can the lecturer monitor the learning process and how is the
interaction between lecturers and students during the process?

Education resources layer

The key function of this layer is to identify the education resources required for learning development. The
identification of the resources is not only based on the permanent need of the subjects, but also the changing
needs of the students. The education contents used in this layer may have been created from information based
on the syllabus and course materials, e.g., web (scribd, slideshare), documents (pdf, words), presentation (.ppt),
accumulated experiences, pictures and videos. In an object-oriented programming course in UKM, for example,
contents in the form of presentation slides is the main content source to cater to the permanent need of the
subject. Meanwhile, the changing needs can be catered using other sources of contents, such as discussion,
videos and blogs on the web.

Strategy selection layer

The main function of this layer is to select a strategy that is suitable for understanding the course materials using
all the identified contents in the education resources layer. In the programming course, the course materials are
in a presentation format developed using Microsoft Power Point where most of the contents are presented in text.
Many strategies have been developed in order to improve learning from text. Kombartzky et al. (2010) listed
some examples including the MURDER-Strategy (Mood, Understanding, Recalling, Digesting, Expanding,
Reviewing; Dansereau et al., 1979) and the PQ4R-Strategy (Preview, Question, Read, Reflect, Recite, Review;
Thomas & Robinson, 1972). In this paper, a strategy based on PQ4R was used because it can be expanded to not
only text, but also other forms of contents. However, the strategy was slightly modified by using only one R,
Reflect, instead of 4R in order to use the Web 2.0 tools in a suitable way.

Implementation layer
The key function of this layer is to implement the integration of Web 2.0 tools in learning and teaching. There
are three levels of frequency of use in this layer – pre, during and post lecture. In this paper, the interaction
between Lecturer-Student happens throughout the framework where the lecturer usually initiates the interaction.
For example, for each new chapter, the lecturer provides the intention of each new lesson on a blog page,
embeds a video on the blog page for preview and posts a question on a wall and blog before the lecture. The
lecturer then uploads the materials for the new chapter in a learning management system and the contents of the
new chapter are usually discussed during the lecture. Finally, in order to reflect on their lesson after the class, the
lecturer posts information and questions about the new topic on the blog page using Google form.

CASE STUDY
A blog was designed as shown in Figure 1 to integrate various web 2.0 tools to engage students’ attention in
learning complex materials in a programming course. The integration of Web 2.0 tools was implemented as
below:
• Platform- Blog
A blog entitled Object-oriented programming was created where selected web 2.0 tools were integrated on
the blog page (Figure 1).
• Preview – YouTube embedded in Blog

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

89
 TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2014, volume 13 issue 4

Videos from YouTube were embedded in the blog for students to view before the class (Figure 2).
• Questions – Padlet embedded in Blog
A wall was created using Padlet so that students can post questions before the class (Figure 3).
• Reflect – Google form embedded in Blog
An exercise based on a specific topic was created using Google form. Students can reflect their
understanding using this exercise after class (Figure 4).

Participants
The study sample consisted of 39 undergraduate students who enrolled for subject OOP from the Information
Science programme and Multimedia programme. These students were assumed to have the ability to use Web
2.0 tools because they were doing an information technology course in UKM. In fact, they were second-year
students.

Instruments
Data was collected from a questionnaire entitled The integration of Web 2.0 tools in teaching and learning in
object-oriented programming course. This questionnaire uses a 7 point scale from strongly disagree to strongly
agree. Questionnaires were completed by the students in the last week of the semester.

Data analysis
Each student completed the questionnaire that was uploaded online. Analysis of the questionnaire was done by
using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1's two rightmost columns display descriptive statistics for each item that describe the preference of the
students towards the use of web 2.0 tools. The highest mean scores were yielded by item 11 with min 5.36 and
frequency of students selected scale 5, 6 and 7 was 29 out of 39. The lowest mean value was obtained by item
number 1 with min 4.56 and frequency of students selected scale 5, 6 and 7 was 19 out of 39. Overall, min for
every item ranged from 4.56 - 5.36. These results indicate that students were moderately favoured the use of web
2.0 tools in learning the course.

Table 1: Survey statements and the received responses

No Statement Total response for Frequency Mean
(scale 5-7)
1 I like to watch related videos on YouTube suggested
by lecturers before class 4.56
19
2 Questions posted by the lecturer in the discussion 29 4.95
through padlets before the class increase my curiosity
3 I like to receive materials for reading using blogs 29 5.13
4 I like to access the recorded lessons 29 5.26
5 I like to share lesson contents on Facebook/blog 26 5.10
6 Sharing information in web 2.0 tools (e.g., Facebook 31 5.31
and blogs) increases my motivation
7 I like to discuss about the lesson using the web 2.0 25 4.69
tools, e.g., Facebook and blogs
8 Being able to connect with the lecturer using web 2.0 27 5.13
tools after class can increase my interest in such
lessons.
9 To learn lesson based on PQR using web 2.0 tools 26 4.90
make learning more effective and attractive
10 If web 2.0 tools are used for my other lessons, my 24 4.64
success will increase.
11 How motivated do you feel towards the use of web 29 5.36
2.0 in your studies now?

The highest mean score corresponds to item 1 which states I am motivated to use web 2.0 tools in my studies
now. 29 out of 39 students thought that it was true that they were motivated to use web 2.0 tools in learning this
programming course. Since programming language Java is difficult to learn (Pendergast, 2006), the use of web
2.0 tools in learning can help in increasing the students’ interest towards the subject. Meanwhile, 31 out 39 of

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

90
 TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2014, volume 13 issue 4

the respondents agreed that sharing information in web 2.0 tools (e.g., Facebook and blogs) increases their
motivation (item 6). This might be because they want a platform to share and discuss the lesson for further
understanding.

Since web 2.0 tools are emerging technology in education, further understanding about the preference of the
students towards these tools can further help in the learning process. 24 out of 39 students agreed that If Web 2.0
tools are used for my other lessons, my success will increase (item 10). This shows an interesting finding in
which the students may want to use Padlets to post their questions, use blog to share information related to the
subject or use Youtube to preview the contents of the upcoming class. For example, a student can stick a note on
a wall for any questions related to a topic anonymously. The lecturer, then, can discuss every sticky note on the
wall during the lecture. The students will be appreciated when the lecturer responds to their questions in this
interaction.

Another interesting finding is that 26 out of 39 students agreed that learning based on PQR using web 2.0 tools
make learning more effective and attractive. This shows that web 2.0 tools provide an alternative way for the
students to discuss the subject with the lecturer other than face-to-face meeting. This is also support the finding
that web 2.0 tools can be used for blended learning. Blended learning models stated by Köse (2010) was:
“Blended learning models are formed by combining face to face education and online learning activities
mostly. In this case, teachers can use advantages of both face to face education and online learning”
.
CONCLUSIONS
A strategy for integrating web 2.0 tool was proposed in order to organize education resources for a specific
subject effectively. A learning plan using web 2.0 tools can be developed using a PQR strategy where students
can do online learning based on three important components in learning which are: preview, questions and
reflect. This can support blended learning where students with different learning style can get benefits from a
combination of using on-learning learning and face to face education. Therefore, the learning plan was not only
to capture the interest of students for optimizing their learning experience but also to cater to the needs of all
students with different levels of thinking.

REFERENCES
Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds On Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0.
EDUCAUSE Review,, January/February 2008, 17-32
Dansereau, D. F., & et al. (1979). Development and evaluation of a learning strategy training program. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 64-73.
Franklin, T., & Van Harmelen, M. (2007). Web 2.0 for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. London:
The Observatory of Borderless Higher Education. Franklin, T. & Van Harmelen, M. (2007). Web
2002.2000 for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. London: The Observatory of Borderless
Higher Education. Retrieved May 2014, 2008 from http://www.obhe.ac.uk/resources-
new/pdf/2651.Pdf
Grosseck, G. (2009). To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher education? Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 1(1), 478-482.
Hargadon, S. (2008). Web 2.0 is the future of education.
Kombartzky, U., Ploetzner, R., Schlag, S., & Metz, B. (2010). Developing and evaluating a strategy for learning
from animations. Learning and Instruction, 20(5), 424-433.
Köse, U. (2010). A blended learning model supported with Web 2.0 technologies. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2794-2802.
Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use
of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2), 429-440.
Mell, P., & Grance, T. (2009). Perspectives on cloud computing and standards. National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST), Information Technology Laboratory.
O'Reilly, T. (2008). Web 2.0 and cloud computing. O'Reilly radar
Pendergast, M. (2006). Teaching Introductory Programming to IS Students: Java Problems and Pitfalls. Journal
of Information Technology Education, 5, 491-515.
Qiyun, W., & Huay Lit, W. (2009). Exploring the Use of Web 2.0 Tools to Support Collaborative Learning.
Journal of Education Research, 3(3), 191-202.
Thomas, E. L., & Robinson, H. A. (1972). Improving reading in every class: A source-book for teachers.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Uzunboylu, H., Bicen, H., & Cavus, N. (2011). The efficient virtual learning environment: A case study of web
2.0 tools and Windows live spaces. Computers & Education, 56(3), 720-726.

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

91
 TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2014, volume 13 issue 4

Xu, X. (2012). From cloud computing to cloud manufacturing. Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing, 28(1), 75-86.

FIGURES

Figure 1: The integration of web 2.0 tools in a learning plan.

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

92
 TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2014, volume 13 issue 4

Figure 2: Youtube is integrated on a blog for preview item in the learning plan.

Figure 3: Padlet is integrated on a blog for question item in the learning plan.

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

93
TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – October 2014, volume 13 issue 4

Figure 4: Google form was use for reflect item in the learning plan.

Copyright © The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

94