October 2011 Volume 14 Number 4 - Educational Technology ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Yoo, S. J., & Huang, W.-H. D. (2011). Comparison of Web 2.0 Technology Acceptance Level based on Cultural Differences. Educational Technology & Society, 14 (4), 241–252. Comparison of Web 2.0 Technology Acceptance Level based on Cultural Differences Sun Joo Yoo and Wen-hao David Huang Department of Education Policy, Organization and Leadership, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA // yoo23@illinois.edu // wdhuang@illinois.edu ABSTRACT In order to inform educators in higher education on the integration of Web 2.0 applications for engaging and effective learning experiences, this survey study compared the use and acceptance of Web 2.0 applications between American and Korean college students through the lens of cultural differences. Undergraduate students were recruited to participate in this study in the U. S. and the South of Korea, producing 183 usable responses. Targeting six Web 2.0 applications (blogs, instant messenger, online social communities/Facebook, online video sharing/YouTube, online video & audio conference/Skype, and social virtual communities/Second Life) the survey investigated five categories of technology acceptance based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Significant differences on utilization level and the anxiety level for using them were found in numerous Web 2.0 applications. Korean students responded that most Web 2.0 applications are apprehensive for them to use when compared to their counterparts in the U.S.. The study further discussed the observed differences based on cultural theories and their implications on Web 2.0 learning technology integration. Keywords Web 2.0, cultural difference, technology preferences Introduction Today, college students use Web 2.0 applications more frequently than ever in and out of the classrooms. Applications such as blogs, instant messenger, online communities, video sharing tool, and web conferencing tool are gaining popularity. Students use them to create their own contents on the web, contribute and collaborate with others, and develop social networks via multiple formats of media and representation (O’Reilly, 2005). These activities although imply the possibility of using Web 2.0 applications for instructional purposes in higher education (Weller, Pegler, & Mason, 2005), it also raises the question of whether or not students can efficiently utilize the same Web 2.0 tools for learning (Huang & Behara, 2007). Even though students already use a variety of Web 2.0 applications on a daily basis, they may not know how to use them efficiently for gaining new knowledge or developing new skills. Educators in higher education interested in using Web 2.0 applications also need empirical evidences to help them integrate Web 2.0 applications in their instructional environments. This study aimed to explore these issues as an effort to promote the utilization of Web 2.0 applications to enhance learning experiences. Specifically, we were interested in exploring cultural differences’ effect on Web 2.0 application utilization since research has suggested that such differences are present in the virtual world as well as in the physical world (Pfeil, Zaphiris, & Ang, 2006). Through comparison between participants from the U.S. and South Korea we aimed to investigate the usage of, and the technology acceptance level of Web 2.0 applications among college students. This study intended to answer the following questions: Do students from different countries prefer different Web 2.0 applications for learning? Are there different attitudes towards using Web 2.0 applications based on their cultural contexts? Web 2.0 Applications for Learning According to Anderson (2007), Web 2.0 is a collective term for a group of web-based technologies that broaden users’ communication capabilities and options. Available tools include blogs, wikis, RSS feeds, online video sharing (e.g., YouTube, Google Video), and online social networking sites (eg., Facebook, LinkedIn, Ning). Timothy O’Reilly (2005), who initially conceived the term, defines Web 2.0 as an active and open web architecture that values users’ proactive participation and contribution, which makes it more personalized and interactive than the previous generation Web applications (McLoughlin & Lee, 2007). Due to Web 2.0 applications’ features in promoting proactive participation and collaborative sharing, they are suggested to bear great potential in educational settings. ISSN 1436-4522 (online) and 1176-3647 (print). © International Forum of Educational Technology & Society (IFETS). The authors and the forum jointly retain the copyright of the articles. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than IFETS must be honoured. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from the editors at kinshuk@ieee.org. 241
In formal learning, Safran, Helic, & Gutl (2007) emphasized that Web 2.0 applications make it possible to uphold critical and analytical thinking, facilitate intuitive and associational thinking, and support analogical thinking through ease access to rich information and interacting various opinions. Such applications might be efficient in conducting case studies due to their collaborative nature based on experiential learning approach (Huang & Behara, 2007). Furthermore, Web 2.0 applications enable users to connect to and collaborate with others with diverse interactions (Selwyn, 2007). For educators who implement student-centered learning activities and students who want to gain knowledge or skills through student-centered learning, Web 2.0 applications could also provide versatile opportunities. Boyd (2007) claimed that social aspects of Web 2.0 might support three activities that characterize student-centered learning. First is the support for conversational interaction. Second is the support for social feedback. Third is the support for social networks and relationship between people for enhancing the learning experience. Facebook (http://www.thefacebook.com), for example, is a social network community (SNC) that could enrich the learning process by allowing users to express themselves freely (Selwyn, 2007). Since Facebook has many useful facets for education such as reflective elements, peer-feedback with social context of learning (Selwyn, 2007), some educators have utilized its capacity for connecting students easily and optimistically (Lemeul, 2006). Second Life, an online virtual community, has also been used for educational purposes because it supports learning activities such as uploading personal opinions, participating in team work, and sharing knowledge and information made by users (Selwyn, 2007). Johnson & Levine (2008 & 2009) reported that in the next three to five years, higher education institutions will adopt a wide variety of Web 2.0 applications for the purposes of better engaging college students and enhancing instructional efficiencies. In terms of informal learning, Klamma, Chatti, Duval, Hummel, Hvannberg, Kravcik, Law, E., Naeve, & Scott, (2007) suggested that Web 2.0 applications could facilitate and enhance lifelong learning experience by connecting students in collaborative environments with diminishing boundaries around the world. People are engaged in a wide range of technologies-based informal learning at home and in the communities by continuously collaborating with others in interaction-rich social environments (Selwyn, 2007). In sum, Web 2.0 applications, as discussed earlier, might be prominent to enable educators to create personalized, active, participatory, and cooperative learning environments (McLoughlin & Lee, 2007). In turn, educators can provide extensive opportunities for students who have various needs to enhance their learning experiences through enriched interactions and collaborations in Web 2.0 applications (Bryant, 2006; McLoughlin & Lee, 2007). Web 2.0 Applications and Cultural Differences The increasing use of the Internet in educational settings around the world has prompted discussions about the relationship between cultures and technologies (Holmes, 1998). Collis (1999) argued that culture is a critical factor in influencing how people accept, react to, and use the Internet. Recent studies have explored the cultural diversity of usage of the Internet. Li and Kirkup (2005) investigated cultural differences of the Internet use between students of universities in China and in the UK. Their results showed that British students used computers more for their study than Chinese students. Chinese students, however, had more confidence about their advanced computer skills. Allwood and Wang (1990) studied how students conceptualize computers in China and Sweden. They revealed that Swedish students were more pessimistic about the effects of computers on society than their Chinese counterparts. Other research (Brosnan & Lee, 1998; Collis & Willians, 1987) further concluded the effect of cultural differences on computer users’ attitudes might be observable. Omar (1992) studied how college students have different attitudes towards computers and found that American students have more positive attitudes than Kuwaiti students. According to Hofstede (1980, 1991), national differences can be understood in terms of national cultures. Cultures, in Hofstete’s assertion, consist of four dimensions: power distance, individualism/collectivism, masculinity/femininity, and uncertainty avoidance. Power distance refers to “the degree of inequality in power between a less powerful individual and a more powerful other, in which individual and other belong to the same social system”(Hofstede, 2001, p. 83). High power distance of organizations tends to realize and accept that power is not given to employees equally (Hofstede, 1994, 1998). Individualism refers to the degree to which individuals feel they are “on their own” rather than part of a larger group identity. Masculinity refers to the degree to which a culture emphasizes competition, achievement, and “getting ahead” (Bearden, Money, & Nevins, 2006, p. 195). Uncertainty avoidance indicates the degree of tolerance for ambiguity and risk. 242
Page 1 and 2:
October 2011 Volume 14 Number 4
Page 3 and 4:
Supporting Organizations Centre for
Page 5 and 6:
Time-Quality Tradeoff of Waiting St
Page 7 and 8:
Ibáñez, M. B., García, J. J., Ga
Page 9 and 10:
Situated learning. It states that k
Page 11 and 12:
executed in the client, the server
Page 13 and 14:
The participants were twelve non-na
Page 15 and 16:
Huang, H. M., Rauch, U., & Liaw, S.
Page 17 and 18:
Theoretical background Feedback, is
Page 19 and 20:
There are already a number of tools
Page 21 and 22:
output used were blogs, written by
Page 23 and 24:
Question Table 2: Perceived Relevan
Page 25 and 26:
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Dev
Page 27 and 28:
detection, and analysis of affectiv
Page 29 and 30:
experience is a suitable method of
Page 31 and 32:
Collins, 1998). The appraisal theor
Page 33 and 34:
encompasses the finer shades of an
Page 35 and 36:
and can also track faces with glass
Page 37 and 38:
Acknowledgements This research was
Page 39 and 40:
Merill, D. C., Reiser, B. J., Traft
Page 41 and 42:
to the above-discussed issues of th
Page 43 and 44:
The annotation part of the SDM onto
Page 45 and 46:
that enables the office users to ac
Page 47 and 48:
Figure 4. Semantic document browser
Page 49 and 50:
to the group’s shared semantic do
Page 51 and 52:
participants performed less mouse c
Page 53 and 54:
Bastili, V.R., Gianluigi, C., & Rom
Page 55 and 56:
esource contribution, enabling conv
Page 57 and 58:
Semantic Search In contrast to the
Page 59 and 60:
Participation: P i i i NiVadd Vde
Page 61 and 62:
and comment on each page as well. T
Page 63 and 64:
Table 1. Questionnaire results (N=2
Page 65 and 66:
propose for him, as well as calenda
Page 67 and 68:
Discussion and Conclusion Collabora
Page 69 and 70:
Sampson, D. G., & Zervas, P. (2011)
Page 71 and 72:
Obtaining: the first step of the li
Page 73 and 74:
process (Palmer & Richardson, 2004)
Page 75 and 76:
and ratings (the use of star rating
Page 77 and 78:
(K1) is the number of non-reusable
Page 79 and 80:
Case 3: The process of reusing a se
Page 81 and 82:
Washizaki, H., Yamamoto, Y. & Fukaz
Page 83 and 84:
to examine determinants for pre-ser
Page 85 and 86:
Overview of the model The first res
Page 87 and 88:
significance of relationships. All
Page 89 and 90:
Discussion This study represents a
Page 91 and 92:
Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw,
Page 93 and 94:
Ko, C.-C., Chiang, C.-H., Lin, Y.-L
Page 95 and 96:
Interestingly, the Universal Design
Page 97 and 98:
Figure 1. Framework of the TriAcces
Page 99 and 100:
Experiment This experiment aimed to
Page 101 and 102:
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for
Page 103 and 104:
Foulds, R., & Camacho, C. (2003). T
Page 105 and 106:
answer. However, students can choos
Page 107 and 108:
Hartley & Collins-Brown, 1999; Morl
Page 109 and 110:
Subjects Figure 4. Partial misconce
Page 111 and 112:
correct for a four-option MC item i
Page 113 and 114:
from −3 to 3 for any four-option
Page 115 and 116:
Kansup, W. (1973). A comparison of
Page 117 and 118:
The theory of mental models explain
Page 119 and 120:
computer-mediated counter-arguments
Page 121 and 122:
Learning in this study refers to, w
Page 123 and 124:
the experiment process was anonymou
Page 125 and 126:
supported. However, significant dif
Page 127 and 128:
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., &
Page 129 and 130:
Lee, Y.-H., Hsieh, Y.-C., & Hsu, C.
Page 131 and 132:
Many researchers have conducted emp
Page 133 and 134:
Trialability Some studies have empi
Page 135 and 136:
Results Instrument validation Two c
Page 137 and 138:
In this study, Amos 6.0 was employe
Page 139 and 140:
Our results strongly supported the
Page 141 and 142:
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981
Page 143 and 144:
Kimmerle, J., Moskaliuk, J., & Cres
Page 145 and 146:
What becomes clear from this short
Page 147 and 148:
Figure 1. Distribution of informati
Page 149 and 150:
Results In order to test the hypoth
Page 151 and 152:
esults of the present study with th
Page 153 and 154:
Kolbitsch, J., & Maurer, H. (2006).
Page 155 and 156:
A conceptual framework of this stud
Page 157 and 158:
eveal positive effects on students
Page 159 and 160:
learning resources; and able to acc
Page 161 and 162:
Discussion This study suggests that
Page 163 and 164:
146). Also, role of constructivist
Page 165 and 166:
eform strategy, namely, the MOE-Int
Page 167 and 168:
McNaughton, S. (2002). Meeting of m
Page 169 and 170:
Wu, T.-T., Sung, T.-W., Huang, Y.-M
Page 171 and 172:
Ubiquitous English-Reading Learning
Page 173 and 174:
include the number of times and ran
Page 175 and 176:
initial value for the predetermined
Page 177 and 178:
The following Eq. (18) expresses th
Page 179 and 180:
Limitations This experiment adopted
Page 181 and 182:
Table 3 shows the analysis of the p
Page 183 and 184:
enhance learning outcomes, it impor
Page 185 and 186:
Ogata, H., & Yano, Y. (2004a). Cont
Page 187 and 188:
Communication seems to be more effe
Page 189 and 190:
the audience only listened, one whe
Page 191 and 192:
Step 5) Writing the story On the ba
Page 193 and 194:
As indicated in Table 2, the differ
Page 195 and 196: References Armstrong, S. (2003). Th
Page 197 and 198: Goh, T.-T. (2011). Exploring Gender
Page 199 and 200: OPAC has been transformed into AirP
Page 201 and 202: Perceived Self-Efficacy Figure 3. H
Page 203 and 204: were asked to rate their confidence
Page 205 and 206: (2001). The correlation table begin
Page 207 and 208: Discussion and Implications Note. S
Page 209 and 210: will become important to identify i
Page 211 and 212: Parker, A. (2007). SMS - Its use in
Page 213 and 214: Find the perimeter of the rectangle
Page 215 and 216: Wait Time Management Issues related
Page 217 and 218: Precision Reduced_Precision ( T T0
Page 219 and 220: learning concept. If the Specialty
Page 221 and 222: Two criteria have been adopted to e
Page 223 and 224: Reduced Recall 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04
Page 225 and 226: In this work, both recall-oriented
Page 227 and 228: Tsai, C.-C., Chuang, S.-C., Liang,
Page 229 and 230: confidence and self-belief in their
Page 231 and 232: Peng et al. (2006) To explore ISE &
Page 233 and 234: Torkzadeh, Chang, and Demirhan (200
Page 235 and 236: educational level, locus of control
Page 237 and 238: Internet-based learning self-effica
Page 239 and 240: Though Lee and Lee (2008) did not d
Page 241 and 242: Regarding the category of ISE resea
Page 243 and 244: Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy:
Page 245: Pintrich, P. R., & de Groot, E. V.
Page 249 and 250: that culture is essential when user
Page 251 and 252: Table 3. Analysis of usage frequenc
Page 253 and 254: 7 1.16 137.73 0.25 0.29 0.25 Social
Page 255 and 256: discussions freely. So Korean stude
Page 257 and 258: Johnson, L., Levine, A., & Smith, R
Page 259 and 260: Figure 1. The UE Faculty Web Portal
Page 261 and 262: 2006), and consistency (Sindhuja &
Page 263 and 264: Independent Variables Dependent Var
Page 265 and 266: Meanwhile, as shown in Table 4, Ava
Page 267 and 268: design methods in the development o
Page 269 and 270: Pearson, J. M., & Pearson, A. (2008
Page 271 and 272: Clewley, N., Chen, S. Y., & Liu, X.
Page 273 and 274: As shown in this Table, Holists wil
Page 275 and 276: satisfaction or dissatisfaction wit
Page 277 and 278: 8 I would prefer to learn from huma
Page 279 and 280: the examples need to be more practi
Page 281 and 282: Brotherton, J. A,. & Abowd, G. D. (
Page 283 and 284: Cobos, D. L. (2011). Book review: T
show all

October 2011 Volume 14 Number 4 - Educational Technology ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?