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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Among the four dimensions of cultural difference, power distance, individualism vs. collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance are particularly relevant in studying the use of Web 2.0 applications. Mandl (2009) explored comparing Chinese and German Blogs. They figured several results that Chinese expressed emotional and positive comments on Blogs compared to Germany. Users in Germany posted more negative comments on their blogs. This result assumes that users in China, whose culture is characterized by collectivism, tend to express less negative comments as they try not to say negative comments about others. A recent study explored the relations between the patterns of changes on wikis and the cultural background of the contributors, and suggested the tools themselves are neutral but cultural differences might affect how users utilize them (Pfeil, Zaphiris, & Ang, 2006). Their study found that respondents from high distance power countries tended to be reluctant to delete others’ contents or links, even though they thought the content was incorrect. Respondents from high masculinity countries tended to add information and contribute to group products through lots of activities. The most valuable advantage of Wiki is supporting collaboration among team members. According to Cogburn & Levinson (2003), one of the factors that hindered effective collaboration in virtual projects was the different communication styles from cultural differences. Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988) reported the relationship between collectivism/individualism by Hofstede (1986) and high context/low context (Hall, 1976). In high context cultures, a lot of ‘unspoken’ meaning follows when users communicate with others. Hofstede (1984, 1986) addressed that North American and Western European countries tend to have individualism and low context culture. In contrast, South American and many Asian countries tend to be collectivistic and high context culture. Therefore, users in low culture cultures may not figure ‘unspoken’ meaning out in virtual communication. Guo, Tan, Turner, and Xu (2008) investigated preferences of communication media (face to face, telephone, email and instant messenger) from Australia and China. Chinese preferred to use telephone and instant messenger, while Australians preferred to use email. According to Hofstede (1989), China had an uncertainty index score that was lower than Australia. In order to avoid uncertainty, Australia may prefer to use email instead of telephone or instant messenger. Flickr, a popular social photo-sharing tool, was investigated by Dotan and Zaphiris (2010). They revealed the cultural differences in websites driven by different countries’ users such as Peru, Israel, Iran, Taiwan and the U. K. The users from Peru and Taiwan were less interested in sharing content compared to users from Iran and Israel since Peru and Taiwan had the highest power distance index and lowest individual index scores. However, the correlation between Hofstede’s scores and quantitative data based on users’ activities on websites with Flickr was weak. The gathered quantitative data may not reflect cultural differences or the index of cultural dimensions might be needed to collect. Chapman and Lahav (2008) investigated social network sites from different cultures such as U.S, France, China, and South Korea. The results showed the differences in terms of the users’ goals, typical pattern of self-expression, and common interaction behaviors. Users of popular social network sites in the U.S tend to publish more personal information. In contrast, users in China publish less personal information than those in the U.S.. In terms of selfexpression, French users tend to discuss common topics instead of personal topics but Chinese users tend to discuss more personal topics. On interaction behaviors of social network sites, there are differences of user’s behaviors between the U.S and South Korea. Shin (2010) investigated motivations for utilizing social networking sites from the U.S and South Korea. The results revealed that users from both countries believe social networking sites are useful and entertaining. Users in the U.S. utilize social networking sites because of extrinsic motivation but users in South Korea utilize them due to intrinsic motivation. In addition, users in South Korea connect with their real friends who they know and share content on Cy-world (Shin & Kim, 2008). However, users in the U.S. did not consider friends on MySpace as real friends (Dwyer, 2007). MySpace allows users in the U.S. to connect members who have the same interests or opinions and the social relations may be different between Cy-world and MySpace because of this reason (Shin, 2010). Fogg and Iizawa (2008) compared two popular social networking sites from the U.S and Japan to investigate how social networking tools might motivate users in different cultures. Facebook has direct and assertive motivators and Mixi, a popular social network site in Japan has indirect and subtle motivators. Park, Mohan, and Ponnusamy (2009) investigated the learners’ perception of Web 2.0 applications for learning. The results showed that Malaysian students learned more from a collectivist learning approach but the American students preferred an individualistic learning approach. However, learners in two countries responded that Web 2.0 applications were useful for learning. Eze (2009) conducted an online survey to explore which factors influence the utilization of Web 2.0 applications of European undergraduate and graduate students for learning. A total of 285 participants participated in the online survey from the Netherlands, Great Britain, and Ireland. This study reported 243
that culture is essential when users utilize Web 2.0 applications for learning. In particular, individualism, power distance, masculinity, and technology experience affected the utilization of Web 2.0 applications. Singh, Zhao and Hu (2003) compared Chinese and American websites focusing on cultural differences and stated, “the web is not a culturally neutral medium, but it is full of cultural markers that give country-specific websites a look and feel unique to the local culture”(p.63). That is, although the Internet is used around the globe, students use it differently based on their situational or national contexts (Li & Kirkup, 2007). In sum, the usage of, and the technology acceptance level of Web 2.0 applications might be influenced by users’ cultural differences since previous research has suggested that such differences are present in the virtual world. Therefore, this study focuses on examining cultural differences’ effect on Web 2.0 application utilization through comparison between participants from the U.S. and South Korea. Method Participants This survey study was conducted in 2008 at a public midwestern university in the U.S. and at two private universities in South Korea. A total of 3<strong>14</strong> students (107 American students and 207 Korean students) were recruited to participate, producing 183 usable responses (83 American and 100 Korean). Comparison analyses were conducted to identify the difference between the two sets of survey data. All data were collected via voluntary participation by a web-based survey interface. Measuring Utilization Level of Web 2.0 Applications To cover a wide range of technologies that have been utilized in e-learning settings in higher education, this study targeted six Web 2.0 applications: blogs, instant messenger, online social communities (eg., Facebook), online video sharing (eg., YouTube), online video & audio conferencing tools, and social virtual environment (eg., Second Life). To investigate the utilization level of Web 2.0 applications, the research team created the survey based on selected categories of Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of <strong>Technology</strong> (UTAUT) (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003), which includes performance expectancy, effort expectancy, attitude, social influence, and anxiety. See Table 1 for survey items on Web 2.0 utilization. UTAUT is the synthesis of eight other models (ie., theory of reasoned action, technology acceptance model, motivational model, theory of planned behavior, model of PC utilization, innovation diffusion model, and the social cognitive theory). The instrument measures a unified technology acceptance rate expressed by individuals or organizations. Categorization Table 1. Acceptance of Web 2.0 applications Questions Code 1. I would find it useful in my learning tasks 1 Performance expectancy 2. Using it enables me to accomplish tasks more quickly 2 3. Using it increases my productivity 3 Effort expectancy 4. Learning to use it is easy for me 4 Attitude toward using Web 2.0 applications 5. Using it for learning is a good idea 6. It makes learning more interesting 7. I like learning with it 5 6 7 Social influence 8. People who influence my behavior think that I should use it 8 Anxiety 9. I feel apprehensive about using it 10. It is somewhat intimidating to me 9 10 Procedures of the Study The survey was developed using an online survey tool, Survey Monkey (http://www.survey.monkey.com), which can be accessed from anywhere via the Internet. Participants had as much time as they needed to complete the 244
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 and 246: Pintrich, P. R., & de Groot, E. V.
Page 247: In formal learning, Safran, Helic,
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?