ABERDEEN BUSINESS SCHOOL Masters Submission Copyright Declaration Form

ABERDEEN BUSINESS SCHOOL
Masters Submission & Copyright Declaration Form
Name
Homai Faridi
Email/contact tel no.: 0613805@rgu.ac.uk; homafaridi@gmail.com /
00971-50-788-2210; 00971-4-394-3772
Course:
MSc in Information and Library Studies
Module:
MSc Dissertation
Dissertation Title: Web 2.0 and instruction: Use of Web 2.0 tools by colleges and
universities in the United Arab Emirates
Supervisor/Tutor:
Alan MacLennan
Before submitting ensure:
that the work undertaken for this assignment is entirely your own and that you have not made
use of any unauthorised assistance;
that the sources of all reference material have been properly acknowledged.
that, where necessary, you have obtained permission from the owners of third party
copyrighted material to include this material in your dissertation (a copy of any such
permission should be submitted with this form).
I have read and agree to comply with the requirements for submitting the dissertation as an
electronic document.
I agree :
That an electronic copy of the dissertation may be held and made available on
restricted access for a period of 3 or more years to students and staff of the University
through the Robert Gordon University CampusMoodle.
Signed: Homai Faridi Date: 3 May 2010
Extensions to coursework deadlines must be agreed by the Course Leader, prior to the original deadline
and will only be granted upon receipt of evidence of mitigating circumstances.
Coursework received late after the specified submission date and time shall only be accepted if there is
a valid reason which has been accepted by the staff member issuing the coursework.
Students must retain a copy of their coursework and the assessed document until the end of the year,
as it may be required for Assessment Board purposes.

Author: Homai Faridi (0613805)
Title: Web 2.0 and instruction: Use of Web 2.0 tools by colleges and universities in the United Arab Emirates 2
ABERDEEN BUSINESS SCHOOL
Requirements for the submission of undergraduate and
postgraduate dissertations as electronic documents.
Students are required to submit one electronic copy of the dissertation, preferably on CD-ROM, identical to
the hard copy submissions of the same work.
The document should be in MS Word 2003 or PDF format and consist of a single complete file comprising
individual chapters, sections and appendices. Use the form below to describe the submitted dissertation:
Date of submission: 3 May 2010
My dissertation methodology, e.g. case
study, survey
Questionnaire and Interview
Keywords: Web 2.0, Read/Write Web, Participatory Web,
Higher Education, Universities, Colleges, UAE,
United Arab Emirates, Learning 2.0, Teaching
2.0, Instruction 2.0, Social Software tools,
Collaborative technologies, Blended-learning, e-
learning, Technology acceptance
Abstract (150 words): This paper attempts to determine whether or
not implementation of Web 2.0 technologies
is appropriate in the United Arab Emirates
higher education institutions, including
governmental, private and semi-private
entities. It also identifies some effective tools
suggested by the instructors and librarians
working in colleges and universities in the
UAE. Data were gathered from
questionnaires and interviews using random
sampling. The survey concludes that use of
Web 2.0 in higher education sectors in this
country is encouraged and already
implemented by the majority of educators.
Due to the cultural differences between the
West and the Middle East, direct
implementation of these technologies in the
educational environments, is not quite
suitable. However, the survey recommends
four different practices that can be
undertaken by the universities. As the
institutions become more comfortable using
these tools, they can connect with other
sectors’ collaborative technologies in the
UAE and later, expand to a worldwide
system.
Please return this form by email to d.dreessen@rgu.ac.uk or post to Desiree Dreessen, The Robert Gordon University,
Aberdeen Business School, Postgraduate Office, Garthdee Road, Aberdeen AB10 7QE.

WEB 2.0 AND INSTRUCTION:
USE OF WEB 2.0 TOOLS BY COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN THE UNITED ARAB
EMIRATES
by
HOMAI FARIDI
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Science
degree in Information and Library Studies
The Robert Gordon University
Aberdeen Business School
Department of Information Management
2010

Acknowledgement
I would like to thank particularly Alan MacLennan for his help and support throughout the research.
I am also really indebted to my dear aunt and uncle, my friends, colleagues and my former and
current director for their great help, encouragement and guidance.
Many thanks to the teaching faculty and librarians in the American University in Dubai and other
academic institutions throughout the United Arab Emirates who accepted to let me conduct the
research in their organizations.
Also, I am grateful to the interviewees without whose kindness, this work would not have been
possible.

Abstract
This paper attempts to determine whether or not implementation of Web 2.0 technologies is
appropriate in the United Arab Emirates higher education institutions, including governmental,
private and semi-private entities. It also identifies some effective tools as perceived by the
instructors and librarians working in the UAE. Data were gathered from questionnaires and
interviews using random sampling and therefore this survey does not cover all of the universities.
The survey concludes that use of Web 2.0 in higher education is encouraged by the majority of
educators. As an illustration, 64% of the interviewees and 63.7% of respondents to the
questionnaire have already implemented Web 2.0 in their classrooms. Moreover, 28% of the
interviewees claimed that in case issues such as privacy intrusion, cultural sensitiveness,
technology malfunction and plagiarism were considered, they might also think about using Web 2.0
in their classrooms. Results also indicate that YouTube and Wikipedia are used the most frequently
among other tools listed in the questionnaire. Due to the cultural differences between where the
Web 2.0 tools were originated from and Arab Middle Eastern countries, direct implementation of
these technologies in the educational environments, is not quite suitable. However, according to the
survey recommendations, there are four different practices that can be undertaken by universities in
the UAE. The practices include designing a localized collaborative network available to the
university community, linking Virtual Learning Environments to useful Web 2.0 applications,
suggesting useful Web 2.0 tool in further reading section of the textbooks, or creating Personal
Learning Environments using a combination of Web 2.0 tools. As the institutions become more
comfortable using social software tools, they can connect with other sectors’ collaborative
technologies in the UAE. Later on, this network can be expanded to a worldwide interactive
educational system which benefits both educational and non-educational organizations and
individuals.
Keywords: Web 2.0, Read/Write Web, Participatory Web, Higher Education, Universities, Colleges, UAE,
United Arab Emirates, Learning 2.0, Teaching 2.0, Instruction 2.0, Social Software tools, Collaborative
technologies, Blended-learning, e-learning, Technology acceptance

Contents Page
number
Acknowledgement 4
Abstract 5
Contents 6
List of tables 9
List of figures 10
1. Introduction 14
1.1. Description 15
1.1.1. The United Arab Emirates 15
1.1.2. Media in the Middle East 17
1.1.3. Web 2.0 defined 19
1.2. Structure of the dissertation 22
1.3. Survey questions 23
1.4. Aims and objectives 23
2. Significance of study 24
2.1. Literature review 24
2.1.1. Google Generation 24
2.1.2. Application of Web 2.0 in Higher Education institutions 26
2.1.2.1. Blogs 28
2.1.2.2. Social Networking Sites 28
2.1.2.3. Streaming Videos 29
2.1.2.4. Virtual Worlds 30
2.1.2.5. Wikis 31
2.1.2.6. Other technologies 32
2.1.3. Web 2.0 in the United Arab Emirates Higher Education 33
2.1.3.1. Web 2.0 in the United Arab Emirates: In theory 33
2.1.3.1.1. Cultural differences in Arab countries including the UAE vs. the West 34
2.1.3.1.2. Information and knowledge sharing in the UAE governmental sectors vs.
Western governmental sectors
35
2.1.3.2. Web 2.0 in the United Arab Emirates: In practice 36
2.1.4. Concerns and possible solutions 41
3. Research methodology 43
3.1. Research design 43
3.2. Search techniques 45

3.3. Data collection methods 47
3.3.1. Questionnaire design 47
3.3.2. Interview 50
3.3.2.1. Interview analysis 51
3.4. Content analysis 62
3.4.1. The survey domain 64
3.4.1.1. Type of institution 64
3.4.1.2. Gender 65
3.4.1.3. Latest degree 65
3.4.1.4. Profession 66
3.4.1.5. Age 66
3.4.1.6. Fields of teaching 67
3.4.1.7. Relationship between type of institution and age 68
3.4.1.8. Relationship between type of institution and gender 69
3.4.1.9. Relationship between gender and work experience in the UAE 70
3.4.1.10. Relationship between age and gender 71
3.4.1.11. Relationship between latest degree and gender 72
3.4.1.12. Relationship between type of institution and fields of teaching 73
3.4.2. Qualitative analysis 74
4. Survey outcomes 81
4.1. Most frequently used Web 2.0 tool(s) in classrooms among UAE higher education
institutions
81
4.2. Educators’ best choice of Web 2.0 for the students in the region 82
4.3. Subject areas that are integrated with Web 2.0 tools most often 86
4.4. Other useful findings 86
4.4.1. Age and use of Web 2.0 by educators in the UAE 86
4.4.2. Native versus non-native English speaking educators and use of Web 2.0 88
4.4.3. Gender and use of Web 2.0 91
4.4.4. Type of institution that respondents are currently working for and use of Web 2.0 91
4.4.5. Academic qualification (educational degree) and use of Web 2.0 93
4.4.6. Work experience in the UAE and use of Web 2.0 94
4.5. The most experienced educators’ viewpoint in the UAE towards application of
Web 2.0
99
4.5.1. Appropriate Web 2.0 tools regarding UAE’s multinational and multicultural
nature
99
4.5.2. Practicing implementation of Web 2.0 in teaching and instruction 100

4.5.3. The tested Web 2.0 tools in educational environments 101
4.5.4. Reaction to the use of Web 2.0 by students in their assignments and research 102
4.5.5. Appropriate Web 2.0 technologies for the non-native English speaking students 104
4.5.6. Comparison of Web 2.0 versus Blackboard or other Virtual Learning
Environments
105
4.6. Content analysis review 106
5. Limitations of the study 108
6. Conclusions and Recommendations to future studies 109
7. References 114
8. Appendices 125
8.1. Permission for the survey in American University in Dubai 125
8.2. The text of the distributed questionnaire 126
8.3. Interview invitation letter 135
8.4. Typical questions asked during the interviews 135
8.5. Respondent profiles 136
8.6. Important statements from interviewees 137

List of tables
Table number Page
number
Table 1 44
Table 2 44
Table 3 50
Table 4 51-59
Table 5 64
Table 6 65
Table 7 69
Table 8 70
Table 9 71
Table 10 72
Table 11 74
Table 12 75
Table 13 76
Table 14 79
Table 15 80
Table 16 107
Table 17 137

List of figures
Figure number Page
number
Figure 1 20
Figure 2 26
Figure 3 33
Figure 4 37
Figure 5 38
Figure 6 39
Figure 7 39
Figure 8 40
Figure 9 46
Figure 10 48
Figure 11 49
Figure 12 49
Figure 13 50
Figure 14 62
Figure 15 62
Figure 16 63
Figure 17 63
Figure 18 64
Figure 19 65
Figure 20 65

Figure 21 66
Figure 22 66
Figure 23 67
Figure 24 68
Figure 25 68
Figure 26 69
Figure 27 70
Figure 28 71
Figure 29 72
Figure 30 73
Figure 31 73
Figure 32 75
Figure 33 76
Figure 34 77
Figure 35 78
Figure 36 81
Figure 37 81
Figure 38 82
Figure 39 83
Figure 40 83
Figure 41 84
Figure 42 85
Figure 43 86
Figure 44 86

Figure 45 87
Figure 46 87
Figure 47 88
Figure 48 89
Figure 49 (A, B & C) 90
Figure 50 91
Figure 51 92
Figure 52 93
Figure 53 93
Figure 54 94
Figure 55 94
Figure 56 95
Figure 57 96
Figure 58 97
Figure 59 98
Figure 60 98
Figure 61 99
Figure 62 100
Figure 63 (A & B) 100
Figure 64 101
Figure 65 102
Figure 66 103
Figure 67 103
Figure 68 104

Figure 69 104
Figure 70 105
Figure 71 106
Figure 72 107
Figure 73 108
Figure 74 112
Figure 75 150

1. Introduction
Internet technologies nowadays cross the borders and cultures, regardless of where one person is
from, as long as he is able to connect to the World Wide Web, he can talk with another person in
the other global sphere, broadcast videos (YouTube) or audios (podcasts), view and comment on
his friends’ latest pictures (Flickr, Picasa), play online games, create an entry for a new slang or
term emerged in his region in a global encyclopedia (Wikipedia), speak up his ideas about
controversial issues or topics of interest (blogs), keep up-to-date with the latest news on favorite
areas (RSS feeds), find his old high school friends through social networks (Facebook, MySpace),
virtually connect to his peers working in other parts of the world and have a meeting to make
important decisions through video conferencing (Skype) or keep in touch with his family members or
friends through text messaging on mobile devices (Twitter).
For better or worse, Social Software tools currently dominate most of people’s lives from different
nationalities. Despite the existence of mistrust due to the privacy intrusion, plagiarism or cultural
differences, Web 2.0 has become a part of everyone’s lives. The new technologies have always
been affecting the world of education. In fact, once more, George Bonham’s (1972) statement about
academic indifference towards “television” will become true as the term “television” become
replaced by “Web 2.0”:
“…Academic indifference to this enormously powerful medium becomes doubly incomprehensible when one remembers
that the present college generation is also the first television generation…”
George Bonham
Television: The Unfulfilled Promise
Change, 1972
This is because, whether or not Higher education institutions promote integrating or using Web 2.0
technologies, students are already using them in a broad scale (Collis and Moonen 2008).
“Both the processing and the uses of information are undergoing an unprecedented technological revolution.
Not only are the machines now able to deal with many kinds of information at high speed and in large
quantities, but it is also possible to manipulate these quantities so as to benefit from them in new ways. This is
perhaps nowhere truer than in the fields of education.”
Patrick Suppes
Scientific American
October 1966
Implementation of Web 2.0 in educational institutions may impact “learning and teaching, scholarly
research, academic publishing, and libraries” (Anderson 2007). In this survey, the focus is mainly on
learning and teaching.
These technologies will change the approach of institutions to have a greater emphasize on lifelong
learning and support the students’ creativity and innovation. Implementation of Web 2.0 will change
the definition of education to become more like a conversation (Anderson 2007), where learners do
not learn formally. Therefore, learning can happen at any locations or any time depending on the

leaner’s desire. Students will not be passive readers of the learning content, but they will be able to
edit or add to the content or give comments in order to improve it.
This survey determines whether or not application of Web 2.0 technologies is appropriate in the
United Arab Emirates according to the educators’ (instructors and librarians) point of view. Also, it
will identify the most frequently used technologies and suggests ways to implement them into UAE
higher education entities considering the survey results and cultural sensitiveness in the region.
This chapter includes background information on the United Arab Emirates history and current
situation, Media and challenges of censorship and freedom of speech in the Middle East, a
definition of Web 2.0, structure of the research paper, survey questions and aims and objectives of
the survey.
1.1. Description
1.1.2. The United Arab Emirates (U. A. E.)
The United Arab Emirates is located at the toe of the Arabian Peninsula and is a part of Gulf
Cooperation Council (GCC) and it consists of seven emirates: Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Fujairah,
Ras al-Khaimah, Sharjah and Umm al-Qaiwain. Abu Dhabi is the largest emirate and Umm al-
Qaiwain is the smallest.
In the last 10 years, the United Arab Emirates has made significant progress both politically and
economically. The speedy economic development is mainly because of the demand for oil. The
UAE has the most competitive economy among other Arab countries according to 2007 Arab
Competitiveness Report (World Economic Forum 2007). This rapid growth has also shifted some
non-oil sectors in this country such as tourism, real estate, and education.
Despite the booming economy and strong IT infrastructure, the rate of literacy in this country is low
compared to other countries in the region. Moreover, due to the traditional teaching methods
adopted from Islamic principles at primary and high schools, there is not enough focus on study of
science and mathematics (Datamonitor Marketline 2009 p.20). In fact, only a handful of Emiratis
study in private schools (following British or American curricula) and therefore, the number of highly
educated workers available for different sectors of economy among UAE nationals, is quite small
and the majority of the professionals and technical staffs are expatriates.
According to the CIA World Factbook (2009), the average age in the UAE for males is 32 years and
for females is about 25 years old; which means that the majority of population is people born after
1979. Therefore, UAE is considered as a young country.
The UAE population is quite diverse. According to statistics of Central Intelligence Agency, less than
20% of population are Emiratis and the rest are Arab and Iranian 23%, South Asian 50%, other

expatriates 8% (including Westerners and East Asians) (Central Intelligence Agency 2009).
Although, the UAE national population will continue to rise and the number of expatriates is
declining, the demographic balance of the overall population is predicted to remain unchanged.
Arabic is the official spoken and written language in this country; however, due to the large
population of expatriates, English is commonly spoken in public places. Other common languages
include Hindi, Urdu and Farsi (Datamonitor Marketline 2009 p.9).
The United Arab Emirates was established as an independent state whose policies reflect Islamic
principles as a public matter rather than a private one (UAE 1972). Moreover, the Ministry of Higher
Education and Scientific Research that was founded in 1991, emphasizes on applying the Islamic
and Arab culture as its main responsibilities and objectives (UAE 1992). As an illustration, the first
national university in this country was also named “Jami’a Arabiyya Islamiyya” (UAE 1976) whose
Arabic equivalent is “Arabic Islamic University”. This symbolizes the root of the country’s rules and
regulations that represent Arab or Islamic identities. There has always been a strong connection
between higher education and religion throughout history (Findlow 2008). National universities in
the UAE, in order to follow the state policies, are different from other universities in terms of gender
segregation, rescheduling of classes and exams around prayer times, and closing during the
religious holidays such as Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha. According to UAE University (1987),
segregation is a strict policy and is set in order to prevent the families from not sending their
daughters to universities.
The Higher Colleges of Technology (HCT) is another national university established in 1988 as one
of the first higher education institutions in the country (Kachelhoffer and Khine 2009 p.3). HCT’s
curriculum is inspired by US-Canadian curricula; however, it also follows the same rules as other
national universities. In 1993, The University of Wollongong in Australia opened an official branch in
Dubai and named it The University of Wollongong in Dubai (UOWD). In 1995, one of the first private
institutions, the American University in Dubai (AUD) was founded. The UAE University was opened
in 1997 in Al Ain. During the same year, the first semi-private institution, American University of
Sharjah (AUS) was founded by Sheikh Dr. Sultan Bin Mohammad Al Qassimi, member of the
Supreme Council of the United Arab Emirates and ruler of Sharjah. In 1998, Zayed University
(women's college) was launched (Kachelhoffer and Khine 2009 p.3). Later on, many other
institutions started appearing; Michigan State University, New York University, and the Sorbonne
University founded branches across the United Arab Emirates. In addition, some overseas
universities have also established their representative offices in the UAE in order to offer distance
education programs (online courses).
In this country, the governmental universities (including national universities) should follow the rules
and requirements of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MoHESR) and the

offered programs are accredited by this ministry. High schools and primary schools are supervised
by another ministry called Ministry of Education. Higher Colleges of Technology (HCT), Zayed
University (ZU) and United Arab Emirates University (UAEU) are governmental universities. These
universities only admit Emiratis and they follow single-sex education style; in other words there are
separate colleges for each gender. Other popular governmental institutions include Abu Dhabi
Petroleum Institute (PI), Abu Dhabi University (ADU), Ajman University and RAK Medical & Health
Sciences University.The rest of the institutions are either private or semi-private. AUS is a semi-
private school, since it is also supported by the ruler of Sharjah. UOWD, AUD, British University in
Dubai (BUiD), and several other universities are private institutions.
All the students of governmental institutes are non-native English language speakers. In addition,
the majority of students in private institutions are also second language learners, who come from
Russia, Iran, India, Pakistan, UAE, Syria, Iraq and other countries.
Unlike Western education systems, UAE students (especially Emiratis) are used to teacher-
centered education and thus, they are not comfortable with assignments which motivate critical
thinking or creativity (Kempin 2007 p.926). The traditional primary and high school systems in most
of the countries in the Middle East (such as UAE, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan,…) support memory-
based learning rather than, their creative learning. This is one of the barriers that university
instructors (especially the ones coming from the western countries) face and have to motivate the
students to follow the unfamiliar method of doing research on their own and thinking critically. The
students in private universities come from a vastly diversified educational background. Therefore,
the professors have to keep a balance between motivating critical thinking for beginners and
simultaneously, promoting some more advanced approaches for the few advanced learners. In
order to avoid their beginners feel isolated and the advanced to feel bored (Educator T).
1.1.2. Media in the Middle East
Around 1997, almost all countries in the Middle East began providing access to the internet. At that
time, in spite of the expensive cost, the internet was quite free from control (Anderson 1997 p.1).
Just like television in 1950’s, new media (internet and telecommunications) brought a sort of
freedom of speech and democracy to the Middle East. Many countries in Middle East and Africa
especially Iran and Egypt promoted blogging as a tool for free speech (Anderson 2009).The number
of bloggers in this region continues to grow. Currently, the political bloggers introduce themselves
as online journalists in their profiles (Anderson 1999).
Middle Eastern countries are now investing in information infrastructure to create jobs and develop
their economies (Noman 2009 p.1). Dubai Media City and Dubai Internet City in the United Arab
Emirates, for instance, were built to support branches of media, broadcasting and IT in the Middle
East.

In addition, Microsoft has been trying to develop the Arabic version of its software programs and
applications for the users in this region (Noman 2009 p.1).
The number of internet users in the Middle East is rising. Currently, Wi-Fi connectivity and other
wireless communication technologies are quite common in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar
and United Arab Emirates. One of the reasons is due to the highly populated net-generation in this
region; according to the Arab Media Outlook 2008-2012 (2008 p.13), “Over 50% of the population in
Yemen, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco and Egypt are estimated to be currently less than 25
years old, while in the rest of the countries the under-25 ‘net-generation’ makes up around 35% to
47% of total population.”
Despite the significant number of young people in Middle Eastern countries, the internet remains
filtered in this region; In fact, as Noman (2009 p.2) states, this is “one of the most heavily censored
regions in the world”. Generally, publishing anything (online or in print) which is deemed to be
offensive to the country’s authorities (leader, president, or any powerful individuals), considered to
be disturbing order, or perceived as false news is banned in the majority of countries in the Middle
East. Anyone who crosses this line has to pay harsh penalties. Yet the restrictions and penalties
have also ended in some resistance; for instance, many campaigns have been raised against
arresting bloggers, blocking websites and censorship which support freedom of speech.
Nevertheless, opposing campaigns are also growing. Even individual citizens are activists of the
opposing campaigns; for instance, apart from the government surveillance, citizens who are pro
blocking online sexual contents are able to submit the URL to a website called Ehjab (Arabic
equivalent for “to block”) and report it as questionable content in order to be censored (Noman 2009
p.2).
There are other ways of controlling access as well. For instance, the 2006 press law of Kuwait
government stands for the imprisonment of journalists in case of referring to Islam in any insulting
way or if it is interpreted as an insult (Noman 2009 p.3). In addition, the ISPs in these countries are
also in charge of filtering. In Oman, the ISP Omantel’s terms and conditions indicate that in case
users act against the internet government laws, their subscription will be terminated and/or they will
be penalized.
As the number of internet users grow, the number and depth of internet censorship in this region
rises as well. As an illustration, Yemen and Bahrain temporarily blocked political websites right
before the Presidential election. And Syria has currently blocked popular sites such as YouTube,
Facebook and Amazon for political reasons (Noman 2009 p.4). Surprisingly, despite the growing
blockages, Arabic language contents are not filtered as fast as content in other languages.

Currently, most of the Arab countries require the web publishers to register with authorities before
publishing anything online and it is predicted that Middle Eastern countries will continue to invest in
ICT infrastructure and at the same time will keep on spending on censorship technologies to control
citizen’s access and block undesirable content (Noman 2009 p.7).
On the other hand, “Total censorship is virtually impossible once citizens have the means, skill, and
opportunity to go online…”(Walters and Walters 2002). As an illustration, despite the fact that
Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are blocked in Iran, the supporters of protesters against the recent
election (June 2009 presidential election), known as the green reformists, generated anti-filtering
applications day after day and communicated through Facebook and Twitter as well as uploading
the recent protest videos on YouTube during the protests. Another example is the United Arab
Emirates that in spite of its proxy system, the residents are still able to skip the proxy, in case of
subscription to external ISPs located outside the country (Walters and Walters 2002).
Among other Arab countries in the region, the UAE government says that X-rated materials are
blocked in this country and there is no other censorships (like political, etc) (Walters and Walters
2002).
With the emergence of the new media, generally, Middle Eastern countries have paid more
attention to cultural confrontations rather than the digital divide as compared to Western countries
(Anderson 1999).
1.1.3. Web 2.0 defined
The web used to be a Read-only environment for amateurs and non-IT professionals and only the
web creators (people with knowledge of programming languages (such as HTML)) were able to
publish on the web. Web 1.0 was based on publishing. Data could be controlled solely by the
webmasters. In other words, the internet audience (non-IT professionals) were not able to
participate in the creation of web content. Web-based programs used to be platforms offered as
packaged software (O’Reilly 2005). Web publishing was also following the same intellectual
property rules as print publishing (i.e. copyright). Pegrum (2009) describes Web 1.0 as the
“information-oriented” web, Web 2.0 as the “social web” and Web 3.0 as the “semantic web”. Web
1.0 consisted of static web pages with almost no interactivity, while Web 2.0 includes the loose
groupings of social technologies, where users are active in communicating and collaborating with
each other. As Davies (2003 p.5) states, “society got more technical while software got more social.”
The social web was coined originally by Tim O’Reilly, founder and CEO of O’Reilly Media, as “Web
2.0” and defined it as “web as platform” (O’Reilly 2005):
Google’s service is not a server – though it is delivered by a massive collection of internet servers – nor a browser –
though it is experienced by the user within the browser…. Google happens in the space between browser and search
engine and destination content server, as an enabler or middleman between the user and his or her online experience.

FIGURE 1. Web 2.0 meme map. Originally published in Tim O’Reilly’s “What is Web 2.0” (O’Reilly 2005)
As Google makes changes to its product, users do not have to install or download the updates;
instead, the web platform host does this job on their behalf (Gibbons 2007). Another feature of Web
2.0, according to O’Reilly, is “harnessing of collective intelligence”, which means that the more
people use the social web tools, the more informative and productive they become. Amazon’s
(i.e.Amazon.com) product review feature enables the users to review the product online before
making a decision to purchase it. Moreover, Web 2.0 tools are based on light weight programming,
which also has added more flexibility for the users to design their own space or add data in their
desirable manner. Web 2.0 is a collection of “collaborative” networks where “everyone” (including
the internet amateur audience) not only “Read” but also, “Write” their comments or edit the content
on the web. That is why it is also called “Read/Write Web” (Richardson 2009).
At the moment, any areas, businesses or activities which were implemented by these shared
networks and platforms are tagged with “2.0” as the prefix of the terms. For instance, Learning
environments, applications or activities, facilitated with Web 2.0 tools, are now known as Learning
2.0. Libraries using these tools to benefit their patrons by uploading RSS feeds of the latest

materials or setting up a channel (like Yahoo messenger or Meebo) to be more responsive to the
students' reference queries, are called Library 2.0.
Web 2.0 as opposed to Web 1.0 is based on participation rather than publishing and follows “Some
rights reserved” rules rather than “All rights reserved”. “The webmaster in Web 2.0 shares his
responsibility with his internet audience to keep the website informative and engaging” (Simon
Solutions 2007). However, the key to the survival of some Web 1.0 platforms lies beneath the
“hyperlinking” character of Web 1.0, (O’Reilly 2005) which has enabled participation and sharing
(the nature of Web 2.0). The powerful touch of Web 2.0 tools is that any posts can be written or
edited by anyone regardless of their expertise. In a nutshell, according to the Joint Information
Systems Committee (JISC), the purpose of these tools is “about people getting together and
communicating” (The Joint Information Systems Committee 2007). Pulman (2009) describes Web
2.0 as "Web of Trust", since they are mainly based on the concept of radical trust and whoever
takes part should trust the other participants’ integrity.
Blogs, Wikis (wikispaces, Wikipedia, PBwiki, wetpaint, or wikidot), Podcasts, RSS feeds, Social
Bookmarking sites (such as Del.icio.us), Video Streaming sites (such as YouTube, Hulu, Vimeo or
Metacafe), Social Networking websites (such as Facebook, MySpace, Ning, or Twitter), Internet
Telephony systems (such as Skype), Image sharing websites (such as Flickr) and Document
sharing websites (such as DocStoc, Scribd or Google Docs) are all considered as Web 2.0
applications.
Time magazine responded to the emergence of the social web by announcing the person of the
year 2006 as “You” (Time 2006). Time (2006) defines Web 2.0 as “a tool for bringing together the
contributions of millions of people and making them matter”. Other terms and phrases used for Web
2.0 in Time magazine, include “Participatory Web”, “Collective authoring”, “Crowdsourcing”, also
“Users as Experts”, an “Army of Davids” and “Power to People” (Collis and Moonen 2008). Web 2.0
is also called the “Social Software” due to its capability to facilitate group processes (Franklin and
Van Harmelen 2007 p.5).
In fact, Web 2.0 has changed the world into an information society. Knowledge is distributed
everywhere from United States to the villages in India. New techniques in medicine, science and
technology are announced worldwide in seconds. The collaborative nature of these tools has
created a self-corrective characteristic. As an illustration, in creation of wikis, even if some
participants misuse these tools in order to give out misinformation or delete the facts, other
participants will sooner or later correct the mistakes or remove the inappropriate information.
Moreover, wikis nowadays, has the feature of authority setting in which the creator of the wiki
(administrator) can assign who is permitted to edit the post and who is not. This feature is currently

applied in the largest wiki (i.e. Wikipedia). Nowadays, number of articles in Wikipedia exceeds
Encyclopedia Britannica (Alexander 2008 p.197).
Application of Web 2.0 platforms can also promote sustainability and help saving budgets for higher
education institutions. “A single textbook produces five pounds of CO2” (Case Western University
2009). Collaborative technology can help reduce the carbon impact. For instance, in classrooms,
assignments can be posted and created on a wiki instead of paper, or the lecture notes can be
posted on collaborative technologies. The cost of this technology can also be covered by reduction
of carbon cost. In addition, textbooks could be published electronically as e-books and accessed
through Amazon’s Kindle or Apple’s iPad or even through a laptop. “Considering the fact that
electronic texts cost half as much as printed versions” (Young 2009), there will be no need to buy
paper or even textbooks, since they can be accessed electronically or even shared through social
networks or other collaborative technologies. Moreover, the cost of these technologies will be paid
off through the carbon reduction costs.
Every educational institution can post their news, achievements, etc through Participatory Web tools
for everyone to view, watch, or listen. Moreover, if that institution design a comprehensive web 2.0
platform and include links to the web 2.0 platforms of all its schools, it can benefit instructors and
students as well as the institution. Embedding these technologies can also help instructors to
collaborate with other instructors in overseas and get better ideas to create more appealing lesson
plans. Online social networks such as CURRIKI offer such opportunities to the instructors at schools
and colleges (Kurshan 2009). Faculty and alumni students can also connect with each other
through other social networks such as Facebook, MySpace or LinkedIn as well. In addition, co-
authorship nowadays has crossed the boundaries. Authors create literature (books, papers, etc)
through wikis without the need of physical attendance. Wikipedia, the largest open access online
encyclopedia is a clear example of a vast collective authorship. Moreover, these tools can help both
faculty and students create more career opportunities for themselves. For instance, posting an
interesting lesson plan through CURRIKI or publishing a paper or lecture notes online will attract the
employers’ attention (Kurshan 2009). Students can post their assignments online so that everyone
including the employers, can locate talented students by their outstanding posted assignments,
download their personal portfolios and hire them.
1.2. Structure of the dissertation
This topic is still new and therefore the approach of this survey is more exploratory than
explanatory. The methodology of the research is a combination of quantitative and qualitative
analysis which is covered comprehensively in chapter 5. This paper starts with an introduction
including Description (or background) (chapter 1.1), Survey questions (chapter 1.3) and Aims and
Objectives (chapter 1.4), followed by Significance of Study (chapter 2), that stands for the literature

review of the survey. From chapter 3 onwards, the survey analysis is described. First the Research
Methodology (chapter 3), Survey outcomes (chapter 4), Limitations of the study (chapter 5) and
finally ends with Conclusions and Recommendations to future studies (chapter 6).
1.3. Survey questions
The key survey questions that designate the importance of this paper are:
Why does Web 2.0 matter in education?
Why is integrating Web 2.0 in the UAE higher education important?
How do cultural differences play role in implementation of Web 2.0 in the UAE?
Which of the technologies will be the best option(s) for the UAE? Why?
In what way can the educators or institutions in the UAE engage Web 2.0 tools?
1.4. Aims and objectives
Aims
To determine whether or not the application of web 2.0 tools is appropriate in the UAE
To spot the best web 2.0 tools to be implemented in Higher Education institutions in this country
Objectives
To determine the attitude of teaching faculty in UAE towards the implementation of Web 2.0 in
higher education
To find out how experienced and/or knowledgeable the instructors are, in terms of, using web 2.0
tools in their teaching or for any other educational purposes
To specify if any tools are used more often in this region by the teaching faculty
To highlight the subject areas where this implementation of Read/Write Web applications has been
more significant

2. Significance of study
2.1. Literature review
2.1.1. Google Generation
They are born at the age of the internet, and “absorb information quickly in images and videos, as
well as texts from multiple sources simultaneously” (Duffy 2009 p. 119). According to Oblinger and
Oblinger (2005), 20% of today’s NetGen college students began using computers between the ages
of 5 and 8. They are the frontier patrons of the latest social networks, video, image, audio,
document sharing platforms, blogs or micro blogging environments who are also exposed to the
gaming media which has given them the imagination that they are able to go out on streets and kill
people! (negative effect of gaming), win championships (soccer, basketball, etc.), build the house of
their dreams and furnish it (in case they could afford it!), plan for a better future (better paid job or
get promotion) and build a better life (like the game named "SIMS") or plan strategically to conquer
more lands and reach more victories (such as the game called "Age of Empire"). This generation
also plays these games with one other, who lives in another part of the world and becomes friend
and socializes virtually. In fact, this generation is more sociable than the previous generation
(Gibbons 2007 p.19). These young people are used to such face-less communication and
conversations. Avatars stand for their mood when they are in a virtual conversation. This generation
does not distinguish between online and offline life! If you ask them to craft their online identity, they
have no idea what you are talking about (EDUCAUSE 2010a).
As they start going to school they also browse and search the web more often and then Google will
be considered as their manifestation to all answers. Wikipedia, the largest open access
encyclopedia, becomes their most trustworthy reference to any unknown word or phrases they
encounter not only at school but also in their day-to-day life. As Oblinger and Oblinger (2005)
describe this generation, they rarely go to the library to check out books, usually Google or
Wikipedia carry the response or solution they are looking for. This generation thinks as fast as the
technology grows; they function at what Prensky (2004) portrays as, “twitch speed”, “expecting
instant responses and feedbacks (Duffy 2009 p. 119).
According to John Palfrey, a professor and vice-dean at Harvard Law School, today, “all kids and
not just the richest kids have access to different technologies”, also, “the level of creativity is much
higher among kids nowadays” (EDUCAUSE 2010a). The majority of these children have had
sheltered and protected lives. They believe they are special; they are over confident and have a
higher self-esteem compared to children born before 1982. However, they have a pressured
childhood; they feel pressed by both their parents and the society. Statistics show that these
children are more at the risk of emotional disorders as they have more anxiety in comparison to the

previous generation (Generation X) (Gibbons 2007 p.16). They are multi-taskers who give more
value to speed rather than accuracy. They are digitally and virtually literate, and are emotionally
very open. For instance, they express themselves easily on blogs and social networks (Gibbons
2007). In spite of this generation's multi-directional cognitive skills, students from this generation are
not aware of the standard evaluation criteria in order to distinguish between information from
misinformation. They fully trust these online collaborative platforms where their virtual friends'
opinions are posted. They are living in another world, away from the traditional information
repositories (such as libraries and information centers) and away from printed materials. Doing
research, in their point of view, equals typing the topic "as it is" in the search box, browsing through
the first page and finally, selecting the desirable results. They love group study areas; “At River
Campus Libraries the team orientation of the students has driven a $5,000,000 renovation fee to the
main campus library to build a 24/7 student collaborative center!” (Gibbons 2007 p.16)
These children are named "Google Generation", "Digital Natives", "Millennials" or “NetGens”.
(Rowlands,I. et al. 2008). Prensky (2001 p.1) defines Digital Natives as “native speakers of the
digital language of computers, videogames and the internet”. He believes that any generations
except NetGeners are “digital immigrants”; since, regardless of how comfortable they are with
technology, they still have accent like non-native speakers (Prensky 2001 p.2). Today’s students
believe that technology (including the social web) should be a part of their academic life as well as
their social life (Gibbons 2007 p.19).
Young people need to do what they always needed to do; which is trying on new identities and
sharing it with their friends (Rheingold 2007). This is why youth are big fans of participatory web
technologies. Rheingold (2007) states that this is an opportunity for schools and higher education to
make use of the natural enthusiasm of young digital natives for cultural productions as well as
consumptions and help them to create a public voice. In addition, the educators (librarians and
instructors) due to their responsibility of instructing this generation would better keep up-to-date with
this emerging technology called Web 2.0. It is very essential to fill up this generation gap. The
educators should become aware of how to make use of Web 2.0 and at the same time, avoid the
disadvantages of these tools so that the students would be able to look at these tools not only as
gaming or entertainment tools, but also as learning platforms, also to open their eyes to the possible
negative effects of Participatory Web tools. This can be done by helping the students to think
critically about their experience of using social software tools (Alexander 2008 p.197). For instance,
instead of preventing them from using Wikipedia, instructors can encourage the senior or graduate
students (specialized in a subject area) to edit the entries relevant to the learning topic and discuss
the reason for the changes they have made either face-to-face, in the classroom or online, through
a forum created in that particular edited entry in Wikipedia (Alexander 2008).

Nevertheless, according to a report for JISC and the British Library by CIBER (2008), all in all,
younger generations are more literate regarding the new technologies, than older generations.
However, it is also important to know that the majority of literature written on this topic overestimates
the effect of Information Communication Technologies on the youth and underestimates its impacts
on older people. As an illustration, Figure 2 demonstrates that 9/10th
of UK freshmen students have
been already regular users of social networking sites, while, older age groups are also catching up
quickly with this emerging technologies and using them whenever they see the technologies are
needed to be applied (RCI 2009).
FIGURE 2. Students’ degree of comfort with using technology at the start of their courses (Source: RIC higher education
in a Web 2.0 world (2009))
2.1.2. Web 2.0 in Higher Education institutions
“Education, in terms of media literacy that is emerging every day, is happening after school, during
the weekends and when the teacher is not looking. It’s happening in SMS messages, MySpace
pages, SecondLife avatars, the blog posts, podcasts, video blogs …” (Rheingold 2007). Relating the
solid contents of textbooks to visual and audio materials or setting up an interactive discussion
about the teaching topic helps students to learn better. Studies show that 80% of people’s learning
occurs through informal learning rather than formal learning (Cross 2006). Informal learning
happens anywhere at any time as opposed to formal learning that occurs in a specific place and at
a scheduled time. Novices (like freshmen students) would rather engage in formal learning due to
their insufficient knowledge over the teaching topic, yet, professionals (such as senior or graduate
students) who already are familiar with the basics prefer informal learning. A typical face-to-face
classroom is where formal learning occurs. Conversation, networking and discussion end in informal
learning. In fact, conversation equals collaboration in action. Jay Cross, Founder of Internet Time

Group, believes that “informal learning and web 2.0 are two sides of the same coin” (Cross 2008).
Indeed, the collaborative nature of web 2.0 tools such as wikis, social networks, or 3D interactive
virtual reality programs like Second Life can lead to this type of learning.
Implementing teaching with web 2.0 tools is known mainly as blended-learning (Kempin 2009).
Unlike distance learning that focuses on independent learning and study, in blended learning
environments (or web 2.0 facilitated learning platforms) students have the freedom to create their
own learning atmospheres (Olaniran and Williams 2010 p.24). Also, blended courses create
stronger sense of communication among students than a fully online or face-to-face course. In such
learning environments, the content creators are the content consumers themselves, which is why
they are called “Prosumers” (EDUCAUSE 2009). The difference between common e-learning
vehicles versus Web 2.0 in education is very much similar to the difference between Web 1.0 versus
Web 2.0. Traditional e-learning (distance education) tools include forums, PowerPoint presentations
, lecture notes, printed materials, animations, websites, …, which are all one-way terminals and are
quite the same as traditional classrooms with the exception of not being able to have a live
conversation. Web 2.0 tools, on the other hand, are user-content generated, collaborative and co-
creative (Duffy 2009 p.119). Peter Duffy (2009) believes that blended learning is more than
adaptation or accommodation of different learning styles; in fact, it is yielding the control of learning
into the hands of the learner. Dron (2007) suggests that social software should be used in a manner
in which teachers are supposed to take a passive role (i.e. sit on the back seat) and relegate most
of the control to learners. However, being in the role of a student, who has a certain lack of
knowledge, always requires handing over some of the control to the teacher (Olaniran and Williams
2010).
One of the best practices is facilitating the Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) with Web 2.0
technologies. The main difference between course management systems (or Virtual Learning
Environments) and social software tools, is the “social factor”. Alexander (2008) believes that the
“two-way nature” of Web 2.0 tools has been an advantage over VLEs which has led to attracting
more number of people to participate and use this technology. The secret lies beneath the number
of people who contribute; the more people who take part, the better and stronger the network will
become. This effect was first called “The wisdom of crowds” by James Surowieck which explains
that “large groups of people are smarter than an elite few, no matter how brilliant, better at solving
problems, fostering innovation, coming to wise decisions, even predicting the future”(Surowiecki
2005). In addition, according to the Vrazalic, MacGregor and Behl’s survey (2009), Virtual Learning
Environments (VLE) alone, such as Moodle, WebCT or Blackboard are not very appealing to
students in this region. This is while; linking these environments to Read/Write Web platforms will
enhance these tools and can make them more interesting.

Studies among different universities around the world , in Hong Kong, Singapore, United Kingdom
and United States, show that tools which have only audio, Audio/Visual, or 3D nature are very
useful for courses that require practice, images, even audio, such as fine arts (architecture &
design, drawing, dance, music etc.), Medicine, nursing, midwifery, dentistry, law, specific practices
in business or management such as (sales, decision making, marketing, branding, etc.), IT,
communication & journalism. Besides these subject areas, other areas can also benefit from these
tools for special purposes; for instance, English literature instructors show a play by Shakespeare
on YouTube, or an interview with a famous author, poet or artist whose name is mentioned in the
textbooks to enhance students' learning.
Below are examples of the implementation of application of Web 2.0 in education:
3.1.2.1. Blogs
Blogs are multilingual tools that can contain images, videos and audio next to the text and are very
easy to use (no technical knowledge is required) (Pegrum 2009). Duffy (2009) defines blogs as
“personal online diaries”. He believes that blogs can function as “digital portfolios of students’
assignments and achievements”. This tool can also facilitate revision of course-related materials for
the students. The commenting feature can be used as a tool by the teachers to encourage their
students’ blogs (Duffy 2009 p.123). While blogs are more like reflective diaries, they can also be
“conversational centerpieces” (Pegrum 2009 p.26); as readers post comments on each others’
writings, they create communities with common interests. Students can create their own blogs and
as their blogs become more popular and more public, larger number of people will send feedbacks
to them, which will encourage them to write more posts. Therefore, blogs can also function as a
practice tool for writing skills. At this point, teachers’ responsibility will be assisting students to
“develop a public voice about issues they care about” (Rheingold 2007) besides creating their
personal identities online (Pegrum 2009).
2.1.2.2. Social Networking Sites (SNS)
One size does not fit all. Not all the web 2.0 tools are appropriate for educational purposes or fit all
the teaching subject areas. In fact, each tool should be examined before its integration into the
teaching principles.
According to Ieda M. Santos, et al. (2009), a study on Brazilian graduate students and Singaporean
undergraduate students indicates that Brazilian students used the SNSs to both socialize and
discuss their studies which stand for the possibility of the positive impact of SNSs in education;
however, the Singaporean students used these sites for social interactions only. This might be
perhaps due to the lack of access to physical resources (library, bookshops, instructors, and other
graduate students) by the Brazilian students or because of the more stressful lives among
Singaporean students, which led them to use SNSs for leisure activities rather than educational
purposes. Conceivably, social networking sites can be more effective in teaching and learning if the

students do not have complete access to the university on-campus resources or in case they are
living in remote areas which makes it difficult for them to travel to the campus frequently (Santos et
al 2009).
Diane Sieber (2009), a director and an associate professor of University of Colorado at Boulder
found who was trying to implement Social Networking Sites into her teaching, found that the
students do not like their instructor use Facebook as an educational tool, as this social network has
been an artificial way of the students’ trying to stay “cool” and it is their own private space!
Therefore, she selected another SNS called Ning. In order to attract more number of students, she
implemented her social network page with “hot lists” that stood for some attractive topics such as
movie recommendations or book reviews in order to entice the students to start participating in the
discussions. Sieber believes that the value of social networks goes up as number of contributors
rises. As students started writing for the hotlists, she added some posts related to the teaching
topic, course activities and assignments. She believes that not all sorts of assignments are suitable
to be posted through SNSs. Assignments which can simply be posted through other medium will not
be useful to be posted through social network sites, however, those which require “anchored
collaboration” (Guzdial et al. 1997) will be the appropriate ones to be published via SNS platforms
(EDUCAUSE 2009). These assignments can be any argumentative or controversial topics or
questions that have no concrete right or wrong answers. The practice creates an interesting
experience for the students as they should learn that everyone’s perspective is valuable, while the
perspectives vary upon the person’s background knowledge on the topic.
While using Ning in educational environments, the students’ peer reaction to instructor’s point of
view can also be considered as their in-class participation. In addition, according to Sieber’s
experience, in order to prepare and train the students to use this social network, only 1 - 2 sessions
suffice.
2.1.2.3. Streaming Videos
Duffy (2009) claims that video can be a useful educational tool, however, the strength of this tool
lies in the way that it is used. For instance, the students can be asked to create a short video as
their part of their assignment instead of writing essays, or the teacher could record the video of a
guest lecturer, upload it to YouTube and ask students to add comments to it. Moreover, the
instructor could pose a question according to a segment of the video played in the class and ask
students to look for 2 or more video references.
In addition, the LIFESIGN project in University of Southampton indicates that streaming video can
be a useful source to support learning (Green et al. 2003). According to this project, students were
required to ask a set of questions and draw diagrams based on what they have learned from the
videos.

Streaming videos can also facilitate language learning. Duffy (2009) also suggests that the teacher
can ask the students to search for short videos on a specific topic, select one and watch it and
create a vocabulary guide.
Although Green et al.’s survey was done in 2003, issues like slow connection or unstable
connection should still be considered as probable concerns while implementing the videos in
teaching classes.
2.1.2.4. Virtual Worlds
When students use web 2.0 tools for educational purposes, they will have the opportunity to
practice interviewing and giving presentations before presenting in the real-life environment. As an
illustration, in Fall 2008 semester, Charles Nesson, a professor in Harvard Law School, offered an
extension class for a course, by integrating Second Life in his teaching. Through this project,
students were able to attend the classroom through their avatar in Second Life and also, practice
different roles (witness, attorney, etc) in the virtual courtrooms (mock trials). One of the main
concerns of law instructors has always been the lack of control over the level of the students’
participation in the discussions. However, using the virtual worlds, where the discussion is multi-
threaded, even reserved students are comfortable enough to participate. Thus, more number of
students will be taking part in the discussions. Another advantage of these social software tools was
that students were also able to catch up with the missed lectures by watching their videos in Second
Life (Nesson 2007). According to Paul Wallace, Assistant Professor of Instructional Technology at
Appalachian State University (2010) who has had experience in teaching in Asia for few years and
recently has used avatars in his classroom and has applied programs such as Active Worlds,
Teleplace and Venuegen, there are two ways of communication in terms of culture: high-context
communication and low-context communication. Most of the people from North America and some
parts of the Western Europe are low-context communicators, which means that they are interested
in direct messages and discussions that end with action. On the other hand, the majority of people
coming from the Middle East, Asia or Africa are high-context communicators, in other words, they
are not interested in direct messages, and prefer non-verbal communications. They have a high
respect for the authorities, so they do not necessarily disagree openly. According to Wallace’s
observation, the high-context communicating students prefer text-based environments over the
virtual worlds, since they are asynchronous communicating tools rather than synchronous. High-
context communicators also preferred working with the discussion forums and bulletin boards in
Learning Management Systems such as Blackboard or Moodle and were not very interested in real
time chat. They also liked text-based chat better than the audio-based. Due to the high respect that
these students had for other people’s time, they did not like to waste their communication through
Instant Messengers; instead they preferred writing quality answers or comments through
asynchronous systems. For the same reason, they were less interested in avatar-to-avatar real-time

communications in the virtual worlds. Regarding the virtual learning classroom design, they liked
more traditional looking classrooms instead of unordinary or wild-west-scene looking one.
Considering the results of this survey, Wallace decided to incorporate both synchronous and
asynchronous conversations in his virtual classroom and add more traditional looking learning
spaces in order to meet both high-context and low-context communicators’ needs (EDUCAUSE
2010b).
2.1.2.5. Wikis
Richard Buckland, lecturer of School of Computer Science and Engineering in University of New
South Wales, showed an innovative way to intrigue students to collaborate in teaching and learning
the course. He recommended the instructors to create a wiki on the web for their own lecture notes
and then allow their students to edit the lecture notes according to what is discussed in the
classroom. The advantage of this method was that Buckland could actually monitor what, when and
by whom the changes were made. Original Buckland's notes could never get lost as he or any of
students were authorized to revert (undo) all the changes back to the original version of the posted
notes. Everyone in the wiki had to use their real name which created a sort of respect among the
students and the instructor. In order to begin using this technology in his classroom, Buckland
posted a page of terms and policies so as to clarify publishing rules for the students. One of the
major terms indicated that the students should keep opinions away and write in an objective manner
(University of New South Wales 2009). Therefore, Wikis can take care of the traditional group work
problem, which is some of the students work and some others don’t and finally all will be graded the
same. Through wikis the instructor can keep track of each and every person in the group who has
contributed to the project and no one can claim that he has done work, without actually taking part,
since the wiki traces them.
According to a research in Hong Kong Shue Yan University on undergraduate students of
journalism (Ma and Yuen 2008), wikis can also influence the students to learn news writing in a
positive manner. Considering the main characteristics of wikis that allow adding, deleting or editing
its content in a simple and easy way, these tools can promote practicing different roles in journalism
such as reporting (practicing the role of a reporter), editing (like an editor), and commentary (the
same as commentators). This is because wikis are learner-centered technologies that include a
drafting feature, enable content revision, and allow interconnectivity between pages and sections of
each page (through hyperlinks). Therefore, these tools can improve the students' writing
performance as well (Ma and Yuen 2008).
Wikis can also benefit the English Language learners; for example, the instructor can post a paper
with grammatical or spelling errors on a wiki and ask the students to correct it (American University
Washington D.C. 2009).

Another advantage of wikis as well as blogs is that contents can be published in different languages
or scripts through these platforms. Jutta Schmiers-Heller, a German language instructor, used this
tool to enrich her teaching by asking her students to write their assignments in a wiki. The instructor
considers this experience very valuable (Columbia Center for New Media Teaching and Learning
2008).
2.1.2.6. Other technologies
Becoming subscribed to RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds of major news agencies (such as
BBC, CNN, …) will help the students of communication and journalism to keep up-to-date on latest
world news and also compare and contrast news that were published in different countries. In
addition, students can also save and share searches or use RSS feeds to analyze how a topic, idea
or discussion changes over time (Collis and Moonen 2008). Moreover, universities now prefer to
use blogs and RSS feeds instead of newsletters to disseminate the university’s internal information
(announcements, updates, etc) (Franklin and Van Harmelen 2007).
Some universities such as The American University in Washington DC have considered using
Social Software tools for the snowy days (unexpected closings). For instance, an instructor has
created podcasts on the essential topics of his lectures, so that students could still continue their
studies even in case of unpredictable closings (American University Washington D.C. 2009). In
addition, Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have created open
access repositories and posted them online for free, so that everyone around the world (especially
students from third world countries) would be able to access the course contents free of charge. MIT
has made almost all its courses open access through a project called OpenCourseWare (OCW).
Other institutions around the world are now taking advantage of this innovation. For example,
Shahid Beheshti University in Iran has translated 28 MIT courses into Farsi and made them
available through its website with links to the original version (i.e. English language) of the courses
on MIT website (Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2010). MIT has also enabled anyone to
subscribe to the RSS feeds of their favorite courses (in the available language(s)) to stay on top of
the related information and news.
University of Edinburgh suggests using social bookmarking websites such as del.icio.us to manage
course reading lists in a collaborative manner. Students will be benefited by reading other people’s
suggested links and resources on the course topic (Franklin and Van Harmelen 2007 p.12). In
addition, in order to provide online directions to campuses, universities have also used Google
maps and tagged different places and sections within or around the campus for the new students in
order to make their life easier. Below is the picture of Ohio state university map which can be filtered
by Bus-Stops, Libraries, Student Housing, Food/Drinking, Hospital/Medical, etc.

FIGURE 3.Ohio State University map facilitated by Google maps as shown on its official website (Ohio State University
2010)
2.1.3. Web 2.0 in the United Arab Emirates higher education
2.1.3.1. Web 2.0 in the United Arab Emirates: In theory
Although, the United Arab Emirates was not the first Middle East and North African country to
connect to the internet, the potentially strong economy assisted the government to invest
extensively in Information Communication Technologies (Burkhart and Older 2003) and as a result,
own the highest internet and ICT penetration in the region (Nour 2002). As of March 2008, with
2,300,000 internet users (48.9% of the population), the UAE is still one of the most highly connected
countries in the Middle East (Fitzgerald and Olwan 2009).
In the early years, any sectors within the UAE were dominated extensively by the government
bureaucracies (Salem and Jarrar 2009) while currently, all entities are competing in a race for
excellence, and do not have to undergo a strict government surveillance as long as they follow the
country’s rules and respect the religion and culture. The government is now much more open to
constructive, innovative and creative ideas that motivate a faster step towards the country’s
development. According to an article in the Gulf News the 2010 “Young Entrepreneur Competition”
attracted 1500 ambitious students from high schools, colleges and universities. The competition is
aimed at “educating students on the basic principles of starting and operating a private business”
(Gulf News 2010).

The widespread access to the internet and ICT in the UAE, rising number of Web 2.0 Emirati users
and also, the young population living in this country, can all stand for the potentiality of UAE for
integration of social software tools in different sectors including educational entities.
2.1.3.1.1. Cultural differences in Arab countries including the UAE vs. the West
According to Hoftstede (2009), in Arab countries such as Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Saudi
Arabia and the UAE, Muslim faith plays a significant role in the people’s everyday lives. He also
indicates considering cultural dimensions, Arab countries have high Power Distance, large
Uncertainty Avoidance, low Individualism and quite high Masculinity in terms of the cultural
dimensions. In other words, they have a high level of inequality in power and wealth, low level of
tolerance for uncertainty and have strict government rules and regulations. Arab countries are more
of a collective society where family member is considered a cultural value and the people are
usually committed to a group and despite the more active roles of women in current societies,
females are still treated as the second gender according to some Islamic beliefs.
In terms of the educational aspects of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, High Power Distance
societies are known as teacher-centered learning environments where the teacher is the only
person who delivers knowledge to the students and the teacher has all the authority and control
over the classroom (Strother 2003). Blended learning environments are beneficial for students in
collectivist societies in case the instructors emphasize more on their collaborative factor (for
instance, by including team projects in the curriculum) and also eliminate the factor of competition.
Due to the existence of gender differences in online learning environments, the Masculinity factor
can still play an important role. As Tylee (2001) indicates, masculine cultures are more interested in
competition-based online environments. Societies with high Uncertainty Avoidance prefer structured
learning environments where objectives, assignments and schedules are defined clearly so that
there will be a minute possibility for the instructor or students to lose face or call attention to them.
Therefore, an online learning environment is an appropriate choice where everyone can have a
voice without the fear of becoming ashamed (Strother 2003). As an illustration, in Zayed Women's
College, where the education is co-ed, female students are so shy in the classrooms, especially
when the instructor is male (i.e. High Masculinity factor in the UAE), that they prefer not to ask the
questions that come to their minds during the lecture or give the answers that they should give, just
because they are afraid to lose face among their classmates or in front of their instructor if they ask
a question or give an answer that might be incorrect or irrelevant (Educator G).
Regarding different types of cultures in different countries, in the UAE there is a strong oral culture
while, in the West, written culture is the strong element (Waser 2001). According to Cisco
Networking Academy program, an instructor from the UAE explained that unlike UK instructors,
PowerPoint presentations are not appropriate teaching tools for the students in this region, since

they are from a very oral culture and they learn by explaining ideas on what they have read (either
online or in print) to each other (Selinger 2004).
Olaniran and Williams (2010) indicate that “in high-context cultures (such as African, Japanese and
Middle Eastern) information is internalized in person or situation.” People from this culture tend to
use learning approaches that differ from giving control to learners. In other words, teachers are
considered as dominant symbols whose responsibilities are to pass on their knowledge to the
students and any other teaching methods which opposes or simply differs from this style is not
acceptable (Olaniran and Williams 2010).
Emiratis also are considered as high-context communicators. People from this culture tend to use
learning approaches that differ from giving control to learners. Therefore, teachers are considered
as dominant symbols whose responsibilities are to pass on their knowledge to the students and any
other teaching methods which opposes or simply differs from this style is not easily acceptable
(Olaniran and Williams 2010).
To sum up, the UAE, one of the Middle Eastern countries with Arab culture and traditions and
Muslim beliefs, is considered as a collective society with high-context culture and oral tradition as
opposed to Western countries with low-context and written cultures and high individualism.
2.1.3.1.2. Information and knowledge sharing in the UAE governmental sectors vs. Western
governmental sectors
Web 2.0 concept is founded on collaboration, information sharing and radical trust; thus, integration
of these technologies in any sectors will encourage the same manners. Nevertheless, despite the
positive change of many UAE government entities from “silos mode” of governance (which is the
traditional mode of business environments based on a disciplinary enclosure) to “competitive
mode”, the level of trust and information sharing are reduced (Salem and Jarrar 2009 p.1). Due to
the existing competitive approach among both governmental and private sectors nowadays, the
level of trust is so low that has ended in slow flow of information between different entities or even
between entities with similar goals and objectives (i.e. in case of education with identical curricula),
hence the level of collaboration also declines (Salem and Jarrar 2009). Private academic libraries
in Sharjah, for instance are not allowed to do any interlibrary loans with private academic libraries in
Dubai and vice versa.
In addition, low level of the information flow increases the cost of information transaction whereas
the implementation of Web 2.0 in any type of organizations or sectors in this country will promote
free flow of information, in other words no transaction costs or only a little will be required.
Therefore, the integration of social software tools in education will consequently save the
transaction costs and promotes the culture of trust between society and government, and also

motivates the “social acceptance of technology” (Salem and Jarrar 2009) in day-to-day life and work
among individuals.
2.1.3.2. Web 2.0 in the United Arab Emirates: In practice
The Higher Colleges of Technology (HCT) is a vocational or “employment-oriented” institution
consisted of multiple campuses across the UAE that educate Emirati students (Higher Colleges of
Technology 2008 p.7). Therefore, work experience (WE) has been an important part of the
curriculum. Students of HCT should actually go out on work experience during their final semester
for 4 – 8 weeks. Throughout the work experience communicating with students has been
challenging for the instructors since the only way was used to be travelling to the workplace in order
to check on the students. Although these visits usually took place three times in this period, lack of
communication made the students feel isolated. Therefore, HCT designed a personal networking
environment in order to increase communication and scaffold with students on work placement
more efficiently. This application is called Tawasul (which is an Arabic term for making connections).
Tawasul was established in HCT Sharjah in segregated versions for male-only and female-only
students and is inspired by characteristics and use of Web 2.0 tools in higher education. Students
are able to create profiles (Figure 4), generate content and tag them, blog, join communities,
subscribe to HCT news feeds, create social bookmarks, share videos, podcasts, images and texts,
plus some other capabilities (Raven and O’Donnell 2009). Students have had different attitudes
towards using Tawasul during their final project (i.e. WE); Raven and O’Donnell’s (2009) survey
indicates that male students commented that they would rather this networking environment enable
them to connect to people outside the college as well. For the same reason they said that they still
prefer public social networking websites (such as Facebook or Hi5) to Tawasul. However, none of
the female students give such suggestions, which is most probably because of the socio-cultural
norms in this country.
Students have also complained about the complicated and confusing features of this network. For
instance, the interface needs to become simpler. Nevertheless, the social aspects of this tool have
motivated students to connect with their classmates or teachers. In addition, since all the HCT
students are UAE nationals, whose mother tongues are not English, Tawasul has also been a
means for students to practice their writing and communication skills without knowing that they are
actually practicing.
Generally speaking, the application of Tawasul has been a success considering the fact that
adaptation of this technology in Higher Colleges of Technology is still new and there are still a lot of
configurations to be applied.

FIGURE 4. Tawasul login screen with authentication (men’s version) (Source: Raven and O’Donnell 2010)

FIGURE 5. Sample student profile (women’s version) (Source: Raven and O’Donnell 2010)
Moreover, Web 2.0 tools such as Facebook and Twitter are used widely by the UAE nationals as
well as the expatriates; His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President
and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, also has a page on Facebook (Figure 6). He
also has an account in Twitter with 332,174 followers (Figure 7).

FIGURE 6. Facebook page of Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai (Āl Maktūm 2010a)
FIGURE 7.Official twitter page of Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai (Āl Maktūm 2010b)
Pegrum (2009) believes that Web 2.0 has a great impact on education especially in areas like
language and communication. Therefore, it is a useful tool for second language learners such as
Emirati students. Higher Colleges of Technology (Dubai Women’s College) had a project on using
SecondLife as a tool for English Language Learners to gather and converse virtually. This tool was

very appealing especially for reserved and shy students to hide behind their avatars and speak up.
Students also had the opportunity to meet native speakers and learn vocabularies and expressions
(Thompson 2009).
Emirati students especially the females are still confined to the cultural and religious restrictions in
local or governmental institutions. For instance, these students are not allowed to use their mobile
phones either in the classes or inside the college building. Messengers are blocked on the
university computers in order to prevent them from chatting or communicating with the male
students. Due to the cultural restrictions, using web 2.0 tools in such environments even by the
instructors is quite challenging. However, in order to overcome such limits, internal social networks
like Tawasul can assist them. This local network is very much similar to Facebook where students
can collaborate with their classmates and instructors (Higher Colleges of Technology 2010).
Librarians in the Petroleum Institute in Abu Dhabi have been initiative in using different Web 2.0
tools among other academic libraries. As mentioned in the library newsletter, the Facebook page,
library catalog Google Widget, YouTube channel, Delicious collection of links, library blog, and RSS
feeds are all created in order to make learning and research more interesting, facilitate research
without the need of physical presence and market the library resources and services to other
students and faculty in the UAE or around the world (The Petroleum Institute 2009). Moreover,
currently, HCT Dubai Women’s College and also HCT Fujairah campus have also their Facebook
pages.
FIGURE 8.Petroleum Institute Arzanah & Habshan Libraries Facebook page (The Petroleum Institute 2010)

An interview with a professor at Zayed Women’s College indicates that female students have
difficulty communicating with their male instructors, since they have always been studying in a co-ed
institution. Therefore, they prefer not to talk much in the classroom as they are always afraid to
make a mistake in front of their male teachers and later be bullied by their classmates (Educator G).
Nevertheless, there are still barriers to the implementation of Web 2.0, as it is, in academia As Collis
and Moonen (2008) explain, the barriers might be related to “mismatches to local culture” and
“expectations related to what constitutes quality performance” by both educators and students.
2.1.4. Concerns and possible solutions regarding implementation of Web 2.0 in education
Despite the strengths of the next web generation, in education, there are some weaknesses that
educators should consider before applying them in their teaching:
The positive aspect of web 2.0 tools that "anyone" can publish "anything" on the internet, is the
negative aspect of these tools too. Issues such as identity fraud, ethical considerations, plagiarism,
time and knowledge invested in these technologies, or ambiguity of integrating Web 2.0 in
education can create obstacles for blended learning environments. For instance, displaying too
much personal information (such as contact numbers, email addresses, photos, etc) through Web
2.0 is not recommended, since there are always people out there who are looking for a chance to
take advantage from this information (Pulman 2009 p.9). Moreover, everyone should take the
responsibility of every message that he/she publishes on the net, since, the published information
will not be read only locally or by friends or relatives, but also by people from the overseas with
completely different cultures and attitudes. In fact, misusing the information against the ethical,
cultural or political values of a country or region might be another issue emerged by the birth of web
2.0 applications (Pulman 2009 p.11).
Higher Colleges of Technology define plagiarism as “deliberately presenting another person’s work
as your own, without acknowledgement” (Higher Colleges of Technology 2005). The consequence
of plagiarizing in HCT equals immediate dismissal of the student with a permanent record in his/her
academic transcripts.
The United Arab Emirates intellectual property rights are influenced by The United States copyright
laws. These rules were established by UAE Federal Ministry of Information and Culture. According
to these regulations, all kinds of information materials (such as books, computer software, Audio &
Video work, photographic work and alike, charts, maps, architectural work, etc) are protected. The
exemptions include making a single copy for non-commercial use, legal possession, making a
single copy of an extract for personal use and quoting short paragraphs. The penalties of copyright
infringement include jail terms and/or a high fine depending upon the crime. These laws protect both
moral and economic rights of the authors (whether national or non-national) (Al Tamimi & Company

2005). This is one of the reasons of faculty resistance to use these technologies in their teaching;
According to the interviews with a number of instructors, many were quite concerned about the
extra time they had to spend to feel comfortable using participatory web tools in their teaching.
Moreover, instructing students how to use them, which might take some time of the lecture, was
another concern of the instructors (Educator P).
Applying Read/Write Web technologies in education is still very new and instructors have used them
individually for specific classrooms and there are currently no certain pedagogical studies written for
this method of teaching.
An organization in the United Kingdom (called The Joint Information Systems Committee) and
another in the United States (named Creative Commons) have thought of solutions to intellectual
property rights in the social web. Web2rights is a JISC project to develop suitable Intellectual
Property Rights for Web 2.0 tools. They have provided a set of diagnostic tools such as check lists,
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), licenses and fact sheets in order to inform the Web 2.0
providers and users of their rights. There are still some challenges to be resolved such as
recognizing the owner of the information source(s), or managing users’ expectations about Web 2.0
being a “free environment” and protecting the creators’ rights at the same time (The Joint
Information Systems Committee 2009). In addition, Creative Commons (CC) in US is a non-profit
organization which promotes sharing and building upon work of others. The license is free and
allows the creator to share his/her work to be remixed or used commercially. Creative Commons
has offered a new rule, by which “Some Rights are reserved” instead of “All rights reserved”. It is
estimated that in 2008 around 130 million works are licensed as CC. Al Jazeera, Google, MIT
OpenCourseWare, Wikipedia and Whitehouse.gov are prominent examples of organizations that
carry this license. Creative Commons’ license is known by two Cs in a circle (Creative Commons
2009).
For a person who uses Web 2.0 in his/her daily life, designing teaching materials through Web 2.0
would not be a difficult task. Due to the lightweight programming of the social web tools, learning to
use these technologies is also so easy that an amateur can master them in a short amount of time.
In addition, Collis and Moonen (2008) claim whether or not the higher education institutions promote
Web 2.0, students are and will be using it extensively. In fact, the majority of these tools are
designed in accordance with the human behavior. For instance, social networks that are based on
social collaboration do not require instruction. Thus, there will not be much ambiguity among the
novices, also, there is predicted to be more enthusiasm among both students and teachers.
Currently, educators are working on new pedagogies to integrate Web 2.0 applications into teaching
principles. Pedagogy 2.0 consists of three key elements of personalization, productivity and
participation, which emphasizes on the main aspects of Web 2.0. (Mcloughlin and Lee 2008).

Pedagogy 2.0 will clarify the blended learning methods better and encourage educators to use Web
2.0 technologies more often.
According to Sfard (1998) there are two approaches to teaching and learning, one is the acquisition
approach, the other is the participation approach. The quality of the first approach as Collis and
Moonen (2008) phrase it, “relies on how effectively pre-selected learning materials are prepared or
selected, transmitted, explained, and clarified.” In other words, the quality depends mainly upon the
textbooks and resources that were selected to support teaching and learning. It is also determined
by the extent to which the students answer to the examination. On the other hand, Sfard (1998)
indicates that the latter approach relies majorly on participation and communication. In other words,
“The permanence of having (as emphasized by the acquisition approach) gives way to constant flux
of doing.” (Sfard 1998 p.6). A successful teaching and learning environment can be created
following both approaches in balance; yet, the threat of embedding Web 2.0 in higher education is
dismissal of the acquisition metaphor and sole focus on participation approach (Collis and Moonen
2008).
Factors such as system malfunctioning (breakdown), students’ expectations of learning approaches,
unclear instructional designs and the instructors’ resistance to change and particularly pedagogical
change can lead to an unsuccessful experience in embedding Web 2.0 in higher education (Collis
and Moonen 2008). System failure or breakdown, sometimes discourage the students to continue
web 2.0 integrated learning. Moreover, the students are more prepared to have a teacher-centered
course rather than designing materials by themselves. In order to create a more successful learner-
centered course, the instructors should support and show their support to their students constantly,
which requires additional work for the instructor. Lack of confidence, uncertainty about change, the
idea that new technologies cause more work and bring problems while integration are some of the
reasons that create resistance towards change among the instructors (Collis and Moonen 2008).
3. Research methodology
3.1. Research design
The author received an official permission from the American University in Dubai (see Appendix
8.1). Yet, according to the limitations of this survey (see chapter 6) the author was not able to get
official permission from other universities and colleges. Nevertheless, she managed to distribute the
questionnaire randomly to educators from various other institutions (private, semi-private and
governmental) by sending it anonymously online. In addition, the hard copies of the questionnaire
were distributed to friends, who were teaching in UAE higher education and also asking them to
distribute them to their colleagues and friends at their workplace. In a broader sense the survey is
based upon random sampling.

The number of universities and colleges surveyed in the UAE does not constitute representative
percentage of the number of academies in this country, but they did attempt to cover the range of
institutions in which Web 2.0 technologies were implemented or known more often.
According to the statistics published by City Population (2009), with minor difference from Abu
Dhabi, Dubai has been the most populous emirate among others as of the year 2008. Reasonably,
the majority of UAE universities and colleges are located in Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Sharjah.
Therefore, the majority of data is collected from these three emirates. Institutions that are included
in the research, consist of American University in Dubai, American University of Sharjah, Higher
Colleges of Technology (with most of responses from Sharjah Women’s College and a few from
Fujairah Women’s College), Zayed University (mainly from Abu Dhabi Women’s College),
Petroleum Institute (located in Abu Dhabi), University of Wollongong in Dubai, British University in
Dubai, Michigan State University-Dubai, UAE University (located in Al Ain and Abu Dhabi) and Abu
Dhabi University.
Despite the random sampling, considering the size of the population and number of universities in
each emirate, the survey includes equal sharing of institutions located in different emirates (Table
1).
Emirate No. of universities
Abu Dhabi 5
Ajman 0
Dubai 6
Fujairah 1
Ras al-Khaimah 0
Sharjah 2
Umm al-Qaiwain 0
TABLE 1.Number of higher education institutions participated in this survey (Source: Author).
As Pickard (2007, p.19) states, depending on the aims and objectives, qualitative, quantitative or a
combination of both approaches can be applied for a survey.
The data collection methods included a combination of interview and questionnaire.
Data collection Sample size
Questionnaire Respondents: 103
Interview Interviewees: 25
TABLE 2.Sample size according to the data collection methods (Source: Author).

All the surveyed universities and colleges follow an English curriculum. Also, the teaching faculty
are mainly from US, UK or Canada. Therefore, it is predicted that the majority of respondents will be
from these countries.
3.2. Search techniques
The author started with searching for broad keywords such as:
Web2.0 OR “Web 2.0”
Then, she combined them with the following keywords and built this search string:
(Web2.0 OR “Web 2.0”) AND (education OR learning OR teaching OR instruction)
Also, truncation operator has been used while searching in databases:
(Web2.0 OR “Web 2.0”) AND (educat* OR learn* OR teach* OR instruct*)
As, many relevant results were found in ScienceDirect database, she subscribed to alerts feature of
this database covering the above keywords. Moreover, she subscribed to YouTube RSS feeds in
order to receive any videos related to “Web 2.0” and read them on Google Reader.
The researcher based the majority of searches in Google Scholar and used this tool as a medium to
access articles by peer-reviewed publishers such as Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis and so on.
Moreover, the main databases used in this survey are: Wiley InterScience, SpringerLink,
InformaWorld, ScienceDirect, Emerald, Business Source Premier (EBSCO host) and ProQuest. In
order to locate some newspaper articles on regional information, LexisNexis Academic has been
used as well. Later, the researcher found two major organizations that operate surveys on the use
of technologies in educational environments in United Kingdom and United States which are called
JISC and EDUCAUSE. Therefore, she subscribed to RSS feeds of their podcasts and news from
their websites and found some of useful resources through this method.
Another search strategy included the citation analysis of the useful articles and books. Resources
such as the book entitled “The academic library and the net gen student” by Susan Gibbons led to
more useful articles on Google Generation characteristics. Moreover, another approach of the
author has been citation analysis of the most useful resources found which can be done easily,
whether searching in databases, that usually provide the references of the articles as well, or
searching in Scholar Google that carries the hyperlink to the works of the authors who have cited
the selected article/book. Figure 9 displays an example:

ABERDEEN BUSINESS SCHOOL Masters Submission Copyright Declaration Form

ABERDEEN BUSINESS SCHOOL Masters Submission Copyright Declaration Form

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ABERDEEN BUSINESS SCHOOL Masters Submission Copyright Declaration Form

Similar to ABERDEEN BUSINESS SCHOOL Masters Submission Copyright Declaration Form (20)

More from Don Dooley

More from Don Dooley (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ABERDEEN BUSINESS SCHOOL Masters Submission Copyright Declaration Form