AbstrAct

The study investigated how an instructor used a Web 2.0 technology – VoiceThread® in his online class to encourage online discussion on course content. After students participated in the online activity, they were surveyed regarding their perceived learning and what were important factors that enhanced and inhibited their learning. According to the survey responses, students had mixed feeling regarding the effectiveness of the VoiceThread®-based activity. Factors that enhanced and inhibited student learning in this activity were identified, suggesting instructors should carefully consider both the affordances and constraints of the tool when designing online activities with it. In addition, challenges for using Web 2.0 technologies to design online learning activities were discussed.

Examining a Web 2.0-Supported Online Activity: Lessons from a Case Study

FEi GAOOhio UniversityTiAnyi ZhAnGMichigan State University

| 113int’l J of instructional Media Vol. 39(2), 2012

InroductIon

Web 2.0 technologies, with the affordances of interconnections, content cre-ation and remixing, promote rich opportunities to make learning more per-sonally meaningful, collaborative, and socially relevant (Greenhow, Robelia,

& Hudges, 2009). Web 2.0 and other emerging technologies offer new possibilities of designing collaborative activities that engage learners in learning (Chai & Tan, 2009; Cress & Kimmerle, 2008).

Despite the enthusiasm of integrating Web 2.0 technologies into learning environment design, researchers found that “the pedagogies, supported by new technologies, that could lead to innovation are not enough known to instructors” (Collis & Moonen, 2008, p. 96). The purpose of this paper is to observe and analyze how an instructor used a par-ticular Web 2.0 tool – VoiceThread® in an online masters’ course on Arts Management, and provide insights on effective use of VoiceThread® in online teaching and learning, and educational use of Web 2.0 technologies in general.

EducAtIonAl usE of VoiceThread®

VoiceThread® (voicethread.com) is a Web 2.0 tool that allows users to work collabora-tively to create multimedia presentations and to have conversations around it. With VoiceThread®, a user or multiple users can create a presentation with a combination of documents, images and videos. The presentation can later be shared with a selected group of people, who may participate by leaving their text-, audio- or video-based comments on individual slides. In sum, similar to many other Web 2.0 technologies, VoiceThread® allows users to instantly edit, annotate, create and share content. Such tools support col-laboration, knowledge sharing and customization, and provide instructors with “signifi-cant opportunities for creating socially engaging tasks that require active student partici-pation and knowledge building instead of memorization” (Cole, 2009, p. 141).

VoiceThread® has been widely adopted by educators who are enthusiastic about its power as an online presentation and collaboration tool. For example, Weir (2008) documented how a 6th grade teacher, Bill Ferriter used VoiceThread® presentations to “extend” his classroom. According to Ferriter, there were more students participating more actively in digital discussions than in the physical classroom. Despite the potential of its practical applications in education, limited research has been conducted on educational use of VoiceThread®. Friedman and Lee (2009) voiced their concern that “VoiceThread® does not necessarily engage students in the way we had initially envisioned” (p.23). For example, asking students to have debates by following the prescribed script on a VoiceThread® “sti-fled creativity and forced ‘in the box’ thinking” (p.23), and could be less effective than a face-to-face debate. Thus more empirical research is needed to explore and help unpack the inherent pedagogies of VoiceThread®.

A cAsE study

To understand whether and how VoiceThread® can be adopted to support learning in online environments, an exploratory case study (Cresswell, 2008; Yin, 2002) was con-ducted by examining how an instructor use VoiceThread® as a tool for encouraging con-

114 | Fei Gao, Tianyi Zhang

| 115

tent learning in an online course. The following questions were asked: (a) How students perceived their learning when participating in the activity? (b) What are the specific features of VoiceThread® that enhanced or inhibited student learning? (c) What are other factors that enhanced or inhibited student learning?

ParticipantsParticipants were nine students enrolled in an online master’s course on Arts Manage-ment. Six of them were within the age range of 20 to 30, and the other three were over 30. The majority of the students had no previous experience with online courses, and only three of them had taken one or two online courses prior to this one.

Procedures The instructor designed the VoiceThread® activity to give students opportunities to articu-late and assess their understanding of major issues in the field of arts and arts man-agement, prepare them to address many of the concepts to be learned in this course, and review the core aspects of a number of established philosophies and theories that undergird the intellectual framework of the field. He created a self-inquiry VoiceThread® containing 16 slides. On each slide, there were a set of questions regarding a specific topic of arts and arts management. For example, one of the slides had four questions regarding the definition of arts: (a) What is art? (b) Is art a skill or a thing? (c) Is a work of art an object, an idea, or an action? and (d) Why?

fIgurE 1. A VoiceThread® slIdE wIth studEnt commEnts

Examining a Web 2.0-Supported Online Activity

116 |

Students were asked to complete the self-inquiry project within the first week of the class. During students’ progress through the self-inquiry, they were asked to share their thoughts with fellow students and engage in discussion about questions shown on each slide. A written tutorial on how to make text-based, audio or video comments on the VoiceThread® was provided prior to the activity. There was no minimum requirement on the number of posts or other expectations on how students should participate. Though students were taught in the tutorial how to use different types of comments, all students chose to make text-based comments, and made no audio or video comment.

At the end of the activity, students completed an online survey containing three Likert-item questions on perceived learning and several open-ended questions. The open-ended questions asked students to explain (a) their ratings for perceived learning, (b) how the use of VoiceThread® enhanced or inhibited their learning, and (c) other factors that enhanced or inhibited their learning.

survey AnalysisThe survey collected data on students’ perceptions of having the online discussion using VoiceThread®. The means and standard deviations of student responses to three Likert-questions were calculated. Their responses to open-ended questions were coded using a grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). To generate initial categories of major themes, the researchers followed a “detailed line-by-line analysis” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) by examining data line by line, asking questions about what the data is about, giving a description that stands for the data, and moving to the next bit of data and comparing it to the previous ones to decide whether it should be given a same descrip-tion or a different description. As the researchers assessed and categorized the data, they were open to unanticipated categories. Reassessments and revisions were made until that further analysis did not provide new information or insights.

rEsults

Perceived learningStudents were asked to rate their perceived learning using a scale of 1 to 5. Their ratings were presented in Table 1. The ratings suggested a mixed result. Some students believed they learned a lot from the activity, but some did not find the activity improved their understandings.

Students who gave high ratings on perceived learning suggested that they benefited from the discussion in two ways. First, responding to and discussing the questions on Voice-Thread® slides increased their awareness of the major issues in the field and provoked them to think about these issues. As one student described, it “opened up Pandora’s box for me”. Secondly, three students expressed that the discussion had changed how

TAbLE 1. STUdEnT RATinGS On PERCEiVEd LEARninG (n=9)Survey items Mean (Sd)

The VoiceThread discussion increased the efficiency of my learning. 3.00 (1.23)

The VoiceThread discussion helped me understand major issues in the field. 3.22 (1.20)

The VoiceThread discussion activity was useful to help me learn the content. 3.33 (1.23)

Fei Gao, Tianyi Zhang

| 117

they thought about some of the questions – “many of my classmates had very interest-ing things to say, things that I had not thought of myself. It changed the way I thought about the questions being asked in the self-inquiry and I believe it helped me give better answers to the questions.” Some other students, however, found the activity less useful. One student wrote, “I enjoyed some of the discussion, but did not take too much away from my classmates’ comments”.

features that facilitated learningStudent survey responses suggested that several specific features of VoiceThread® facili-tated the discussion and learning. First, the asynchronous feature of VoiceThread® allowed them to have more time to reflect on other students’ posts. One student commented, “I had time to really think about my answers and share in exactly the way I wanted to. I am able to go back and review what my classmates have contributed”. And similarly, another student said, “you do have more of an opportunity to think on your own, which allows for more ideas to a topic”.

Second, students felt the structure of VoiceThread® supported “to-the-point” discussion. In students’ words, “you can place your statement on the slide you are referring to, making it easier to follow what people are talking about and responding to”, and “the comments were broken down into categories. It didn’t feel like I was reading someone’s term paper”. One student also found the drawing function helpful, with which she could highlight a question in a slide and talk about it.

Third, students thought the visual display of posts around the VoiceThread® made it easy to view, navigate and focus on a post. One student wrote, “it (VoiceThread®) was in a more visual format and easier to view everyone’s comments rather than opening each person’s comment in forum and having to go back to the main page to view another comment”. Another student expressed the same opinion, “I dislike the way the discussion forums work on Blackboard because you have to scroll through each of the postings, as opposed to all the comments being on one page like they are in Voicethread®”. The advantages are, as students put it, “the responses can be evaluated equally, not ranked most recent or earliest like a forum”, and “you can focus on one person’s response in VoiceThread® as opposed to having to take in all the responses at once”.

Finally, students found it helpful to see the ID photos of their classmates along with the comments. The ID photos added a personal touch to the discussion, and a student said, “being able to see myself classmates’ icons as opposed to just their names helped me establish a better relationship with the discussion”.

features that hindered learningStudent responses also revealed that several features of VoiceThread® hindered their dis-cussion and learning. First, three students complained about the technical difficulties in setting up and using the tool, which prevented them from having a smooth discus-sion. One student wrote that he spent a lot of time trying to fix a technical problem in the middle of the discussion, which was very frustrating. Second, two students found the way posts were displayed in VoiceThread® prevented intensive interactions during the discussion. That is because after everyone added one comment to a slide, “the slides got so bogged down with one comment from each, and it seems more would have been excessive”. In addition, students found it is “not possible to create a reply directly linked to a particular comment (in VoiceThread®)”. As a result, there is not a continuous thread of discussion or “back and forth conversation”, and “it becomes thoughts of individuals without the valuable interaction of a group discussion”.

Examining a Web 2.0-Supported Online Activity

118 |

other factorsStudent responses suggested that two other factors hindered their discussion and learn-ing. First, students found because the expectation for participation was not clear stated, they responded to the questions at very different times, making it hard for them to keep track of the discussion. As one student put it, “Some people didn’t log on to do it right away. There were huge gaps of time between exchanges. I had to keep checking back to see if anyone had added to it. I think I would like it better if the assignment set a time limit for us. Then the exchange might be even more fruitful.”

Second, some students felt that they did not get enough responses or feedbacks from others. Not being able to receive timely feedback, some students were discouraged from continuing contributing to the discussion. One student wrote, “A person may start to make a good point that is relevant to the subject but there is not mediator to expand knowledge on that or if their comment even makes sense in the first place. It is especially discouraging if I may have a question about something and there is no one to answer it.”

dIscussIon

This study examined an instructor’s attempt of integrating a multimedia collaborative Web 2.0 tool - VoiceThread®- into an online course. Students had mixed feelings about how well the tool supported learning, and their responses to survey questions revealed why the activity worked or did not work for some students. Lessons are learned regarding the how to design learning experiences with VoiceThread® in specific and how to integrate web 2.0 into teaching and learning in general.

Based on Burden and Atkinson’s (2008) work, Gao & Sun (2010) developed a table on features and affordances of VoiceThread®, and provided suggestions on how VoiceThread® can be used to support various learning activities. The current study provides additional insights on designing learning activities with VoiceThread®.

First, the study proved that a few affordances of VoiceThread® positively impact students’ perception of learning. For example, students found it beneficial to focus one particular slide and have to-the-point discussion, probably because concentrating on one slide at a time reduces the cognitive load involved in learning (Gao & Sun, 2010). Also, stu-dents expressed that being able to see their classmates’ photos during the discussion was important, as it facilitates the initial stage of building an online learning community (Gao & Sun, 2010).

Second, the study implies that to design effective learning with VoiceThread®, instructors need to consider not only its affordances, but also its constraints. For example, the study identified a particular feature of VoiceThread® that may constrain certain type of learning. That is, the commenting feature of VoiceThread® makes it hard for participants to build upon a thread of discussion. In VoiceThread®, each comment is displayed in chronicle order regardless of their interconnections, and it is hard to tell which posts are direct replies to or extension of a former post. It is even harder to sustain a thread of discussion and build upon it. Therefore, VoiceThread® can be an ideal tool for sharing thoughts or resources, but may not be a good tool for a serious, in-depth discussion. As Zhang (2009) argued, despite of the participatory nature of Web 2.0 based practices, they sometimes can be “weak in commitment to the sustained progress of ideas - a much deeper commit-ment than that to simply displaying and sharing knowledge” (p. 275).

Fei Gao, Tianyi Zhang

| 119

Third, the study implies that it is necessary to fully consider the unique affordances of VoiceThread® when designing learning activities with it. Some of the unique features of VoiceThread® that are absent, say, in a traditional threaded forum, are (a) it supports mul-timedia, which may accommodate learners with different learning styles; (b) it allows for audio or video comments, which may enhance the levels of perceived intimate-ness and co-presence; and (c) it enables collaborative creation of presentation content, which may provide opportunities for knowledge co-creation. Unfortunately, none of these features are fully explored and used in this specific case. When interviewing the instructor, we found that the instructor made a decision to use VoiceThread® because: (a) VoiceThread®enables students to share each other thoughts, (b) Presenting questions in VoiceThread® slides allows students to focus on a limited number of questions at the time, and (c) VoiceThread®, similar to other Web 2.0 tools, is a cool tool to use in class. Obvi-ously, the instructor considered some of the affordances of VoiceThread® when design-ing the activity. A different tool, however, may meet or even better meet the instructor’s needs. Therefore, his use of VoiceThread® in this case, is valid, but not optimal.

Although the study investigated a specific case of instructional use of one Web 2.0 tool – VoiceThread®, the lesson learned has implications for instructors and designers who attempt to integrate Web 2.0 technologies in teaching and learning in general. When designing learning activities with Web 2.0 technologies, instructors and designers are facing new challenges.

The first challenge is how to design learning activities that take full advantages of Web 2.0 technologies. Research suggests that instructors sometimes are reluctant to make necessary pedagogical changes when adopting new technologies (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Watson, 2001). The instructor in this study, for example, uses Voice-Thread® in a much similar way as an online discussion forum. Web 2.0 technologies, however, when compared to traditional technologies, have several unique characteristics. First, Web 2.0 technologies have made content sharing much easy. In traditional online learning, instructors share course content with students within the course management system. Learner-learner interactions are mainly restricted to online discussion forums. Web 2.0 technologies, in contrast, provide unlimited opportunities for learners to share their understandings, resources and works. Second, compared to traditional technolo-gies, Web 2.0 technologies provide better support for collaborative content authoring. Learning is no longer delivered or pre-planned. Instead, learners take responsibility for what is learned. Web 2.0 technologies are particularly suitable for designing learning environments grounded in social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978) and distributed cog-nitions theory (Pea, 1997), where knowledge is co-constructed and generated within discourse communities.

Instructional design carried out under the old mindset where learners are assumed to be passive consumer of the content and have limited participation in knowledge generation will exploit only the least innovative aspects of the Web 2.0 technologies.

The second challenge for the instructors and designers is how to provide new forms of support students need in learning environments based on Web 2.0 technologies. The sup-port has three dimensions: (a) instruction before the activity; (b) facilitation during the activity; and (c) evaluation after the activity.

Instructors and designers need to rethink how to better provide students with guidelines and instruction necessary to complete Web 2.0-based activities. Different from tradi-tional online learning activities, where instructors have more control over the direction of the activities, the activities supported by Web 2.0 technologies are likely to be more

Examining a Web 2.0-Supported Online Activity

120 |

open-ended and sometimes it is hard to predict how students will participate in activity, making it difficult to plan in advance. At the same time, students, when facing the new types of activities, will need to learn how to interact with each other. The instruction for these activities needs to be explicit regarding what learners are expected accomplish and how learners should proceed, and at the same time, flexible enough so learners’ auton-omy and creativity are not compromised. Second, research has suggested that learners are more likely to benefit from feedback that is not only timely, but also specific and relevant to the learning content or task. In Web 2.0 based learning environments, learn-ers become more and more responsible for contributing to their own learning resources. The content is, to a certain degree, created by learners and constantly shifting based on learners’ contribution. Therefore, the nature of scaffolding and feedback required from the instructor becomes increasingly complex (Collis & Moonen, 2008, p. 99). It becomes increasingly important to provide scaffolding in a timely manner and to tailor feedback to specific contexts. Finally, instructors and designers need to decide how learning should be assessed in such activities. Compared with traditional online activities, Web 2.0-based activities encourage more collaboration and content-creation. How can we evaluate learning in those activities? The assessment should take into consideration of both group collaboration and individual contribution. So far, few studies have directly addressed such challenge. Theories in distributed cognition (Pea, 1997) and group cognition (Stahl, 2005) have a potential to guide and inform the design of appropriate assessment for Web 2.0-based activities.

conclusIon

Web 2.0 technologies are unique and have made “interaction on the web possible, col-laboration easier, information sharing the norm, and creation of web content by groups of students a reality” (Meyer, 2010, p. 177). Currently, there is a lack of guidelines for instructors and designers to design and develop Web 2.0 supported environments effec-tively. Meyer (2010) suggested that educational researchers should ask specific questions about tool and what learning it makes possible, and at the same time, explore the general functions, activities or skills Web 2.0 technologies make possible. The study, by investigat-ing how an instructor used VoiceThread® in his online class, extends existing understand-ing of pedagogical use of VoiceThread®, and at the same time identifies the challenges for instructors and designers who attempt to take full advantage of the capabilities of Web 2.0 technologies to enhance teaching and learning.

Direct Reprint Requests to:Fei GaoAssistant Professor248 McCracken HallOhio UniversityAthens, OH, 45701Email: gaof@ohio.edu

Fei Gao, Tianyi Zhang

| 121

rEfErEncEs

Burden, K., & Atkinson, S. (2008). Evaluating pedagogical affordances of media sharing Web 2.0 technology: A case study. Paper presented at the ASCILITE Conference, Melbourne, Australia.

Chai, C. S., & Tan, S. C. (2009). Professional development of teachers for computer-supported col-laborative learning: A knowledge-building approach. Teachers College Record, 111(5), 1296-1327.

Cole, M. (2009). Using Wiki technology to support student engagement: Lessons from the trenches. Computers and Education, 52, 141-146.

Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2008). Web 2.0 tools and processes in higher education: Quality perspec-tives. Educational Media International, 45(2), 93-106.

Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2008). A systemic and cognitive view on collaborative knowledge building with wikis. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(2), 105-122.

Cresswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255-284.

Friedman, A. M., & Lee, J. K. (2009). Using VoiceThread as a debate tool. Paper presented at the 2009 James F. Ackerman Colloquium on Technology and Citizenship Education: “Citizenship Education 2.0: Digital Media in a Networked World”, West Lafayette, IN.

Gao, F., & Sun, Y. (2010). Supporting an online community of inquiry using VoiceThread. In C. D. Maddux, D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Research Highlights in Information Technology and Teacher Education 2010 Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Edu-cation (SITE).

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hudges, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research--What path should we take “now”? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246-259.

Meyer, K. A. (2010). Web 2.0 research: Introduction to the special issue. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 177-178. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.07.004

Pea, R. D. (1997). Distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Dis-tributed cognitions: Pyschological and educational considerations (pp. 47-87). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Stahl, G. (2005). Group cognition in computer-assisted collaborative learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2), 79-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00115.x

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for devel-oping grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Watson, D. M. (2001). Pedagogy before technology: Re-thinking the relationship between ICT and teaching. Education and Information Technologies, 6(4), 251-266.

Weir, L. (2008). VoiceThreads: Extending the classroom with interactive multimedia albums. Edu-topia. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/voicethread-interactive-multimedia-albums

Yin, R. K. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Zhang, J. (2009). Toward a creative social web for learners and teachers. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 274-279.

Examining a Web 2.0-Supported Online Activity

129 |

rEcommEndAtIons

The suggestions by respondents to further enhance the use of LC on-line Cataloguing tool suffices as recommendations in addition to the following:

1. Librarians should embrace the opportunity LC on-line Cataloguing tool offer and ICT compliant.

2. Internet connectivity and uninterrupted power supply are requisites of necessity.

3. Attendance of Workshops, Conferences and Seminars should not be waived for any reason.

4. Libraries should endeavour to organise in house Training/Seminars to boost staff capacity building.

5. All libraries should be connected to the Internet with its own VSAT/Server/Band-width.

Direct Reprint Requests to:Isaac Oluwadare BusayoPrincipal LibrarianNimbe Adedipe LibraryUniversity of AgricultureP.M.B. 2240Abeokuta, Ogun State, NigeriaEmail: iobusayo@yahoo.com

Perception and Utilization of Library of Congress On-Line Cataloguing Tool