An empirical study of lecturers' appropriation of social technologies for higher education

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 295-311

  Hamid, Suraya ^a   Waycott, Jenny ^b   Kurnia, Sherah ^b   Chang, Shanton ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA   (Malaysia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84905973793     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14495554     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14742/ajet.690     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. Internet and Higher Education,11, 71-80.
2. Ala-Mutka, K. (2010). Learning in informal online networks and communities. Seville, Spain: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, European Commission.
3. Augustsson, G. (2010). Web 2.0, pedagogical support for reflexive and emotional social interaction among Swedish students. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 197-205.
4. Bayne, S., & Ross, J. (2007). The 'digital native' and 'digital immigrant': a dangerous opposition. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE)
5. Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. SAGE Publications
6. Brown, S. (2010). From VLEs to learning webs: The implications of Web 2.0 for learning and teaching. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(1), 1-10.
7. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
8. Dale, C., &Pymm, J. (2009). Podagogy - The iPod as a learning technology. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10(1), 84-96.
9. Ferdig, R. E. (2007). Editorial: Examining social software in teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(1), 5.
10. Gray, K., Chang, S., & Kennedy, G. (2010). Use of social web technologies by international and domestic undergraduate students: Implications for internationalising learning and teaching in Australian universities. Technology Pedagogy and Education, 19(1), 31-46.
11. Gray, K., Waycott, J., Clerehan, R., Hamilton, M., Richardson, J., Sheard, J., & Thompson, C. (2012).Worth it? Findings from a study of how academics assess students' Web 2.0 activities. Research in Learning Technology, 12(1).
12. Griffith, S., &Liyanage, L. (2008). An introduction to the potential of social networking sites in education. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Second Emerging Technologies Conference.
13. Hamid, S., Chang, S., & Kurnia, S. (2009). Identifying the use of Online Social Networking (OSN) in higher education Paper presented at the Ascilite, Auckland, New Zealand.
14. Hemmi, A., Bayne, S., & Land, R. (2009). The appropriation and repurposing of social technologies in higher education. Journal of Assisted Learning, 25(Special Issue), 19-30.
15. Hughes, A. (2009). Higher education in a Web 2.0 world.Report of an Independent Committee of Inquiry into the impact on higher education of students' widespread use of Web 2.0 technologies.UK.
16. Jones, M. C., & Twidale, M. B. (2005). What's in a Name? Exploring the Connections between Abstraction and Appropriation. International Reports on Socio-Informatics 2(2), 43-47.
17. Kaplan, A. M., &Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media.Business Horizons, 53, 59-68.
18. Kear, K., Woodthorpe, J., Robertson, S., & Hutchison, M. (2010). From forums to wikis: Perspectives on tools for collaboration. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 218-225.
19. Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Bennet, S., Gray, K., Waycott, J., &Judd, T. (2009). Educating the Net Generation. A Handbook of Findings for Practice and Policy.California, USA: Creative Commons.
20. Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretative field studies in information systems.MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67-94.
21. Kvale, S. (1996).Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
22. Lincoln, Y. S., &Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications.
23. Mason, R., &Rennie, F. (2008). E-Learning and social network handbook: Resources for higher education. Madison Ave, New York: Routledge.
24. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, J. W. L. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: pedagogical choices with technology affordance in the Web 2.0 era. Paper presented at the Proceedings Ascilite Singapore 2007, Singapore.
25. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, J. W. L. (2008). The three P's of pedagogy for the networked society: Personalization, participation, and productivity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 10-27.
26. Morrison, G. (2010). Designing effective instruction(6th ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
27. Opdenakker, R. (2006). Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualitative research.Forum: Qualitative social research, 7(4), 11
28. Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using Technology and Constituting Structures; A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations. Organization Science 11(4), 404-428.
29. Peterson, C. (2003). Bringing ADDIE to life: Instructional design at its best. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12(3), 227-241.
30. th December 2012.
31. Ryan, M., & Lloyd, M. M. (2003) Online, off-line, teaching in between the lines. In OLT 2003 Excellence: making the connections, 5 November, 2003, Brisbane Convention & Exhibition Centre
32. Schroeder, A., Minocha, S., & Schneider, C. (2010). Social software in higher education: The diversity of applications and their contributions to students' learning experiences. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 26, 547-564.
33. Shaohua, H., & Peilin, W. (2008). Web 2.0 and social learning in a digital economy. Paper presented at the IEEE International Symposium on Knowledge Acquisition and Modeling Workshop, 2008. KAM Workshop 2008.
34. Tay, E., & Allen, M. (2011). Designing social media into university learning: Technology of collaboration or collaboration for technology? Educational Media International, 48(3), 151-163.
35. Thongmak, M. (2011). Facebook adoption as computer-mediated communication for university students. Paper presented at the AMCIS 2011 Conference Proceedings. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2011_submissions/31
36. Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4, 74-81.
37. Waycott, J. (2004). The appropriation of as learning and workplace tools: An activity theory perspective.Milton Keynes, UK:The Open University.
38. Waycott, J., Sheard, J., Thompson, C., &Clerehan, R. (2013). Making students' work visible on the social web: A blessing or a curse? Computers & Education, 68, 86-95.
39. Yin, R. K. (1994).Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40. Yoder, C., &Stutzman, F. (2011). Identifying social capital in the Facebook interface. Paper presented at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2011).
41. Zakaria, M. H., Watson, J., & Edwards, S. L. (2010). Investigating the use of Web 2.0 technology by Malaysian students. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 4(1), 17-29.