Education for Information 27 (2009) 39–55 DOI 10.3233/EFI-2009-0871 IOS Press
39
The knowledge of Web 2.0 by library and information science academics Sultan Al-Daihani Department of Library and Information Science, College of Social Science (CSS), Kuwait University (KU), P.O. Box: 5969, 13060 Safat, State of Kuwait E-mail: s
[email protected] Received 13 March 2009 Revised 11 June 2009 This research paper reports the results of a Web-based survey designed to explore the attitude of Library and Information Science (LIS) academics to Web 2.0. It investigates their familiarity with Web 2.0 concepts, tools and services and applications as these relate to LIS education, and the barriers to their use. A Web-based questionnaire was administered to 44 academic staff in three LIS schools, two located in Kuwait and one in Wisconsin, US. It was found that they have a low level of familiarity with and use of Web 2.0. Thirty-one of the respondents reported that LIS schools should be responsible for planning and management of Web 2.0 integration, while 26 thought that these should be the responsibility of individual academics. Lack of training was found to be the most inhibiting barrier to the use of Web 2.0 applications. It was also found that institutional affiliation and Internet experience were significant factors in regard to a number of online activities and Web 2.0 barriers. Other personal factors had no or very little significance. The data from the study provide baseline data for studies on Web 2.0 in LIS education which could contribute to appropriate initiatives for the integration of these applications.
1. Introduction The term “Web 2.0” was used first by Tim O’Reilly in 2004. Hayman and Lothian [15, p. 5] define it as “a cluster of web-based technologies services with a social collaboration and sharing component, where the community as a whole contributes, takes control, votes and ranks contents and contributions”. There is no doubt that the Web 2.0 changed and transformed access to information and communication. It provides user-created content platform applications allowing users to contribute their knowledge in different formats like text, data, video and audio. This term was also developed and associated with other terms like Library 2.0, Learning 2.0, etc. These terms reflect the implementation of Web 2.0 in different domains. Garcia, Rey, Ferreira, and Puerto [6] noted that Web 2.0 has potential for universities in developing new models of interaction and new forms of exciting education. Sendall, Ceccucci, and Peslak [11] reviewed the importance of the implementation of Web 2.0 tools in the classroom. They conclude that these skills are also critical for students to prepare them for the job market. They also claimed that educators should engage students with Web 2.0. Thompson [4, p. 4] claimed that Web 2.0 can “change 0167-8329/09/$17.00 2009 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
40
S. Al-Daihani / The knowledge of Web 2.0 by library and information science academics
the model of higher education model from the traditional classroom framework to an asynchronous 24/7 mode”. This widespread use and popularity of Web 2.0 have presented new challenges to LIS schools. Web 2.0 affects the creation, distribution, dissemination and repackaging of information and the sharing of knowledge. Virkus [16] suggests that LIS educators should take advantage of this new technology in order to make progress in this new context. Since the inception of Web 2.0, however, it has posed social and academic challenges for LIS schools and educators as the information market is demanding new competencies and skills from LIS graduates. Libraries also expect professionals on their workforce to be equipped with appropriate competencies in Web 2.0. This means that students in LIS programmes need to have a fresh orientation directed toward developing Web 2.0 competencies and LIS educators need to introduce changes in the content and substance of their curricula. In a study of the Master of Library Information Science Programme (MLIS) at Kuwait University, Rehman and Marouf [15] noted that the field of library and information science has opened up new opportunities in the areas of information and knowledge management. There are now fresh initiatives to integrate these concepts and applications, for example, in the fields of knowledge management, information architecture, human-computer interaction and digitalization. These changes have essentially affected the whole structure, content and conduct of LIS education. The information market needs new professionals who have the relevant capabilities and competencies in this changing field that could be better supported by Web 2.0 technology [12]. The new generation of students, described as the “Net Generation” also makes particular demands on LIS programmes. These students are capable of communicating through instant messaging, email, social networking, social bookmarking, and file sharing [3]. Tysome [17], in a survey of freshman students in higher education in the United Kingdom, reported that nearly two-thirds of the students regularly use online social networking tools such as Facebook , more than a quarter use wikis or blogs often, and around one-fifth of them are a part of some online virtual reality community such as Second Life . The Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) report (2007) is based on a survey of the digital lives of 511 college students from different countries [8]. It was found that 56% of them used a social networking site. These facts have prompted academic institutions and faculty to introduce new approaches to learning and teaching [16]. Gowdin [10] observed that the “Google Generation” has been raised with PCs and video games and they like to collaborate through social networking and teamwork. LIS educators need to comprehend the nature, magnitude and dimension of these changes in an objective and systematic manner. Recently, Web 2.0 features have also been used as teaching tools, turning the experience into an exciting e-learning approach [1].These features are also suitable for integration with information literacy [3]. Libraries are increasingly using Web 2.0 technology. Foo and Ng [12] noted that libraries increasingly use Web 2.0 applications in reference services, the creation of
S. Al-Daihani / The knowledge of Web 2.0 by library and information science academics
41
research guides, the development of collections, and the provision of information services. Libraries are using these technologies to improve user satisfaction. However, users have the roles of both producers and consumers of content and services. Anderson [9] has provided a structured framework for rationalizing the implications of Web 2.0 services and has noted that libraries are well positioned to make a unique contribution to the development of such services. These developments indicate an urgent need for library professionals to be able to steer these initiatives, which will only be possible if the LIS programmes are designed in a manner that prepares their graduates for these changing roles. Against this background of emerging needs and pressures, Foo and Ng [12] observed that LIS schools, in general, have been slow to respond to these changes and update their curricula. Virkus [16] also found that only a few LIS educators had successfully adopted Web 2.0 technology for teaching and learning. Coutinho and Bottientuit Jr. [2] more generally recently studied the Portuguese academic community and have reported similar results. They found that academics were unaware of the Web 2.0 phenomena. In a recent case study at the Institute of Information Studies of Tallinn University, Boulos and Wheeler [5] analysed the value of Web 2.0 in health and health care education. They noted that wikis, blogs, and podcasts are the most popular Web 2.0 tools in education. Halper [13] summarizes the findings of the British Library report investigating the use of Web 2.0 by UK social science researchers, noting that the majority of researchers are not using Web 2.0. Foo and Ng [12] proposed a framework for the analysis of Web 2.0 in the educational process. Their framework offers a number of approaches that could be incorporated into graduate LIS education programmes. They term this approach the “awareness-knowledge-experimentation-immersion” educational paradigm. As a part of this proposed framework, content development should be pursued in a number of related subjects, engaging students through professional seminars, setting assignments for further research, and exposing and immersing students in library 2.0 applications like wikis, blogs, social networking sites and Web syndication applications (RSS). This framework entails teacher-student engagement and the introduction of a professional internship in industry as a component of the curriculum. Bawden et al. [1] investigated the changes in library and information curricula that have emerged in response to increasing e-content, and the impact of the communication and social networking features of Web 2.0 and Library 2.0. The study was based on a thematic analysis of five case studies from Australia, Ireland, Lithuania and the United Kingdom. It examined both changes in curriculum content and in methods of teaching and learning. The results revealed the best means to introduce Web 2.0 facilities, both as topics in the curriculum and as tools for teaching and learning. It also identified the set of topics that needs to be covered in the curriculum and the relationship between ‘conventional’ e-learning and Web 2.0 education. In a case study at the Institute of Information Studies at Tallinn University, Virkus [16] explored the experience of introducing ICT, including Web 2.0 technologies, in Library and Information Science education and the role that these can
42
S. Al-Daihani / The knowledge of Web 2.0 by library and information science academics
play in learning and teaching. She found that the staff had been experimenting with Web 2.0 technologies but a few had successfully adopted them in teaching and learning. She concluded that Web 2.0 supports constructivist approaches to learning and has great potential to socialize online learning, and supported the idea of integrating these technologies into LIS education. In a study investigating Web 2.0 adoption in the LIS curriculum, Aharony [7] surveyed library and information science schools in the US. The researcher noted that the expansion of the curriculum and integration of Web 2.0 courses might improve the image and status of LIS and LIS programmes in comparison with other programmes. It examined 59 LIS school websites and reported that only six of them teach Web 2.0. Six of the 12 schools that responded to the email survey do not offer any courses that deals with Web 2.0; five of them have programmes that do not offer a specific course on Web 2.0 but include related issues. Aharony proposed that a LIS curriculum should accommodate these changes by expanding their curriculum so that it will equip their graduates with the competencies and skills required in the marketplace. The literature, then, argues for the significance of Web 2.0 in LIS instructions, both as content and tools. In a changing and dynamic ICT context, the information market has demonstrated an increasing demand for those who have the relevant competencies and skills. Web 2.0 tools and services are an important part of this new information environment. There appears to be a need for conducting systematic studies on how Web 2.0 technology can be used in LIS instructional programmes.
2. Problem statement The increasing use of Web 2.0 applications in the field of LIS makes it incumbent upon the educational programmes to respond to the challenges and demands of this technology. LIS educators need to identify these needs in order to include this technology in their academic programmes. However, it is claimed that there is little research done on the response of LIS education and academics to Web 2.0 applications and there is a need to explore how LIS educators are responding to Web 2.0. These examinations should focus on familiarity with Web 2.0 concepts, the use of the applications, the teaching and learning aspects of the technology and the barriers to the adoption of this technology. It is worth investigating whether the educational qualifications, academic position, years of experience using the Internet and academic affiliation are associated with the level of engagement of academics with Web 2.0 applications. It is expected that the findings of this study will help in developing useful insights on the issue that may help in the design of a model for the instruction of Web 2.0 in LIS education.
S. Al-Daihani / The knowledge of Web 2.0 by library and information science academics
43
3. Research aims and objectives This study has been designed to: 1. 2. 3. 4.
investigate LIS academics’ familiarity and interaction with Web 2.0 concepts; identify Web 2.0 tools and services currently used by LIS academics; explore the applications of Web 2.0 in LIS teaching; identify the barriers to the use of Web 2.0 as perceived by LIS academics.
4. Research questions and hypotheses To achieve the above aims and objectives, the following questions were formulated: RQ1: How do LIS academics rate their awareness of Web 2.0 technologies and their online activities? RQ2: How do LIS academics rate their familiarity with the Web 2.0 concepts? RQ3: How do LIS academics rate their use of Web 2.0 tools and services? RQ4: How do LIS academics use Web 2.0 applications in teaching? RQ5: What are the barriers that inhibit LIS academics from using Web 2.0 applications and services? A number of hypotheses were developed to investigate the statistically significant differences related to the personal variables of teaching experience, institutional affiliation, academic rank and years of Internet experience. The following hypotheses were formulated: 1. There are statistically significant differences among academics based on their personal variables and their online experience. 2. There are statistically significant differences among academics based on their personal variables and their perception of incorporation of Web 2.0 in LIS education. 3. There are statistically significant differences among academics based on their personal variables and their perception of Web 2.0 barriers
5. Methodology 5.1. Procedures The study was conducted in three LIS schools, two located in Kuwait – Kuwait University and the Public Authority of Applied Sciences and Training (PAEET) - and in a third school located in USA, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM). Academics in this study include full-time, part-time and adjunct faculty engaged in actual teaching and teaching assistance and responsible for conducting tutorials,
44
S. Al-Daihani / The knowledge of Web 2.0 by library and information science academics
laboratories and for providing support to the instructors. All the academics in the three schools were treated as the subjects of the study: Kuwait University: 15 academics The Public Authority of Applied Sciences and Training: 35 academics University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: 29 academics 5.2. Survey instrument A questionnaire consisting of five sections was designed using the SurveyMonkey online survey tool. The first section had a number of questions about faculty members’ online activities and their awareness of some of the Web 2.0 concepts. In the second section, Web 2.0 tools and services were listed and the participants were asked to rate their level of use of each of them according to a five-point scale. The third section had a number of questions about faculty members’ adoption of Web 2.0 applications in the courses they teach. The respondents were provided statements about Web 2.0 and they were asked to indicate their degree of agreement on a Likert scale of 1 to 5. In the fourth section, the participants were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement with the statements about the barriers to the use of Web 2.0. The final section asked for personal information such as gender, age, teaching experience, academic qualifications, academic position, institution affiliation, and Internet experience. 5.3. Instrument pre-testing The questionnaire was pilot-tested primarily to assess the appropriateness of the questions and scales and to ensure the validity and reliability of the instrument. The pilot was conducted with three academics for their review and comments. Many useful comments were made and the questionnaire was revised in the light of their input. 5.4. Data collection Faculty members in the three schools were requested to complete an anonymous Web-based survey in November and December 2008. For this purpose, an email and a reminder were sent to all the participants. The questionnaire was distributed to 79 academics. Announcements of the administration and reminders were sent. In total, 44 responses (55.6%) were returned, and the findings of this study are based on these 44 responses. 6. Findings The data were entered in SPSS to prepare descriptive statistics. The following sections describe the respondents’ profile, and then present the results relating to Web 2.0 awareness, concepts, and use. The final sections analysis the results of their view about Web 2.0 applications in education and the related barriers.
S. Al-Daihani / The knowledge of Web 2.0 by library and information science academics
45
Table 1 Gender, age, and teaching experience, N = 44 Gender Female Male Age: Up to 30 31–35 36–40 41–45 Over 45 Teaching experience: Up to 5 years 6–10 11–15 16–20 Over 20 years
N 25 19
% 56.8 43.2
10 3 8 7 16
22.7 6.8 18.2 15.9 36.4
21 5 9 3 6
47.7 11.4 20.5 6.8 13.6
6.1. Respondent profile It was found that 56.8% of the respondents were female and 43.2% were male. A large number of respondents are in the age group of over 45, with 22.7% up to 30 years old, 18.2% between 36 and 40 and 15.9% between 41 and 45. The smallest group of the respondents is the age group 31 to 35 (6.8%). As regards teaching experience, a large number of the respondents (47.7%) have up to 5 years experience, while 20.5% have between 11 and 15 years experience. Those with over 20 years of teaching experience amount to 13.6% of the respondents, while 11.4% have between 6 and 10 years, and 6.8% between 16 and 20 years. Table 1 shows the scores for gender, age, and teaching experience. With regard to the highest academic or professional degree, 45.5% of the respondents have a Masters degree, 40.9% have a PhD, and 13.6% have a Bachelors degree. Consistent with this finding, it was noted that 44% of the respondents are Teaching Assistants (TAs), 32.6% are Assistant Professors, 14% are Lecturers, and the remaining 9.4 percent have the senior ranks of Associate Professor or Professor. Half of the respondents (50%) are from PAAET, 27.3% are from UWM and 21.7% from the KU, reflecting the overall ratios of faculty members. For ‘Internet experience’, it was found that 70.5% indicated that they had been using it for more than nine years, 15.9% had been using it for four to six years, and 13.6% reported experience in the range of seven to nine years. Table 2 shows the scores for qualifications, academic position, academic institution, and Internet experience 6.2. Awareness of Web 2.0 and online experience The first research question was to find out the awareness and interaction of the participants with Web 2.0 applications. They were asked whether their schools had been using Web 2.0 applications; 43.2% of them reported that they were not sure
46
S. Al-Daihani / The knowledge of Web 2.0 by library and information science academics Table 2 Qualifications, academic position, academic institution, and Internet experience N = 44 Qualifications: Bachelor Master Ph.D. Academic position: Professor Associate Professor Assistant Professor Lecturer Teacher Assistant Academic Institution: KU PAAET UWM Internet experience: 1–3 years 4–6 years 7–9 years More than 9 years
N 6 20 18
% 13.6 45.5 40.9
2 2 14 6 19
4.7 4.7 32.6 14 44.2
10 22 12
22 50 28
0 7 6 31
0 15.9 13.6 70.5
about it, 31.8% said no, and only 25% reported that their schools were using them. When the respondents were asked if their academic departments were planning to do so in the future, 78.2% said they were not sure about that, 15.6% answered ‘no’, and only 6.2% were positive that these applications would be used. The online activities of the respondents were also investigated (see Table 3). They were asked to mark the extent of their use on a scale of 1–6 (hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, rarely, never). Mean scores and standard deviations for these elements were computed. Table 3 shows a ranked order of these activities. These activities were related to checking/sending email, sending instant messages, information searching, reading electronic journals and using the library website. It was found that checking/sending email had the highest mean score of 5.16, followed by information searching with a mean score of 4.84. Using library web sites and reading electronic journals were ranked as the third and fourth with corresponding means scores of 3.88 and 3.48 respectively. The lowest-ranked activity, with a mean score of 3.25, was related to sending SMS messages. Hypothesis 1: It was hypothesized that there are statistically significant differences in online activities among academics based on the personal variables of teaching experience, academic rank institutional affiliation and Internet experience. A one-way ANOVA was used to test the hypothesis at the significance level of 0.05. Table 4 shows the results of this test. It was found that the academics exhibited no significant difference for their online activities in relation to their teaching experience and academic rank. However, significant differences were found for ‘institutional affiliation’ in four of the five online activities. Likewise, three of the five online
S. Al-Daihani / The knowledge of Web 2.0 by library and information science academics
47
Table 3 Online activities, N = 44 Checking/sending email Information searching Using library Web sites Reading electronic journals Sending instant messages Other
Mean 5.16 4.84 3.88 3.48 3.25 3.31
Std. deviation 1.01 0.77 1.07 1.22 1.79 1.84
Table 4 One-way ANOVA, Online activities and personal variables
Checking/sending email Sending Instant messages Information searching Reading electronic journals Using library Web sites
Teaching experience df: 4, 39 F Sig. 1.96 0.11 1.09 0.37 0.50 0.73 1.35 0.26 0.45 0.76
Rank df: 4, 38 F 1.07 1.37 0.81 1.52 1.82
Sig. 0.38 0.26 0.52 0.21 0.14
Institution df: 2, 41 F 8.16 3.99 2.52 5.93 7.84
Sig. 0.001 0.026 0.093 0.005 0.001
Internet experience df: 2, 41 F Sig. 8.92 0.001 0.079 0.924 6.03 0.005 4.56 0.016 1.59 0.215
activities were associated with significant differences in Internet experience. In order to ascertain the real nature of differences among different categories, a post-hoc test of LSD was used. The post hoc results indicated that academics from PAAET have a lower level of online activities for checking/sending emails, instant messages, reading electronic journals and using library website as compared with academics from KU and UWM. However, no significant difference was found for information searching activities. For ‘Internet experience’, LSD results showed that those who have Internet experience of more than nine years were associated with a higher frequency in the use of online activities. A significant difference existed for the activities of checking/sending email, information searching and reading electronic journals. The academics exhibited no significant difference for their online experiences in relation to their teaching experience and academic status. Based on these results, it was concluded that Hypothesis 1 is partially supported. The second and third research questions sought to learn out about the experience of academics with Web 2.0 concepts, discovering both the respondents’ interaction with Web 2.0 concepts and their actual use of the Web 2.0 tools and applications. The findings are described in Sections 6.3 and 6.4. 6.3. Web 2.0 concepts These concepts are related to social bookmarking, image sharing, collaborative authoring, video sharing, social networking, blogs, calendaring, file sharing and communication. The respondents were asked to mark their level of interaction with each concept according to the categories of ‘never use’, ‘view’, and ‘view and
48
S. Al-Daihani / The knowledge of Web 2.0 by library and information science academics Table 5 Percent of experience with Web 2.0 concepts Web 2.0 concepts Social bookmarking Image sharing Collaborative authoring Video sharing Social networking Blogs Calendaring File sharing Communication tools
Never use 75 38.6 38.6 14 39.5 11.4 47.7 43.2 51.2
View 18.2 50 52.3 79.1 25.6 70.5 22.7 31.8 14
View & contribute 6.8 11.4 9.1 7 34.9 18.2 29.5 25 34.9
contribute’. It is clear that the majority of respondents (75%) are not familiar with the concept social bookmarking, while 50% ‘view’ image sharing and 52.3% ‘view’ collaborative authoring. The majority, 79.1% and 70.1%, ‘view’ video sharing and blogs (Table 5). 6.4. Web 2.0 tools and services Research question 3 intended to find out how LIS academics rate their use of Web 2.0 tools and services. The academics were asked to rate the extent of their use on a Likert scale. These include social networking (e.g., Facebook, Myspace), social bookmarking (e.g., Delicious, CiteUlike), calendaring (e.g., Google Calendar, Outlook Calendar), collaborative authoring (e.g., wikis, Wikepedia), image sharing (e.g., Flickr, webshots), video sharing (e.g., YouTube, Google Video), file sharing (e.g., Google Docs, 4share), communication tools (e.g., Skype, MSN, discussion forums), blogs (LIS blogs, personal blogs, educational blogs). For each of the above category tools, “other” was included at the end of each section in case the participants are using other applications. It might be be used also if their institutions provide them with tools such as file sharing server, institutional wiki or/and blogs, etc. Table 6 shows the scores for their level of use for each category of these tools. The majority of the respondents are deficient in the use of Web 2.0 tools. For ‘social networking’, it was found that 54.5% of the respondents ‘never’ or ‘rarely use’ Facebook, and 75% ‘never use’ Myspace. The social bookmarking tools were also ‘never use’ by 77.3% for Delicious and 86.4% for CiteUlike; 74.4% and 65.9% ‘never use’ Google and Outlook Calendars. Seven respondents claimed that they used the UWM Panther calendaring system., The majority (68.2%) make fair use of Wikipedia, ranging from ‘very frequently’ to ‘occasionally’. For wikis overall the majority of the respondents (70.4%) are in the categories ‘rarely’ and ‘never use’. In the image sharing category, 63.7% of the respondents ‘rarely’ or’ never use’ Flikr and 86.4% ‘never use’ webshots. File sharing is also not used by the majority of the respondents, while 54.5% ‘never use’ Google Docs and 88.6% never use 4share. On the other hand, other than the listed file sharing tools, five respondents from UWM indicated that they using UWM Panther system. For the communication tools
S. Al-Daihani / The knowledge of Web 2.0 by library and information science academics
49
Table 6 The percentage of Web 2.0 tools used by academics, N: 44 Social Networking Facebook MySpace Social Bookmarking Delicious CiteUlike Calendaring Google Calendar Outlook Calendar Collaborative Authoring wikis Wikipedia Image Sharing Flickr webshots Video Sharing YouTube Google Video File Sharing Google Docs 4share Communication Skype MSN Messenger discussion forums Blogs LIS blogs personal blogs educational blogs
Very frequently
Frequently
Occasionally
Rarely
Never
18.3 0
13.6 0
13.6 6.8
13.6 18.2
40.9 75
4.5 0
0 0
9.1 4.5
9.1 9.1
77.3 86.4
0 6.8
0 2.3
16.3 9.1
9.3 15.9
74.4 65.9
2.3 13.6
6.8 27.3
20.5 27.3
29.5 13.6
40.9 18.2
6.8 0
4.5 0
25 6.8
18.2 6.8
45.5 86.4
22.7 6.8
25 9.1
22.7 9.1
18.2 25
11.4 50
4.5 2.3
6.8 2.3
20.6 4.5
13.6 2.3
54.5 88.6
4.5 13.6 7
11.5 6.8 9.3
13.6 22.7 18.6
13.6 27.4 34.9
56.8 29.5 30.2
2.3 6.8 0
15.9 4.5 15.9
40.9 20.5 34.1
22.7 29.6 20.5
18.2 38.6 29.5
category, 70.4% of the respondents ‘never use’ Skype, while fair responses of 43.1% use MSN messenger, ranging from ‘very frequently’ to ‘occasionally’. Discussion forums are ‘rarely’ or ‘never used’ by 65.1%. The majority use LIS blogs (59.1%), but 68.1% ‘rarely’ and ‘never use’ personal blogs. Finally, 50% of the respondents use educational blogs, ranging from ‘frequently’ to ‘occasionally’. 6.5. Web 2.0 applications in LIS education Research question 4 asked how LIS academics use Web 2.0 applications in teaching. For this, a list of LIS courses was presented to the respondents and they were asked to identify the course(s) in which they are using Web 2.0 applications. Very few academics use these applications in their courses; only five faculty members indicated their use in courses on the introduction/foundation to LIS, three in courses on information literacy, only one on information & society, two in knowledge organization and management, one on digital libraries and three in courses on Internet applications. Some use was also reported in archival outreach, adult services, business information and research methods.
50
S. Al-Daihani / The knowledge of Web 2.0 by library and information science academics Table 7 Web 2.0 for LIS education, N:44 Items Developing students’ competencies Improving students information literacy Promoting staff and students interaction Complementing role of LIS schools Reviewing curriculum Making instruction more effective Increasing the credibility of LIS teaching
Mean 4.09 4.07 3.93 3.89 3.89 3.66 3.61
Std. deviation 0.830 0.818 0.728 0.920 0.970 0.888 0.868
The respondents were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement with a number of statements in order to assess how they perceived use of Web 2 in the instructional process. They marked their perceptions on a scale of 1–5. Table 7 ranks the order of these statements according to their mean scores. Two statements that received the highest mean scores of 4.09 and 4.07 were related to developing student competencies and improving their information literacy capabilities. Five statements that had mean scores in the range of 3.61–3.93 were promoting of Web 2.0 for its use by academics and students (3.93), complementing the role of LIS in this new environment (3.89), reviewing the LIS curriculum (3.89), making Web 2.0 instruction more effective, (3.66) and increasing the credibility of LIS teaching (3.61). In the context of use of Web 2.0 in LIS education, the respondents were asked whether they should have the responsibility of planning and management of Web 2.0 integration in LIS education. The results show that 31 of the respondents thought that LIS departments should be responsible for planning and management of Web 2.0 integration, while 26 thought that this should be done by individual academics, and 24 considered that a standing committee should handle it; only one did not favour any of the stated options. Hypothesis 2: It was hypothesized that the academics have statistically significant differences in their perceptions about the use of Web 2.0 in LIS education based upon their personal variables Results of one-way ANOVA are shown in Table 8. They do not show any significant differences in perceptions with regard to teaching experience, academic rank and institutional affiliation. For the personal attribute of Internet experience, the academics exhibited significant differences for five statements about their perception of the adoption of Web 2.0 in LIS education. In order to examine these patterns of difference, a post hoc test of LSD was used. It was found that, compared to other age groups, the respondents with Internet experience of more than nine years have strong views on the use of Web 2.0 with regard to improving students’ information literacy and developing their competencies and skills for LIS education, for Web 2.0 for teaching over traditional methods and for the promotion of Web 2.0 for staff-student interaction. Based on these findings, Hypothesis 2 was partially supported.
S. Al-Daihani / The knowledge of Web 2.0 by library and information science academics
51
Table 8 One-way ANOVA, Web 2.0 adaption in LIS education and personal variables Teaching experience df: 4, 39 F Sig. Improving students information literacy 0.286 0.885 Developing students competencies 0.686 0.606 Role of LIS schools 0.527 0.717 Review of curriculum 0.293 0.881 Web 2.0 advantages to teaching 0.529 0.715 Increase the credibility of LIS teaching 1.169 0.339 Promote staff and students interaction 0.468 0.759
Rank df: 4, 38 F 1.692 1.037 0.947 0.653 0.768 0.868 0.472
Sig. 0.172 0.401 0.448 0.628 0.553 0.492 0.756
Institution df: 2, 41 F 0.128 0.002 0.972 2.344 2.066 2.599 0.854
Sig. 0.880 0.998 0.387 0.109 0.140 0.087 0.433
Internet experience df: 2, 41 F Sig. 3.348 0.045 4.220 0.022 2.743 0.076 2.439 0.100 3.371 0.044 0.369 0.694 4.484 0.017
Table 9 Web 2.0 barriers, N = 44 Items Lack of training Relevance to work Lack of time Lack of technical support Using Internet for long spells Slow network Traditional teaching methods No permission at work Religious reasons
Mean 4.14 3.36 3.14 2.75 2.48 2.43 2.23 1.93 1.55
Std. deviation 0.852 1.080 1.212 0.967 1.372 0.998 0.859 0.846 0.697
6.6. Web 2.0 barriers The fifth research question was related to the perceptions of respondents about the barriers to the adoption of Web 2.0 in LIS programmes. The respondents were asked to mark the extent of their agreement with a number of barriers on a scale of 1–5, where 1 meant ‘least significant barrier’ and 5 meant ‘most significant barrier’. Ranked barriers are listed in Table 9, based on mean scores. It was found that the respondents perceive the most significant barrier to be lack of training, with a mean score of 4.14. Two barriers received mean scores of 3.36 and 3.14, indicating that ‘workload’ and ‘availability’ are two other constraints. All of the other four barriers had mean scores in the range of 2.75 to 2.23 and these were related to the lack of technical support, using Internet for long spells, slow connections and preference for traditional methods of instruction. The last two barriers were related to permission to use these tools at work and non-use due to religious reasons. These received mean scores 1.93 and 1.55, indicating that few respondents attached any significance to them. Hypothesis 3: It was hypothesized that the participants have significant differences in their perception of the barriers to the use of Web 2.0 based on their personal variables.
52
S. Al-Daihani / The knowledge of Web 2.0 by library and information science academics Table 10 One-way ANOVA, Web 2.0 barriers and personal variables
Teaching experience df: 4, 39 F Sig. Lack of training 0.636 0.640 Lack of time 0.516 0.725 Slow network 0.125 0.973 Using of Internet for long spells 1.677 0.175 Traditional teaching methods 1.338 0.273 Lack of technical support 0.778 0.546 Religious reasons 0.956 0.442 No permission at work 3.570 0.014 Relevance to work 1.276 0.296
Rank df: 4, 38 F 1.667 2.067 1.763 1.743 0.344 0.727 1.179 0.843 0.564
Sig. 0.178 0.104 0.157 0.161 0.847 0.579 0.335 0.506 0.690
Institution df: 2, 41 F 2.716 2.768 9.839 3.811 1.825 1.572 1.671 0.278 2.951
Sig. 0.078 0.075 0.000 0.030 0.174 0.220 0.201 0.759 0.063
Internet experience df: 2, 41 F Sig. 0.228 0.797 0.531 0.592 1.640 0.207 17.587 0.000 2.678 0.081 2.459 0.098 3.036 0.059 0.625 0.540 0.153 0.859
Results of one-way ANOVA are given in Table 10. The participants showed no significant difference in their perceptions about Web 2.0 barriers for the personal variable of academic rank. For ‘teaching experience’, the only barrier was related to the absence of permission to use the facility. For the variable of institutional affiliation, it was found that ‘slow network access’ and ‘dislike of the use the Internet for long spells’ showed significant differences. Finally, for the personal variable of Internet experience, ‘dislike of the use of Internet for a long spells’ and ‘religious reasons’ showed significant differences. The LSD post hoc test indicated that for ‘teaching experience’, the only significant difference was for the use Web 2.0 at work. The group that had teaching experience of up to five years was found to have a stronger perception about this barrier than the other categories of teaching experience. For ‘institutional afflation’ it was found that academics from PAAET have a stronger sense of the barriers resulting from a slow network and from using the Internet for long spells than their colleagues from KU and UWM. For ‘Internet experience’, it was found that those who have six years of Internet experience have significantly different perceptions about the use of Internet for long spells. It was also found that those who have seven to nine years of Internet experience have significantly different perceptions about the barriers of religious reasons than those with more than nine years experience. Thus Hypothesis 3 is partially supported.
7. Discussions and conclusions This research has provided insight into the perception of Web 2.0 by academics at three LIS schools. These schools all have a good ICT infrastructure and Internet connections. The effective use of Web 2.0 applications is dependent on academics’ familiarity and interaction with these tools, the opportunities they have had for exposure to the applications and their level of skills. This study indicates that these
S. Al-Daihani / The knowledge of Web 2.0 by library and information science academics
53
academics have a low level of awareness of the Web 2.0. A large percentage of respondents (43.2%) were not sure about the use of Web 2.0 in their schools and 31.8% indicated that they have no applications available to them. Only 25% of the respondents answered yes to the question about use of Web 2.0 in their schools. In a similar result, Aharony [7] found that LIS schools in the US are not adequately prepared for Web 2.0. In addition, Foo and Ng [12] noted that LIS schools have been slow in their response to Web 2.0. In the current study, the interaction with Web 2.0 concepts was found to be at a fair level. These academics have a good interaction with some of the list Web 2.0 concepts and insufficient knowledge for other concepts. The social bookmarking have the highest score of low interaction “never use” and on the other hand video sharing and blogs have the highest score of “view”. Other concepts ranged from “never use” to “view”, including collaborative authoring, image sharing, communications, file sharing, calendaring, and social networking. These results can be interpreted to mean that, for the most part, LIS academics are partly aware of the concept of Web 2.0. Similarly, Coutinho and Bottenuit Jr [2] found in their study that academics have a good familiarity with some of the Web 2.0 tools, whereas others such as social bookmarking are almost unknown. The study also examined the use byacademics of different Web 2.0 tools and services. Interestingly, all tools and services relating to networking, video sharing, image sharing, file sharing, blogs, wikis, and bookmarking were reported to be on the weak side of the scale as they received a high percentages for “rarely” and/or “never”. These results indicate the insignificant value of these tools for those academics. One explanation is that Web 2.0 is still a new phenomenon and needs some time to be adapted by LIS schools and educators. It could also relate to the initiatives from their schools, as the use of these tools needs some training. The results show that training as a barrier for Web 2.0 received the high score of 4.14 among other Web 2.0 barriers. Further, a large number of the respondents (31 out of 44) indicated that their schools should be planning and managing Web 2.0 initiatives. Workload and lack of time were found to be barriers to the use of Web 2.0, with a mean score of 3.14. Bawden et al. [1] noted that workload could be one of the biggest problems in the adoption of Web 2.0. It was obvious from the results that the respondents appreciate the importance of Web 2.0 in LIS education. The majority indicate that Web 2.0 would help in developing students’ competencies and skills, information literacy, and would promote staff-student interaction. A majority also expressed a desire for curriculum review in the light of these changes, and thought that increasing use of Web 2.0 in teaching would enhance the credibility of LIS teaching. These results received the higher score of more than from 3.23 to 4.09 on a scale of 1–5. This shows the need to extend Web 2.0 in LIS education. Similarly, Coutinho and Bottenuit Jr [2], in their study of Portuguese academics, indicated that they have a positive appreciation of the potential Web 2.0 in education. Virkus [16], in her study at Tallinn University in Estonia, found that only a minority of LIS academics have successfully incorporated Web 2.0 tools and services into teaching and learning. Nevertheless, according to
54
S. Al-Daihani / The knowledge of Web 2.0 by library and information science academics
Bawden et al. [1], LIS academics are among the first in their institutions to adopt Web 2.0 for teaching. Personal attributes were tested to identify any significant association with four independent variables. It was found that the “institutional affiliation” and “Internet experience” were significant factors in regard to a number of online activities and Web 2.0 barriers. Other personal factors such as teaching experience and academic rank had no or very little significance. It was also noted that academics from KU and UWM had a higher level of exposure to and experience with Web 2.0, compared with the PAAET academics. This study attempted to provide a baseline data about Web 2.0 in LIS education. Future research needs to explore the socio-cultural factors affecting LIS academic use of Web 2.0. There is a need also for further exploration of the integration of these tools in. LIS programmes in order to meet the future the challenges of the emerging Web 3.0 (the Semantic Web).
References [1] [2]
[3]
[4] [5] [6]
[7] [8] [9] [10]
[11] [12] [13]
D. Bawden , L. Robinson, T. Anderson, J. Bates, U. Rutkauskiene and P. Vilar , Towards curriculum 2.0: library/information for Web 2.0 world. Library and information research, 99 (2007), 14–25. C. Coutinho and J. Bottenuit Junior, Web 2.0 in the Portuguese academic community: an exploratory survey, in: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, K. Mcferrin, R. Weber, R. Carslen and A. Willis, eds, SITE, 2008, pp. 1992–1999. G. Lorenzo, catalysts for change: information fluency, Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and the new education culture. Clarence Center, NY: Lorenzo Associates, 2007. Available at http://www.edpath.com/stn. htm. J. Thomson, J, Is Education 1.0 ready for Web 2.0 students?. Innovate, 4 (2007), Available at: http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=393. M. Boulos and S. Wheeler, The emerging Web 2.0 social software: an enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and health care education, Health Information and Libraries 1 (2007), 2–23. M. Garcia, I. Rey, B. Ferreira and G. Puerto, University 2.0: How well teachers and students prepared for Web 2.0 best practices? ICTE2009: Research, Reflections and Innovations in Integrating ICT in Education, 22–24 April 2009, Lisbon, Available at: http://www.formatex.org/micte2009/. N. Aharony, Web 2.0 in U.S. LIS schools: are they missing the boat? Ariadne, January 2008, Available at: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue54/aharony/#28. OCLC, sharing, privacy and trust in our networked world. OCLC report, 2007. Available at http:// www.oclc.org/reports/sharing/default.htm. P. Anderson, All the glisters is not gold: Web 2.0 and the librarian, Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 4 (2007), 195–198. P. Gowden, the Web 2.0 challenge to information literacy, INFORUM 2007: 13th Conference on Professional Information Resources, 22–24 May 2007, Prague. Available at www.inforum.cz/pdf/ 2007/godwin-peter.pdf. P. Sendall,, W. Ceccucci and A. Peslak, Web 2.0 matters: an analysis of implementing Web 2.0 in the classroom. Information Systems Educational Journal, 64 (2008), Available at: http://isedj.org/6/64. S. Foo and J. Ng, Library 2.0, libraries and library school, LAS Conference, 6-9 April 2008, Singapore, Available at http://www.las.org.sg/pa sfjn.pdf. S. Halper, Uses of Web 2.0 by UK social sciences researchers and libraries, ALISS Quarterly 3 (2008), 3–10.
S. Al-Daihani / The knowledge of Web 2.0 by library and information science academics [14]
55
S. Hayman and N. Lothian, Taxonomy Directed Folksonomies: Integrating user tagging and controlled vocabularies for Australian education networks, World Library and Information Congress: 73rd IFLA General Conference and Council, 19–23 August 2007, Durban, South Africa. [15] S. Rehman and L. Marouf, MLIS program at Kuwait University: perceptions and reflections, Library review 1 (2008), 13–24. [16] S. Virkus, Use of Web 2.0 technologies in LIS education: experiences at Tallinn University, Estonia. Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems 3 (2008), 262–274. [17] T. Tysome, Sixth-formers object to educational space invaders, Times Higher Education Supplement 1812 (2007), 6–7.
