Web 2.0 and Higher Education: a psychological perspective

Texto

(1)1234567869*+*,-*.967*/901243452664. 7289:;463<9=62,>32?479*6@5A4B?6*C*=9?4CA2,4A2?79D2. E69D2,497BF2,6463*.244*4 .*,7*G9;H9.

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) 1234567869*+*,-*.967*/901243452664. 7289:;463<9=62,>32?479*6@5A4B?6*C*=9?4CA2,4A2?79D2. E69D2,497BF2,6463*.244*4 .*,7*G9;H9.

(6)

(7) 12342 56789*+,*-./.01.2-*+.3-45687896*:8 955;<=>?3;@3@;A@B.

(8)

(9) 1234567869*+*,-*.967*/901243452664. 7289:;463<9=62,>32?479*6@5A4B?6*C*=9?4CA2,4A2?79D2. E624944280977237*F69D2,497BG2,6463*.244*444 A4,7*H762,2I29,2026747**87496762J*?7*,4C 32=,22 96 K6H*,0479*6 /?926?24 L/B47204 463 E2?66*C*=924 *H K6H*,0479*6MN 2632, 762 42A2,D949*6*H.,*H244*,1234O*,=24P*2D294.

(10)

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

(12) 345"789")**+,"-*.")/40.")412/034"12)050)04,6"137")/4",184"44374."4--42)"91,"-*:37"-*.")/4" ,;420-02"21,4"*-"<1245**="137"*-">+*4,8" ?/4",42*37",):7@"91,";4.-*.847"90)/")/4",):743)";*;:+1)0*38"A1)1"-.*8"1",18;+4"*-" BB9"/04/4."47:21)0*3",):743),"94.4"2*++42)47"*3"-054"70--4.43)"/04/4."47:21)0*3" 03,)0):)0*3,6"03")/4"2+1,,.**8"4350.*3843)8"C3"1770)0*3")*"03,).:843),"841,:.034")/4":,4" *-"345"789"D03"4434.1+E"137"<1245**="D03";1.)02:+1.E6"1"4.*:;"*-"404/)"1770)0*31+",21+4," 4315+47")/4"1,,4,,843)"*-";,@2/*+*4021+"51.015+4,"9/*,4".4+451324"-*.":374.,)137034" ,):743),"47:21)0*31+":,4"*-"345"789"137"<1245**="91,"4F;+*.478"C3")/4"03)44.1)054" 8*74+,".4,:+)034"-.*8")/0,",):7@6"0)"91,",/*93")/1)",):743),G"1))0):74,"137"03)43)0*3,")*" :,4"*-"345"789")*",:;;+4843)")/40."03H2+1,,"+41.3034"94.4";*,0)054+@"1--42)47"5@"IJKLMN" ,4+-H4--0212@6"0743)0)@"2*++42)054",4+-H4,)4486"137")/4"70843,0*3"*-",4+-H2*324;)"+154+47" O08;:+,050)@"P"12)050)@Q8"R441)054"4--42),"*3",):743),G"1))0):74,"137"03)43)0*3,")*":,4" 345"789"03")/0,"2*3)4F)"94.4"-*:37"-*.";:5+02"2*++42)054",4+-H4,)4486"137"-*."STUTVMN" ,4+-H4--0212@8"?/4",):743),G"47:21)0*31+":,144"*-"<1245**="91,";*,0)054+@"03-+:43247"5@" )/40.",1)0,-12)0*3"90)/"+0-46"0743)0)@"2*++42)054",4+-H4,)4486"137"03,)0):)0*31+"70843,0*3," *-"12174802"4F;4.04324,8"W:5+02"2*++42)054",4+-H4,)448"91,"1"3441)054";.4702)*."*-")/4" 47:21)0*31+":,144"*-"<1245**="5@",):743),8"X+)/*:4/",)1)0,)021++@",0430-0213)6")/4"4--42)," *-")/4"843)0*347";,@2/*+*4021+"51.015+4,"94.4".4+1)054+@"941=8" " YZ[\]^_à"b3*9+4744"c*204)@6")42/3*+*4@"17*;)0*36"345"7896"d04/4."e7:21)0*36" ;,@2/*+*4021+"70843,0*3," " ". ". ". 0111".

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`">?<N4::<?4:"L<"49:;9<"=9;E4?:;DU?;<"4"><F;D]C9;C<"L4"``";9:D;D=;Ja4:" L;N4?49D4:7" 9:"A<L4F<:";9D4H?BL<?4:"Y=4"?4:=FDB?BA"L4:D4"4:D=L<"?4E4FB?BA"Y=4"B";9D49JK<"L4"=:<W"4" <"=:<"4N4D;E<W"L4"345"678"I4A"H4?BFRW"4"L4"bBC45<<T"4"PF<H=4:"I4A">B?D;C=FB?RW"><?">B?D4" L<:"L<C49D4:W"9<"C<9D4\D<"LB":=B"BD;E;LBL4"F4CD;EBW":K<"BN4CDBL<:"L4"N<?AB"><:;D;EB">4FB:" BD;D=L4:"4">4FB">4?C4>JK<"L4"B=D<c4N;CUC;B"L<:">?<N4::<?4:"4A"?4FBJK<"B"4:DB:" N4??BA49DB:7".:"9<?AB:":<C;B;:";9NF=49C;BA"B:";9D49Ja4:"L<:"L<C49D4:">B?B"=:B?4A" N4??BA49DB:"L4"345"678"I4A"H4?BFRW"4"L4"bBC45<<TW"9<"C<9D4\D<"LB:":=B:"BD;E;LBL4:" F4CD;EB:W"AB:"<:"L<C49D4:"?4E4FB?BA":4?"B>49B:";9NF=49C;BL<:">4F<:":4=:">B?4:"94:DB" ". 01".

(14) 23456738!)!*+,!-).,/!/)0/!/0-)67,6)/8!,0!-).,/!3.0*,/1!2363!3.52!37//,8!*,!43/,! )/-)45674,!3,!0/,!3)!7.,80)/!)2!)30439+,8!*)2!2)/2,!3!7*6.0:*473!3,/!4,.)83/!6,7! 6);).333!/78*7674347;31!<)67674,0=/)!>0)!,/!3,4)*4)/!3,!85*)6,!6)27*7*,!3-6)/)*43;32! 023!.78)763!4)*3:*473!-363!0/36)2!2)*,/!?)@!A1B!C)2!8)63.D8!E34)@,,F8!)!7.,80)/8!*,! 4,*4)G4,!33/!/03/!347;7333)/!.)447;3/1! H!/)80*3,!)/403,!;7/,0!3!-,-0.39+,!3,/!)/4033*4)/1!I33,/!3)!023!32,/463!3)!JJB! 3.0*,/!3)!47*4,!7*/474079K)/!3)!L*/7*,!M0-)67,6!6,632!6)4,.N73,/8!)2!4,*4)G4,!3)!/3.3= 3)=30.31!O)/4)!)/403,8!-363!3.52!3)!7*/4602)*4,/!>0)!3;3.73632!,!0/,!3)!?)@!A1B!C)2! 8)63.D8!)!3)!E34)@,,F!C)2!-364740.36D8!6,632!0/333/!,74,!)/43.3/!>0)!-)62747632!2)376! 02!4,*P0*4,!3)!;367Q;)7/!-/74,.R8743/8!4)*3,=/)!)/40333,!3!/03!6).);S*473!-363! 4,2-6))*3)6!,!0/,!-)338R874,!3)!?)@!A1B!)!3)!E34)@,,F8!-).,/!3.0*,/1! H/!2,3).,/!7*4)8633,6)/!>0)!6)/0.43632!3)/4)!)/403,!6);).3632!>0)!3/!347403)/!)! 7*4)*9K)/!3,/!)/4033*4)/!)2!6).39+,!3,!0/,!3)!6)6632)*43/!3)!?)@!A1B!-363! 4,2-.)2)*436!3!/03!3-6)*37T38)2!*3/!30.3/!)632!7*6.0)*47333/!-,/747;32)*4)!-).3/! ;367Q;)7/U!304,=)674Q473!/,473.8!372)*/+,!3)!73)*47333)!33!304,=)/4723!4,.)447;38!)!-).3! 372)*/+,!3,!304,4,*4)74,!3)/78*333!-,6!V72-0./7;7333)W347;7333)X1!L6)74,/!*)8347;,/! *3/!7*4)*9K)/!)!347403)/!3,/!)/4033*4)/!)2!6).39+,!3,!0/,!3)!?)@!A1B!*)/4)!4,*4)G4,! 6,632!6)87/433,/!-363!3/!;367Q;)7/U!372)*/+,!-Y@.743!33!304,=)/4723!4,.)447;38!)!304,= )674Q473!8)63.1!H!0/,!)304347;,!3,!E34)@,,F!-).,/!)/4033*4)/!5!7*6.0)*4733,!3)!6,623! -,/747;3!-).3/!;367Q;)7/U!/347/639+,!4,2!3!;7338!372)*/+,!3)!73)*47333)!33!304,=)/4723! 4,.)447;38!)!-).3!372)*/+,!V7*/474047,*3.X!33/!;7;:*473/!343352743/1!Z!372)*/+,! -Y@.743!33!304,=)/4723!4,.)447;3!6);).,0!/)6!3!Y*743!;367Q;).!3!7*6.0)*4736! *)8347;32)*4)!,!0/,!3,!E34)@,,F!-363!67*/!)304347;,/8!-,6!-364)!3,/!)/4033*4)/1!H/! )6)74,/!33/!;367Q;)7/!-/74,.R8743/!2)*47,*333/!/+,!45*0)/8!)2@,63!)/4347/47432)*4)! /78*7674347;,/1! ! [\]\^_\àbc\^de!M,47)333)!3,!f,*N)472)*4,8!33,-9+,!3)!4)4*,.,8738!?)@!A1B8!L*/7*,! M0-)67,68!372)*/K)/!-/74,.R8743/! ! !. ! 0!.

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`:G4">4E"FG=>B@:4?GE" FCEB:BOE">4E"BD:4D:BCDE"><?:B;BEA:BCDX"4:">4";<?:B;BEA:BCD"4OO4@:BH4X"FAG";4"@CGFE"FGCO4EECGA;X" >?"546"789"M4D"K=D=GA;S"4:">4"aA@46CCV"4:">4"6;CKE"M4D"FAG:B@?;B4GS8"9;"A"=:="@CDE:A:="L?4" ;4E"DCGT4E"EC@BA;4E"AHAB4D:"?D4"BDO;?4D@4"E?G";4E"BD:4D:BCDE">4E"4DE4BKDAD:E"><?:B;BE4G";4" 546"789"M4D"K=D=GA;SX"4:"aA@46CCV"W">4E"OBDE"><4DE4BKD4T4D:X"TABE";4E"T4T6G4E">4E" OA@?;:=E"CD:"=:="BDO;?4D@=E">4"TADBZG4"@CDEB>=GA6;4"?DBL?4T4D:"FAG";4?GE"FABGE"4:"DCD" FAG";4?GE"E?F=GB4?GE"C?"FAG";4?GE"=:?>BAD:E8"/4"F;?EX"FC?G";4E"6;CKEX"T`T4";<BDO;?4D@4">4E" FABGE"E<4E:"AH=G=4"`:G4"BDEBKDBOBAD:4"@CTT4"AK4D:"ADDCD@BA:4?G">4";<BD:4D:BCD">4E" 4DE4BKDAD:E"><?:B;BE4G"@4:"C?:B;"EF=@BOBL?4">ADE";4?GE"A@:BHB:=E"><4DE4BKD4T4D:8")4E" ". 01".

(16) 34536748495"*3"53+3",-.6464"-986349"/-7013.349".2645"535435966/35"*7396/6531"/35"2396/5"*3" 836"9:;"5231"/3315"8496<69-5"*734536743.349="39"/8".>.3"424598989624"*3"*6,,-13443"*35" 53+35"8"-9-",8693"5231"/35"485"55-46,6?335"*3"@843622A"39"*35"6/275:" B8"53424*3"-93*3"8"-9-"1-8/65-3"83"5364"*3"/8"5253/89624"3593*6849643:"C35"*244-35"249" -9-"42//349-35"835105"*3"DD;"-93*68495"*3"/734536743.349"535-16331="*845"464?"645969396245" *734536743.349"535-16331"*6,,-134935="*845"/734<612443.349"*35"58//35"*3"42315:"E3913" /35"645913.3495".3531849"/7396/6589624"*3"836"9:;"F34"7-4-18/G"39"*3@843622A"F34" 5819643/631G="34"712353"*3"H369"-4H3//35"5355/-.34986135"8"531.65"/7-<8/389624"*3" <81686/35"55I4H2/276?335"*249"/8"5319643443"8"-9-"3+5/21-3"5231"/8"42.51-H345624"*3" /7396/6589624"5-*87276?33"?33"/35"-93*68495",249"*3"836"9:;"39"*3"@843622A:"B35".2*0/35" *7649-7189624"1-53/9849"*3"43993"-93*3"249"*-.2491-"?33"/35"899693*35"39"/35"6493496245"*35" -93*68495"*7396/6531"/3"836"9:;"8,64"*3"42.5/-931"43"?376/5"8551344349"34"4/8553"-986349" 8,,349-35"*3".846013"525696<3"581"/78392J3,,648469-"KLMNOPQ="/78.231J512513"42//3496," 6*349698613="39"/8"*6.345624"*3"/78392J4244359"*-42..-"R6.53/56<69-"S"8496<69-R:"B35" 3,,395"4-7896,5"531"/35"899693*35"39"/35"6493496245"*35"-93*68495"?3849"T"/7396/6589624"*3"836" 9:;"*845"43"42493+93"249"-9-"4245989-5"5231"/78.231J512513"42//3496,"536/64="39"5231" /78392J3,,648469-"UVWVXOPQ:"B7396/6589624"5-*87276?33"?33"/35"-93*68495",249"*3"@843622A"8" -9-"64,/3344-3"525696<3.349"581"/331"58965,849624"*3"/8"<63="/78.231J512513"42//3496," 6*349698613="39"/35"*6.3456245"6459693962443//35"*35"3+5-1634435"848*-.6?335:"B78.231J 512513"42//3496,"536/64"8"-9-"34"87349"844244689331"4-7896,"5231"/7396/6589624"5-*87276?33" ?33"/35"-93*68495",249"*3"@843622A:"Y634"?376/5"526349"6.5219849"83"46<383"59896596?33="/35" 3,,395"*35"<81686/35"55I4H2/276?335".3496244-35"-986349"13/896<3.349",866/35:" " Z[\]^_à]"b246-9-"*35"4244865584435="8*259624"*35"934H42/27635="c36"9:;="34536743.349" 535-16331="*6.3456245"55I4H2/276?335:" " ". ". ". 011".

(17) " " ". ". " " ". ". ". 0111". 34"56"7894*8+",-.8/"01+"423"7894*8+"441" 34"56"7894*8+"546783"01+"8346783" 34"56"9834/":-67"099"56"94*8"01+";306-62+8<" "56"=06783">?@"ABCDEFGCH" " 34"I4364/"01+"64"J-.8" ".

(18)

(19) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . Without the support of all of my Family, this work would not have been possible. I would like to express all my recognition to my advisor, Professor Luís Borges Gouveia, for his constant and persistent support and encouragement. To the Rector of University Fernando Pessoa, Professor Salvato Trigo, I wish to express my deepest recognition for the excellent advises, and for having allowed me to discover the pleasure, the honor, and the responsibility of teaching. To Dr. Ana Cláudia Moutinho, I am very recognized for her important advices and patience: her professionalism and dedication were very helpful in many stages of the preparation of this work. To all the teachers who so generously allowed me to collect the data for this research in the precious time of their classes, I want to express all my gratitude and recognition! To all the students, and all the faculty members who accepted to participate in these studies, I would like to leave here a note of the most sincere appreciation and thankfulness. I would also like to leave a special gratitude note to my mother-in-law, for her patience and kindness in revising my English. . ys .

(20)

(21) . INDEX . INDEX OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………... XXII. INDEX OF TABLES……………………………………………………………. XXVI. CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………… 1 1.1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………… 3 1.2. Research Objectives………………………………………………………… 6 1.2.1. General Research Questions………………………………………………. 8. 1.2.2. Specific Research Questions: Faculty and Web 2.0 …………………….... 8. 1.2.3. Specific Research Questions: Students and Web 2.0 ……………………. 9 1.3. Structure of the Thesis ………………………………………………........... 11. CHAPTER II - HIGHER EDUCATION, SOCIAL CHANGE AND TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT …...………………………………….... 15. 2.1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………… 17 2.2. History of Higher Education in Europe …...………………………………... 17. 2.3. History of Higher Education in Portugal ‘’…………………………………. 21. 2.4. Higher Education in Europe – Recent Years and Present Day Situation …... 24 2.5. Higher Education in Portugal – Recent Years and Present Day Situation …. 28 2.6. Present and Future Challenges for Higher Education …………………….... 33. ys// .

(22) 2.6.1. Massification of higher education ………………………………………... 33. 2.6.2. Globalization ……………………………………………………………... 36 2.6.3. Knowledge society ……………………………………………………….. 38 2.6.4. Information technology …………………………………………………... 44 2.7. Chapter Summary ……………………………………………….......…….... 48. CHAPTER III - HIGHER EDUCATION AND THE WEB 2.0 CHALLENGE... 51. 3.1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………… 53 3.2. Social Software, Web 2.0, Teaching and Learning ………………………… 55 3.3. Web 2.0 in Higher Education: Pedagogical Frameworks…………………... 58. 3.4. Potential Uses of Specific Web 2.0 Tools in Higher Education…………..... 62. 3.4.1. Facebook (and other social networking services) ………………………... 63. 3.4.2. Blogs………………………………………………………………………. 65. 3.4.3. Twitter (and other microblogging services) ……………………………… 67 3.4.4. YouTube (and other media sharing services) …………………………….. 68. 3.4.5. Wikis……………………………...…………………………………….... 69. 3.4.6. Podcasts…………………………...…………………………………….... 69. 3.4.7. Tagging…………………………...…………………………………….... 70. 3.4.8. Syndication through RSS and Atom…………………………………….... 71. 3.4.9. Traditional Learning Management Systems (LMS's) ………………..….... 72. 3.5. Critical Issues about Web 2.0 and Higher Education……………………….. 73. 3.6. Chapter summary……………………………………...……………….….... 78. CHAPTER IV - ADOPTION OF WEB 2.0 IN HIGHER EDUCATION………. 83. 4.1. Introduction……………………………..…………………………………... 85 4.2. Processes of Web 2.0 Appropriation in Higher Education………………….. 86. 4.3. Models for Web 2.0 Adoption in Higher Education………………………. 93. 4.3.1 Diffusion of Innovation Theory……………………………………...….... 93. 4.3.2. Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) …………………………………….. 96. 4.3.3. Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) ……………………………………... 98. 4.3.4. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) …………………………………. 100. 4.3.5. Combined Technology Acceptance Model / Theory of Planned Behavior.. 103. 4.3.6. Decomposed theory of Planned Behavior (DTPB) ………………………. 105. ys/// .

(23) 4.3.7. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) ………. 108. 4.4. Chapter Summary……………………………………...………………......... 110. CHAPTER V - DETAILED REVIEW OF SELECTED PREVIOUS STUDIES. 113 5.1. Introduction……………………………………...…………………….......... 115. 5.2. Ajjan and Hartshorne’s Models of Web 2.0 Adoption…………………….... 116. 5.2.1. The (D)TPB Model of Web 2.0 Adoption by Faculty……………………. 117. 5.2.2. The (D)TPB Model of Web 2.0 Adoption by Students………………….. 123. 5.2.3. Summary of DTPB-based Findings by Ajjan, Hartshorne, and Ferdig….. 129. 5.3. Mazman and Usluel’s Educational Usage of Facebook Model……………. 131. 5.3.1. Factors related to Facebook Adoption………………………………....... 134. 5.3.2. Factors related to Purposes of Facebook Usage…………………………. 137. 5.3.3. Factors related to Educational Use of Facebook…………………………. 138. 5.3.4. Relations between latent variables in the model…………………………. 140. 5.4. Gangadharbatla’s Study on Collective Self-Esteem and Attitudes toward Social Networking Sites ……………………………………………………….. 142. 5.5. Ellison, et al. Study on Self-esteem, Satisfaction with Life, Social Capital and Facebook Usage ……………………………………...…………………….. 146. 5.6. Chapter Summary……………………………………...………………........ 150. CHAPTER VI - PRESENTATION OF THE EMPIRICAL RESEARCH……. 153. 6.1. Introduction……………………………………...…………………............ 155. 6.2. Objectives and research questions…………………………………….......... 157. 6.2.1. Global objectives and common research questions to both studies………. 157. 6.2.2. Research questions regarding Study A – Faculty and Web 2.0…………... 158. 6.2.3. Research questions regarding Study B – Students and Web 2.0………….. 158. 6.3. Research hypotheses regarding Study A……………………………………. 161. 6.3.1. Hypotheses regarding sub-study A1 (Faculty and Web 2.0) …………….. 161. 6.3.2. Hypotheses regarding sub-study A2 (Faculty and Facebook) ……………. 163. 6.3.3. Hypotheses regarding sub-study A3 (Faculty and Blogs) ……………….. 164. 6.4. Research hypotheses regarding Study B……………………………………. 166. 6.4.1. Hypotheses regarding Sub-study B1 (Students and Web 2.0) ……………. 166. 6.4.2. Hypotheses regarding Sub-study B2 (Students and Facebook) …………... 172. y/y .

(24) 6.5. Chapter summary……………………………………...…………………...... 176. CHAPTER VII - STUDY A – ADOPTION OF WEB 2.0 BY FACULTY……. 179. 7.1. Introduction……………………………………...…………………………. 181. 7.2. Method……………………………………...………………………………. 182. 7.2.1. Participants ……………………………………………………………….. 182 7.2.2. Material……………………………………...……………………………. 183. 7.2.3. Procedure……………………………………...……………………......... 189. 7.3. Descriptive Results……………………………………...………………...... 189. 7.3.1. Demographic information……………………………………………….... 189. 7.3.2. General Indicators of Web 2.0 Adoption by Faculty…………………….. 194. 7.4. Results of Study A1 – Academic Adoption of Web 2.0 by Faculty……….. 201. 7.5. Integrative Model and Discussion of Results of Study A1 (Web 2.0) …….. 210. 7.6. Results of Study A2 – Academic Adoption of Facebook by Faculty………. 215. 7.7. Integrative Model and Discussion of Results of Study A2 (Facebook) ……. 222. 7.8. Results of Study A3 – Academic Adoption of Blogs by Faculty…………... 226. 7.9. Integrative Model and Discussion of Results of Study A3 (Blogs) ……….. 233. 7.10. Chapter Summary …………………………………………………………. 238. CHAPTER VIII - STUDY B – ADOPTION OF WEB 2.0 BY STUDENTS….. 243. 8.1. Introduction ……………………………………...…………………………. 245. 8.2. Method ……………………………………...……………………………... 247. 8.2.1. Participants ……………………………………...……………………….. 247. 8.2.2. Material ……………………………………...…………………………... 248. 8.2.2.1. General Overview of the Instruments used in Study B (Students) …..... 248. 8.2.2.2. Student Adoption of Web 2.0 Survey…………………………………... 251. 8.2.2.3. The Facebook Intensity Scale………………………………………….... 256. 8.2.2.4. Facebook Adoption, Educational Usage and Purposes Scales………….. 258. 8.2.2.5. Collective Self-Esteem Scale……………………………………........... 271. 8.2.2.6. Satisfaction with Life and Satisfaction with Academic Life Scales……. 274. 8.2.2.7. Satisfaction with Social Support Scale…………………………………. 275. 8.2.2.8. Sub-scales from Self-Perception Profile for College Students…………. 277. 8.2.2.9. Questionnaire of Academic Experiences ………………………………. 279. yy .

(25) 8.2.2.10 Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale……………………………………...….... 281. 8.2.2.11. Self-Concept Clinical Inventory……………………………………..... 283. 8.2.2.12 Self-efficacy Scale……………………………………...…………….... 285. 8.2.3. Procedure……………………………………...………………………...... 287. 8.3. Descriptive statistics of variables common to both sub-studies (B1 / B2) …. 288. 8.4. Sub-study B1 – Students’ Educational use of Web 2.0 (in General) ………. 297. 8.4.1. Descriptive results……………………………………...……………......... 297. 8.4.2 Test of the research hypotheses………………………………………........ 308. 8.4.3. Discussion of Results and Integrative Model: Sub-Study B1 ……………. 332. 8.5. Sub-study B2 – Students’ Educational Use of Facebook………………….... 345. 8.5.1. Descriptive results………………...…………………………………….... 345. 8.5.2. Hypotheses testing………………...…………………………………….... 351. 8.5.3. Discussion of Results: Sub-Study B2……...…………………………....... 380. 8.6. Chapter Summary……………………………………...………………….... 383. CHAPTER IX – CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK……………………. 387. 9.1. Introduction……………………………………...…………………….......... 389. 9.2. Summary of answers to research questions…………………………………. 389. 9.2.1. Answers to the General Research Questions ……………………………. 389. 9.2.2. Answers to Specific Research Questions: Faculty and Web 2.0 ………... 393. 9.2.3. Answers to Specific Research Questions: Students and Web 2.0 ……….. 397. 9.3. Main Contributions ……………………………………...…………………. 403. 9.4. Future work ……………………………………...…………………............ 405. REFERENCES ……………………………………...………………….............. 409. yy/ .

(26) INDEX OF FIGURES. Figure 1.1 - Relationships between changes (“ǻĺǻi”) in psychological dimensions (“Ȍ”), higher education institutions (“U”), and the global world in which they are embedded ………………………………….. Figure 2.1 - Higher education Bologna structure model in 2009/10 …………….. 7 27. Figure 2.2 - Number of students enrolled in Portuguese higher education institutions…………………………………………………………….. 30. Figure 4.1 - Diffusion of Innovations According to Rogers (2003) ……………… 94 Figure 4.2 - The five stages in the Decision Innovation Process………………….. 95. Figure 4.3 - Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)…………………………………... 97. Figure 4.4 - Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) …………………………………. 98 Figure 4.5 - Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) ……………………………... 101. Figure 4.6 - Popular TAM extensions …………………………………………….. 103. Figure 4.7 - Combined TAM-TPB (C-TAM-TPB)……………………………….. 104. Figure 4.8 - Decomposed TPB (DTPB)………………………………………….... 107. Figure 4.9 - UTAUT Research Model…………………………………………….. 109 Figure 5.1 - TPB-related hypotheses in Ajjan & Hartshorne (2008) study……….. 121 Figure 5.2 - TPB-related hypotheses in Hartshorne & Ajjan (2009) study……….. 126 Figure 5.3 - Relationship between adoption, purpose and educational use of Facebook in the Mazman and Usluel (2010) model………………….. 134. yy// .

(27) Figure 5.4 - Factors impacting Facebook adoption……………………………….. 135 Figure 5.5 - Factors related with Facebook use purposes…………………………. 138. Figure 5.6 - Factors of educational use of Facebook…………………………….... 139. Figure 5.7 - Relationship between adoption, purpose and educational use of Facebook ……………………………………………………………... 141. Figure 5.8 - Relation between the four predictor variables and the two constructs related to each of the two research questions in Gangadharbatla (2008) study…………………………………………………………... 145. Figure 5.9 - Mediation role of attitudes between internet self-efficacy, need to belong and collective self-esteem, and willingness to joint social networking sites (Gangadharbatla, 2008)…………………………….. 145. Figure 6.1 - Model for testing hypotheses H1 to H5……………………………… 161 Figure 6.2 - Model for testing hypotheses H6 to H10……………………………. 163. Figure 6.3 - Model for testing hypotheses H11 to H15…………………………... 164. Figure 6.4 - Hypotheses 1 to 5 of Study B ………………………………………... 166. Figure 6.5 - TAM-derived Model used to test hypotheses 6 to 9…………………. 168. Figure 6.6 - TAM extension with psychological variables (H10 and H11)……….. 170. Figure 6.7 - Hypotheses 12 to 14 …………………………………………………. 173. Figure 6.8 - Model for testing hypothesis 15 and its sub-hypotheses…………….. 174. Figure 7.1 - Study A – Participants’ gender distribution………………………….. 190. Figure 7.2 - Study A – Participants’ age groups ………………………………….. 191. Figure 7.3 - Teaching experience………………………………………………….. 192. Figure 7.4 - Area of initial academic training ……………………………………. 193. Figure 7.5 - Teaching field(s) of the study participants …………………………. 193. Figure 7.6 - Perceived advantages of using Facebook in teaching……………….. 197. Figure 7.7 - Perceived advantages of using Blogs in teaching……………………. 198. Figure 7.8 - Satisfaction with Institutions’ LMS………………………………….. 199. Figure 7.9 - Institutions’ IT resources compatibility with Web applications desired for teaching………………………………………………… Figure 7.10 - Core research model used to test hypothesis 1 to 5 (H1-H5)………. 200 202. Figure 7.11 - SPSS/Amos model corresponding to scheme presented in Figure 7.10………………………………………………………………….. Figure 7.12 - Model with additional link between “attitudes” and “actual usage”... yy/// . 203 207.

(28) Figure 7.13 - Final integrative model for Web 2.0 adoption (faculty members)….. 211. Figure 7.14 - Core research model used to test hypothesis 6 to 10 (H6-H10)…….. 215. Figure 7.15 - SPSS/Amos model corresponding to scheme presented in Figure 7.14………………………………………………………………….. 216. Figure 7.16 - Model with additional link between “attitudes” and “actual usage”... 219. Figure 7.17 - Final integrative model for Facebook adoption (faculty members)... 223. Figure 7.18 - Core research model used to test hypothesis 11 to 15 (H11-H15)…. 227. Figure 7.19 - SPSS/Amos model corresponding to scheme presented in Figure 7.18……………………………………………………………………. 228. Figure 7.20 - Model with additional link between “attitudes” and “actual usage”... 231. Figure 7.21 - Final integrative model for Blogs adoption (faculty members)…….. 234. Figure 8.1 - Gender distribution of participants………………………………….... 289. Figure 8.2 - Age group distribution of participants……………………………….. 290 Figure 8.3 - Academic year of enrolment…………………………………………. 291 Figure 8.4 - Participants’ Higher Education Institution…………………………. 292. Figure 8.5 - Majoring area………………………………………………………… 293 Figure 8.6 - Academic areas………………………………………………………. 294. Figure 8.7 - Working-status of participants……………………………………….. 295. Figure 8.8 - Students’ professional experience (for the 30% of students who reported having some)………………………………………………... 296. Figure 8.9 - Students’ reported comfort level and actual use with selected Web 2.0 tools……………………………………………………………….. 298. Figure 8.10a - Perceived benefits resulting from the use of each Web 2.0 tool (tool x domain)………………………………………………………... 301. Figure 8.10b - Perceived benefits resulting from the use of each Web 2.0 tool (domain x tool)………………………………………………………... 302. Figure 8.11 - Institution’s LMS versus Web 2.0………………………………….. 304. Figure 8.12 - Institution’s LMS complementation with Web 2.0…………………. 305. Figure 8.13 - Students’ satisfaction with institutional LMS………………………. 306. Figure 8.14 - Hypotheses 1 to 5 and their relation to the Theory of Planned Behavior ……………………………………………………………... 309. Figure 8.15 - SPSS/Amos diagram representing the conceptual model in Figure 8.14……………………………………………………………………. yy/s . 310.

(29) Figure 8.16 - Schematic representation of hypotheses 6 to 9 (H6-H9)…………... 314. Figure 8.17 - SPSS/Amos model corresponding to scheme presented in Figure 8.16……………………………………………………………………. 315. Figure 8.18 - TAM-based model used to test Hypotheses 10 and 11 (H10 and H11) ………………………………………………………………….. 319. Figure 8.19 - Integration of selected psychological variables in TAM – first step... 323. Figure 8.20 - Integration of selected psychological variables in TAM – second step……………………………………………………………………. 326. Figure 8.21 - Model resulting from the test of hypotheses (H6-H11)…………….. 334. Figure 8.22 - Final, integrative model – students and Web 2.0…………………... 338. Figure 8.23 - Representation of hypotheses 12 to 14 (H12-H14)…………………. 352. Figure 8.24 - SPSS/Amos model for testing hypotheses 12 to 14 (H12-H14)……. 352. Figure 8.25 - Derivation of the model for educational usage of Facebook – step 1. 358. Figure 8.26 - Derivation of the model for educational usage of Facebook – step 2. 359. Figure 8.27 - First of the two recursive candidate models (standardized estimates)……………………………………………………………... 360. Figure 8.28 - Second of the two recursive candidate models (standardized estimates) …………………………………………………………….. 361. Figure 8.29 - Last version of the model, after removing non significant paths…... 362. Figure 8.30 - Extended model of educational usage of Facebook………………... 364. Figure 8.31 - Educational usage of Facebook - integrative model………………. 365. Figure 9.1 - Relationships between changes (“ǻĺǻi”) in psychological dimensions (“Ȍ”), higher education institutions (“U”), and the global world in which they are embedded…………………………………… 404. yys .

(30) INDEX OF TABLES . Table 2.1. Evolution of the number of higher education institutions operating in Portugal …………………………………………………………………. Table 2.2. Evolution of the number of available vacancies on Portuguese higher education institutions………………………………………………………. Table 2.3. 29. 30. Evolution of the number students enrolled in Portuguese higher education institutions ……………………………………………………………….... 31. Table 2.4. Distribution of student enrolment for academic fields of study (%)………. 31. Table 2.5. Total number and age group distribution of Portuguese faculty members (2009 data)………………………………………………………………….. Table 2.6. 32. Distribution of Portuguese faculty members, by subsystem and gender (2009 data)………………………………………………………………….. 32. Table 4.1. Summary of technology adoption and acceptance models………………... 109. Table 5.1. (D)TPB Constructs of Ajjan and Hartshorne model of Web 2.0 adoption by faculty…………………………………………………………………. Table 5.2. Relation between TPB constructs and their DTPB components – Ajjan and Hartshorne (2008) study with the faculty population………………………. Table 5.3. 120. 123. (D)TPB Constructs of Hartshorne and Ajjan (2009) model of Web 2.0 adoption by Students ……………………………………………………… 127. Table 5.4. Relation between TPB constructs and their DTPB components (Hartshorne & Ajjan, 2009) – Student population ………………………… 131. Table 5.5. Structure of the Mazman and Usluel (2010) online Survey regarding Facebook Educational Use ……………………………………………… yys/. . 132.

(31) Table 5.6. Measures included in Ellison, et al. (2007) study ……………………….. 148. Table 7.1. Institution and number of faculty members contacted ………………….. 183. Table 7.2. Web 2.0: Reliability analysis of the items of the scale used to collect data relative to the constructs derived from TPB ……………………………….. Table 7.3. Facebook: Reliability analysis of the items of the scale used to collect data relative to the constructs derived from TPB ……………………………….. Table 7.4. 187. 188. Blogs: Reliability analysis of the items of the scale used to collect data relative to the constructs derived from TPB ……………………………….. 188. Table 7.5. Study A – Participants’ Gender Distribution ……………………………… 190. Table 7.6. Study A – Participants’ Age Groups ………………………………………. 190. Table 7.7. Teaching Experience (in Years)……………………………………………. 191. Table 7.8. Field(s) of Initial Academic Training and of Teaching ……………………. 192. Table 7.9. Means of the item scores of the scale used to collect data relative to the constructs derived from TPB (Ajzen, 1991)………………………………. 195. Table 7.10. Perceived Advantages of Using Facebook in Teaching…………………... 196. Table 7.11. Perceived Advantages of Using Blogs in Teaching……………………….. 197. Table 7.12. Satisfaction with Institutions’ LMS……………………………………….. 199. Table 7.13. Institutions’ IT resources compatibility with Web applications desired for teaching ……………………………………………………………………. Table 7.14. Test of Study A1 hypothesis (unmodified TPB-base model): Predictors of Intention …………………………………………………………………... Table 7.15. 200. 205. Test of Study A1 hypothesis (unmodified TPB-based model): Predictors of Actual Usage…………………………………………………………….. 205. Table 7.16. Goodness of fit indicators for the model presented in Figure 7.12 ………... 208. Table 7.17. Confirmation of Study A1 test of hypotheses (modified TPB): Predictors of intention ………………………………………………………………… 209. Table 7.18. Confirmation of Study A1 test of hypotheses (modified TPB): Predictors of actual usage…………………………………………………………….... 209. Table 7.19. Goodness of Fit Indicators for the model presented in Figure 7.13………... 212. Table 7.20. Study A1 - Predictors of intention according to final integrative model....... 212. Table 7.21. Study A1 - Predictors of actual usage according to final integrative. Table 7.22. model…………………………………………………………………….. 213. Study A1 - Covariances and correlations among variables in final. 213. yys// .

(32) integrative model…………………………………………………………. Table 7.23. Test of Study A2 hypothesis (unmodified TPB-based model): predictors of intention…………………………………………………………………. Table 7.24. 217. Test of Study A2 hypothesis (unmodified TPB- based model): predictors of actual usage…………………………………………………………….. 217. Table 7.25. Goodness of fit indicators for the model presented in Figure 7.16……….. 220. Table 7.26. Confirmation of Study A2 test of hypotheses (modified TPB): Predictors of intention…………………………………………………………………. Table 7.27. 220. Confirmation of Study A2 test of hypotheses (modified TPB): Predictors of actual usage……………………………………………………………. 221. Table 7.28. Goodness of fit indicators for the model depicted in Figure 7.17………... 223. Table 7.29. Study A2 - Predictors of intention according to final integrative model….. 224. Table 7.30. Study A2 - Predictors of actual usage according to final integrative model……………………………………………………………………... Table 7.31. Study A2 - Covariances and correlations among variables in final integrative model………………………………………………………….. Table 7.32. 225. Test of Study A3 hypothesis (unmodified TPB-based model): predictors of intention………………………………………………………………... Table 7.33. 224. 229. Test of Study A3 hypothesis (unmodified TPB- based model): predictors of actual usage……………………………………………………………... 229. Table 7.34. Goodness of fit indicators for the model presented in Figure 7.20……….. 231. Table 7.35. Confirmation of Study A3 test of hypotheses (modified TPB): Predictors of intention ………………………………………………………………… 232. Table 7.36. Confirmation of Study A3 test of hypotheses (modified TPB): Predictors of actual usage……………………………………………………………. 232. Table 7.37. Goodness of fit indicators for the model presented in Figure 7.21……….. 235. Table 7.38. Study A3 - Predictors of intention according to final integrative model…. 235. Table 7.39. Study A3 - Predictors of actual usage according to final integrative model………………………………………………………………............. Table 7.40. 236. Study A3 - Covariances and correlations among variables in final integrative model…………………………………………………………. 236. Table 8.1. Web 2.0 Survey (used in Sub-study B1)…………………………………. 249. Table 8.2. Facebook-related Scales (used in Sub-study B2)…………………………. 249. yys/// .

(33) Table 8.3. Psychological Instruments (used to collect data for both sub-studies: B1 and B2)……………………………………………………………………. Table 8.4. Reliability analysis of the items of the scale used to collect data relative to the constructs of the original TPB and TAM frameworks ………………. Table 8.5. 258. Factor structure and reliability of the original Adoption of Facebook scale (AF) items (Mazman & Usluel, 2010)……………………………………. Table 8.7. 256. Reliability analysis of the items of the translated Portuguese Facebook Intensity scale ……………………………………………………………. Table 8.6. 250. 262. Factor structure and reliability of the translated Facebook Adoption Scale items ……………………………………………………………………….. 264. Table 8.8. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA): Adoption Scale ……………………. Table 8.9. General structure and partial reliability indicators of the Purpose of. 265. Facebook Usage scale (Mazman & Usluel, 2010) ………………………… 266 Table 8.10. Factor structure and reliability of the translated Purposes of Facebook Usage Scale items…………………………………………………………... 267. Table 8.11. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA): Purposes Scale ……………………. 267. Table 8.12. General structure and partial reliability indicators of the original EUF Academic Usage of Facebook scale (Mazman & Usluel, 2010) …………... 269. Table 8.13. Structure and reliability of the Portuguese version of the EUF scale ……. 270. Table 8.14. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA): EUF Scale ………………………… 270. Table 8.15. Factorial structure and reliability of the CSEp scale ………………………. 273. Table 8.16. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for the CSEp scale …………………. 274. Table 8.17. Dimensions on the QVA-r and subscale reliability ………………………... 280. Table 8.18. Gender distribution of participants ………………………………………. 289. Table 8.19. Age group distribution of participants……………………………………. 289. Table 8.20. Academic year of enrolment……………………………………………….. 291. Table 8.21. Participants’ Higher Education Institution…………………………………. Table 8.22. Majoring area………………………………………………………………. 293. Table 8.23. Academic areas…………………………………………………………….. 294. Table 8.24. Working-status of participants……………………………………………. 295. Table 8.25. Number of working years…………………………………………………... 296. Table 8.26. Students’ reported comfort level and actual use regarding selected Web. 292. 2.0 tools…………………………………………………………………….. 297. yy/y .

(34) Table 8.27. Educational advantages of Facebook, Twitter, Blogs and Wikis…………... 300. Table 8.28. Educational advantages of YouTube, Live Messenger and Skype………… 300. Table 8.29. Institution’s LMS “as good or better than any Web 2.0 tool”……………. Table 8.30. Wish that institutional “LMS was complemented with Web 2.0”…………. 304. Table 8.31. Students answer to being “satisfied” with institutions’ LMS………………. Table 8.32. Means and standard deviations of the items of the scale used to collect. 303. 305. data relative to the constructs of the original TPB and TAM frameworks… 308 Table 8.33. Goodness of fit indicators for the model presented on Figure 8.15 ………. 311. Table 8.34. Test of Study B1 hypotheses H1-H3: Predictors of Intention……………. 312. Table 8.35. Test of Study B1 hypotheses H4 and H5: Predictors of Actual Use……….. 312. Table 8.36. Regression estimates for the model represented in Figure 8.17……………. 316. Table 8.37. Alphabetically-ordered list of the acronyms used in Table 8.36 and their meaning…………………………………………………………………….. 316. Table 8.38. Goodness of fit of model in Figure 8.17 …………………………………. 317. Table 8.39. Psychological variables assessed in study B1……………………………. 320. Table 8.40. Selected psychological variables …………………………………………. 322. Table 8.41. Goodness of fit indicators for the model represented on Figure 8.19 ……. 324. Table 8.42. Explained variance for endogenous variables in model of Figure 8.19……. 324. Table 8.43. Goodness of fit indicators for the model represented on Figure 8.20 ……. 327. Table 8.44. Explained variance for endogenous variables in model of Figure 8.20……. 328. Table 8.45. Standardized total effects on TAM-related variables………………………. 329. Table 8.46. Testing of Hypothesis 10 (H10) based on the indicators presented on Table 8.45…………………………………………………………………. Table 8.47. 329. Testing of Hypothesis 11 (H11) based on the indicators presented on Table 8.45…………………………………………………………………. 331. Table 8.48. Goodness of fit indicators for the model represented on Figure 8.21 ……. 335. Table 8.49. Standardized total effects…………………………………………………. 336. Table 8.50. Meaning of variables acronyms……………………………………………. 337. Table 8.51. Fit indicators of the final integrative mode, represented on Figure 8.22…. 339. Table 8.52. Explained variance for endogenous variables in model of Figure 8.22……. 340. Table 8.53. Standardized total effects on attitudes (ATT) and intentions (INT)………. 341. Table 8.54. Facebook Intensity Scale (FBI) Results……………………………………. 346. Table 8.55. Descriptive results obtained from the Portuguese AF scale ……………….. 347. yyy .