The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Do Web 2.0 tools really open the door to learning? Practices, perceptions and profiles of 11–16‐year‐old students
Abstract
In this paper, we report on survey and focus group data relating to the activities and perceptions of learning with Web 2.0 technologies of students aged between 11 and 16 years in 27 UK secondary schools. The study confirms that these learners had high levels of access to Web 2.0 technologies and that Web 2.0 activities were prolific. However, patterns of use were complex. The types of activity evidenced by the study suggest that learners can be categorised into four main groups: (1) researchers: mainly in terms of reading with little evidence of critical enquiry or analytical awareness; (2) collaborators: mainly with respect to file sharing, gaming and communicating; (3) producers and (4) publishers: mainly in terms of sharing experience through social networking sites. Whilst most expressed an interest in using online technologies to support familiar school activities, such as presentations or for communication, learners seemed cautious about other values associated with Web 2.0 tools, such as the shared construction of knowledge in a public format. Few learners were familiar with the complete spectrum of Web 2.0 activities and only a small number were engaging in more sophisticated activities, such as producing and publishing self‐created content for wider consumption. There was little evidence of groundbreaking activities and only a few embryonic signs of criticality, self‐management or metacognitive reflection. The paper concludes that these higher order thinking skills need to be encouraged and supported in any attempt to use Web 2.0 for learning in formal education.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry
Flavell, J. H. (1979) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.34.10.906 · Cited by 11,282 · cited 1×
“These suggestions about the importance of metacognition for criticality need to be considered in conjunction with previous work that has indicated the importance of metacognitive activity for learning (Flavell 1979) and deep-level processing (Brown 1987; Goos, Galbraith, and Renshaw 2002).”
ResultWhat Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy
(2004) · Education + Training · doi:10.1108/et.2004.00446dae.002 · Cited by 6,674
Cited by
The digital native – myth and reality
Selwyn, N. (2009) · Aslib Proceedings · doi:10.1108/00012530910973776 · Cited by 749
Higher education scholars' participation and practices on Twitter
Veletsianos, G. (2012) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00449.x · Cited by 351
Learning at the digital frontier: a review of digital literacies in theory and practice
Littlejohn, A., Beetham, H., & McGill, L. (2012) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00474.x · Cited by 264
A systematic review study on educational robotics and robots
Atman Uslu, N., Yavuz, G. Ö., & Koçak Usluel, Y. (2023) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2021.2023890 · Cited by 144
Chan, N. N., Walker, C., & Gleaves, A. (2015) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.001 · Cited by 116
Metadata
- Authors
- Luckin, R., Clark, W., Graber, R., Logan, K., Mee, A., & Oliver, M.
- Venue
- Learning, Media and Technology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2009-06
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 87-104
- ISSN
- 1743-9884 (ISSN-L)
- 1743-9892
- OpenAlex
- W1984671487
- Cited by
- 162
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 32.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Do Web 2.0 tools really open the door to learning? Practices, perceptions and profiles of 11–16‐year‐old students. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/17439880902921949
- The paper
- Luckin, R., Clark, W., Graber, R., Logan, K., Mee, A., & Oliver, M. (2009). Do Web 2.0 tools really open the door to learning? Practices, perceptions and profiles of 11–16‐year‐old students. Learning, Media and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880902921949
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.