The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Deriving a typology of Web 2.0 learning technologies
Abstract
This paper presents the methods and outcomes of a typological analysis of W eb 2.0 technologies. A comprehensive review incorporating over 2000 links led to identification of over 200 W eb 2.0 technologies that were suitable for learning and teaching purposes. The typological analysis involved development of relevant W eb 2.0 dimensions, grouping cases according to observed regularities and construction of types based on meaningful relationships. Characterisation of the constructed types incorporated descriptions based on attributes, examples of representative instances and typical pedagogical use cases. The analysis resulted in a typology of 37 types of W eb 2.0 technologies that were arranged into 14 clusters. Results of this study imply that educators typically have a narrow conception of W eb 2.0 technologies and there is a wide array of W eb 2.0 tools and approaches yet to be fully harnessed by learning designers and educational researchers.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Following a slightly modified version of Bower’s (2016) educational tools typology, 17 broad categories of tools were identified”
From Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map (2020) · cites this paper as Bower’s (2016)
In the citing paper
“the type of learning that results from the use of the tool is dependent on the task and the way people engage with it rather than the technology itself”
From Facilitating student engagement through educational technology in higher education: A systematic review in the field of arts and humanities (2020) · cites this paper as Bower, 2016
In the citing paper
“the typology is presented as descriptions of what each type of tool enables and example use cases rather than prescriptions of any particular pedagogical value system”
From Facilitating student engagement through educational technology in higher education: A systematic review in the field of arts and humanities (2020) · cites this paper as Bower, 2016
In the citing paper
“the decision was made to employ Bower's (2016) typology of learning technologies (Appendix B), in order to group tools that share the same”
From Facilitating student engagement through educational technology in higher education: A systematic review in the field of arts and humanities (2020) · cites this paper as Bower, 2016
In the citing paper
“Educational technology tool typology, based on Bower (2016)”
From Facilitating student engagement through educational technology in higher education: A systematic review in the field of arts and humanities (2020) · cites this paper as Bower (2016)
Citations
Cites
The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods
Given, L. (2008) · doi:10.4135/9781412963909 · Cited by 6,134
4 What Is Web 2.0? Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software
O’Reilly, T. (2012) · New York University Press eBooks · doi:10.18574/nyu/9780814764077.003.0008 · Cited by 5,571
Jha, A. (2023) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781032624860-3 · Cited by 1,664
Gender Differences in Negative Campaigning: The Impact of Party Environments
Ennser-Jedenastik, L., Dolezal, M., & Müller, W. C. (2017) · Politics & Gender · doi:10.1017/s1743923x16000532 · Cited by 1,627
Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x09336671 · Cited by 1,161
Boulos, M. N. K., Maramba, I., & Wheeler, S. (2006) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/1472-6920-6-41 · Cited by 1,159
Kamel Boulos, M. N., & Wheeler, S. (2007) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00701.x · Cited by 893
Integrating Educational Technology Into Teaching)
Simonson, M. R. (1998) · NSUWorks (Nova Southeastern University) · Cited by 817
Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0
Cormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v13i6.2125 · Cited by 640
Microblogs in Higher Education – A chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning?
Ebner, M., Lienhardt, C., Rohs, M., & Meyer, I. (2010) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.006 · Cited by 588
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Boyd D., 2007, BlogTalks reloaded: social software research & cases, 15
- Dede C., 2008, A seismic shift in epistemology, EDUCAUSE Review, 43, 80
- Howell J., 2012, Teaching with ICT: digital pedagogies for collaboration & creativity
- Maloy R. W., 2013, Transforming learning with new technologies
- Redecker C., 2009, Learning 2.0: the impact of Web 2.0 innovations on education and training in Europe. Final Report
- Solomon G., 2010, Web 2.0 how‐to for educators
Cited by
Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8 · Cited by 1,097
“For further elaboration on each category, please see Bower (2015).”
BackgroundEmergency remote teaching in higher education: mapping the first global online semester
Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Marín, V. I., & Händel, M. (2021) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-021-00282-x · Cited by 527
Snapping, pinning, liking or texting: Investigating social media in higher education beyond Facebook
Manca, S. (2020) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100707 · Cited by 347
How is the use of technology in education evaluated? A systematic review
Lai, J. W. M., & Bower, M. (2019) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.010 · Cited by 334
Self-citationBedenlier, S., Bond, M., Buntins, K., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020) · Australasian Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.14742/ajet.5477 · Cited by 270
Metadata
- Authors
- Bower, M.
- Venue
- British Journal of Educational Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-09
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 763-777
- ISSN
- 0007-1013
- 1467-8535
- Cited by
- 56
- References
- 45
- Language
- en
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: Deriving a typology of Web 2.0 learning technologies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/bjet.12344
- The paper
- Bower, M. (2016). Deriving a typology of Web 2.0 learning technologies. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12344
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.
