Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 56

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

Bower, Matt·2016·British Journal of Educational Technology
DOI 10.1111/bjet.12344
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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

Crossref · 10.1111/bjet.12344

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Boyd D., 2007, BlogTalks reloaded: social software research & cases, 15
  2. Dede C., 2008, A seismic shift in epistemology, EDUCAUSE Review, 43, 80
  3. Howell J., 2012, Teaching with ICT: digital pedagogies for collaboration & creativity
  4. Maloy R. W., 2013, Transforming learning with new technologies
  5. Redecker C., 2009, Learning 2.0: the impact of Web 2.0 innovations on education and training in Europe. Final Report
  6. Solomon G., 2010, Web 2.0 how‐to for educators

Cited by

See all 56

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
DOI
10.1111/bjet.12344
Cited by
56
References
45
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)

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

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.