CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 28Educational Technology in LearningOnline and Blended LearningEducational Technology and E-Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

What if undergraduate students designed their own web learning environment? Exploring students' web 2.0 mentality through participatory design

Palaigeorgiou, G., Triantafyllakos, G., Tsinakos, A.·2011·Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00382.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Following the increasing calls for a more skeptical analysis of web 2.0 and the empowerment of learners' voices in formulating upcoming technologies, this paper elaborates on the participatory design of a web learning environment. A total of 117 undergraduate students from two Greek Informatics Departments participated in 25 participatory design sessions, employing two needs' elicitation techniques, with the aim of envisioning a learning platform that meets their learning particularities and needs, incorporates and exploits their new technological habits, and can be harmoniously situated in their daily routine. Overall, 773 needs were elicited, proving that students had refined views about the elements that can render the next wave of e-learning applications successful. They convincingly demonstrated their web 2.0 mentality but sought for a smooth transition to the new environment, promoting an evolution rather than a revolution. The resulting set of needs demarcates a zone of expectancies where the enhancement of the learning content and the contextualization of knowledge remain top priorities with revamped opportunities, while networking, participation and collaboration complement and improve their characteristics. Our study is an example of exploiting participatory design for exposing students' thoughts and requirements from a critical design perspective.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00382.x

Cites

1 of 1 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

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Barnes, 2007, The adventures of Miranda in the brave new world: learning in a Web 2.0 millennium, ALT-J, 15, 189, 10.1080/09687760701673568 · DOI
  2. Blin, 2008, Why hasn't technology disrupted academics' teaching practice? Understanding resistance to change through the lens of activity theory, Computer and Education, 50, 475, 10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.017 · DOI
  3. Bødker, 1991, Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems, 139
  4. Boyd, 2007, Youth, Identity, and Digital Media, 119
  5. Chatti, 2007, The future of e-learning: a shift to knowledge networking and social software, International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 3, 404, 10.1504/IJKL.2007.016702 · DOI
  6. Clark, 2009, Beyond Web 2.0 mapping the technology landscapes of young learners, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 56, 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00305.x · DOI
  7. Coates, 2005, A critical examination of the effects of learning management systems on university teaching and learning, Tertiary Education and Management, 11, 19, 10.1080/13583883.2005.9967137 · DOI
  8. Cole, 2009, Using Wiki technology to support student engagement: lessons from the trenches, Computers & Education, 52, 141, 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.003 · DOI
  9. Craig, 2007, Changing paradigms: managed learning environments and Web 2.0, Campus-Wide Information Systems, 24, 152, 10.1108/10650740710762185 · DOI
  10. Creanor, 2006, Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Ascilite Conference, 179
  11. Crook, 2001, Networked Learning: Perspectives and Issues, 293
  12. Dall'Alba, 2007, An ontological turn for higher education, Studies in Higher Education, 32, 679, 10.1080/03075070701685130 · DOI
  13. Dohn, 2009, Web 2.0: inherent tensions and evident challenges for education, International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4, 343, 10.1007/s11412-009-9066-8 · DOI
  14. Halskov, 2007, The emergence of ideas: the interplay between sources of inspiration and emerging design concepts, CoDesign, 3, 185, 10.1080/15710880701607404 · DOI
  15. Hemmi, 2009, The appropriation and repurposing of social technologies in higher education, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 19, 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00306.x · DOI
  16. Jenkins, 2006, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide
  17. Kensing, 1998, Participatory design: issues and concerns, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 7, 167, 10.1023/A:1008689307411 · DOI
  18. Kerawalla, 2009, An empirically grounded framework to guide blogging in higher education, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 31, 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00286.x · DOI
  19. Large, 2006, Bonded design: a novel approach to intergenerational information technology design, Library & Information Science Research, 28, 64, 10.1016/j.lisr.2005.11.014 · DOI
  20. Lohnes, 2007, Questioning assumptions about students' expectations for technology in college classrooms, Innovate, 3
  21. Lonn, 2009, Saving time or innovating practice: investigating perceptions and uses of Learning Management Systems, Computers & Education, 53, 686, 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.04.008 · DOI
  22. McLoughlin, 2008, The 3 P's of pedagogy for the networked society: personalization, participation, and Productivity, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20, 10
  23. Moore, 2008, What students really want, American Journal of Distance Education, 22, 1, 10.1080/08923640701713406 · DOI
  24. Palaigeorgiou, 2009, Proceedings of the 2nd World Summit on the Knowledge Society (WSKS 2009), Crete, Greece, 119
  25. Palmer, 2009, Examining student satisfaction with wholly online learning, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 101, 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00294.x · DOI
  26. Perttula, 2007, The idea exposure paradigm in design idea generation, Journal of Engineering Design, 18, 93, 10.1080/09544820600679679 · DOI
  27. Ravenscroft, 2009, Social software, Web 2.0 and learning: status and implications of an evolving paradigm, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 1, 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00308.x · DOI
  28. Ryberg, 2008, Networked identities: understanding relationships between strong and weak ties in networked environments, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 103, 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00272.x · DOI
  29. Sanoff, 2007, Special issue on participatory design, Design Studies, 28, 213, 10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.001 · DOI
  30. Scott, 2003, Effective change management in higher education, Educause Review, 38, 64
  31. Seale, 2009, Doing student voice work in higher education: an exploration of the value of participatory methods, British Educational Research Journal, 10.1080/01411920903342038 · DOI
  32. Selwyn N. 2007 Web 2.0 applications as alternative environments for informal learning - a critical review CERI-KERIS International Expert Meeting on ICT and Educational Performance
  33. Siozos, 2009, Computer based testing using ‘digital ink’: participatory design of a Tablet PC based assessment application for secondary education, Computers & Education, 52, 811, 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.006 · DOI
  34. Triantafyllakos, 2008, We!Design: a student-centred participatory methodology for the design of educational applications, British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 125, 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00740.x · DOI
  35. Triantafyllakos, 2009, Proceedings of 23rd BCS Conference on Human Computer Interactionm, 20
  36. Ulriksen, 2009, The implied student, Studies in Higher Education, 34, 517, 10.1080/03075070802597135 · DOI
  37. Vassileva, 2008, Toward social learning environments, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 1, 199, 10.1109/TLT.2009.4 · DOI
  38. Ward, 1994, Structured imagination: the role of category structure in exemplar generation, Cognitive Psychology, 27, 1, 10.1006/cogp.1994.1010 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Palaigeorgiou, G., Triantafyllakos, G., & Tsinakos, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Thessaly (GR)
  • Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (GR)
  • Technological Educational Institute of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace (GR)
Corresponding author
Palaigeorgiou, G.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-10-28
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
146-159
ISSN
0266-4909 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00382.x
OpenAlex
W1569342617
Cited by
28
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 8
FWCI
7.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 1769 d)
Locations
  • Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (publishedVersion)
  • University of Thessaly Institutional Repository (University of Thessaly) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Technology in Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and E-Learning
Keywords
participatory design, Web 2.0, undergraduate students, online learning platforms, student empowerment, critical design, contextualization of knowledge, collaboration in learning, computer science students

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