Erica Fuhry | EdTech 504 |Summer 2014

Selected Research on Web 2.0 Technologies Roots in Social and

Emerging Theories of Learning: An Annotated Bibliography

Introduction
The creativity and interactivity afforded by Web 2.0 technologies holds promise for new
education systems based on increased learner participation, collaboration, and knowledge
construction. Internet-based technological tools, such as computer-mediated communication,
social networking, and shared accumulation and indexing of bibliographic resources, have
substantially leveraged social mobility, adaptability, and interactivity, supporting the
development of loosely coupled virtual communities for emergent creative collaboration
(Zhang, 2009, p. 276). These digital and networked media hold immense creative potential.
Social learning theories, situated learning, social constructivism, and connectivism all define
learners, teachers, and knowledge in ways that promote the use of networked learning tools in
the classroom. Learners are just as important as their learning communities. In all cases,
information that is learned (or made) is just as important as the relationships created in the
process. Emerging theories of learning contend that knowledge is situated, interdependent, and
should arise from necessity. Our K-12 students are utilizing Web 2.0 resources more and more
for personal, informal learning objectives. Therefore, many considerations of Web 2.0 tools
benefits look for a balance of directed and open-ended educational approaches to leverage
students natural proclivity towards these technologies. Although many fans and advocates are
quick to jump directly to methods and pedagogy, it is important to situate networked learning in
the context of various social and emerging learning theories. The articles provided in this
annotated bibliography connect to each other to achieve that aim.

Hill, J. R. (2012). Learning communities: Theoretical foundations for making connections. In D.
Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments (pp. 268-
285). New York, NY: Routledge.
In chapter 11 of our course textbook, Hill defines learning community according to
many other researchers interpretations. We learn from Hannafin et al. (2003) how they
can be directed (formal, objectivist, and authority-driven), informal (learner
created/driven), or negotiated (somewhere in between). Hill then provides real-world
examples of diverse learning communities that are successful as grassroots initiatives or
purposeful, structured knowledge compendiums. A particularly salient part of this article
lies in the breakdown of learning communities characteristics as they relate to
established learning theories. For example, Vygotskys social constructivist theory
(which is touched on in Kop and Hills discussion of Connectivism), Social Presence,
Social Interdependence, Situated Learning, and Self-Regulation and Self-Directed
Theories are all addressed. Learning theories that promote the individual are less
represented in much of the literature surrounding Web 2.0 and networked learning, but
Erica Fuhry | EdTech 504 |Summer 2014
are definitely relevant to a discussion of learner success and self-actualization.
(Robertsons study of blogs (2011) referenced in this chapter appears to be a worthy read
to help provide a balanced consideration of social and self-directed learning.)
Hill appears to value learning communities for their collaborative, scaffolded, context-
and process-driven, and socially motivating nature. She points out that there are certainly
issues and challenges associated with building a learning community, and that the
development of a successful one takes time, attention, and purposeful interaction. Issues
of logistics, adequate support, sense of presence, content, and technical issues can be
addressed with some of the strategies that are offered in the final part of this article.
Many of these solutions are directly tied to the aforementioned learning theories. Safety,
shared goals and values, established rules and roles, relationship-building, authentic
situations, and sensitivity to comfort zones are all ideals for a well built and nurtured
learning community. Although not directly referenced in the article, using learning
communities as structure for knowledge acquisition is in line with the constructivist,
constructionist, and connectivist ideologies mentioned in other articles. Learning
communities described in this chapter also call to mind social media groups, RSS feeds
and blogs, and online discussion boards that are increasingly popular Web 2.0 classroom
tools.

Hsi, S. (2007). Conceptualizing learning from the everyday activities of digital kids.
International Journal of Science Education, 29(12), 1509-1529.
The article begins with a vignette of two millennial adolescents engagement in digital
technologies and online environments in outofschool learning contexts. It gives
examples of complex activities and relationships whereby child is both creator and
consumer. To describe, study, and support this kind of informal learning, the author
proposes a digital fluency framework from a practiceoriented (vs. knowledgecentered)
perspective which organizes skills requiring digital tools to gather, design, evaluate,
critique, own, synthesize, and develop artifacts. These actions appear in line with
constructivist learning theory. In this framework, digital fluency involves building on
ones own skills and knowledge, taking on different identities and multiple roles,
voluntarily participating in a dynamic and virtual context, co-constructing a social reality
and establishing norms for participation, taking ownership of media creations (or
remixes) and online expressions, two-way literacies of cultural production and
consumption, multi-tasking, working on complex problems, and being a part of
distributed teams. In this way, digital fluency is socially constructivist.
To study how children take part in the new cultural world of digital learning
environments, Hsi encourages us look to studies of play that consider cognitive,
language, and social developments. As interesting as that proposition is, I wonder if
analyses of play are relevant for the entire span of a K-12 audience. The author also looks
to socio-cultural views of learning (e.g., activity theory, situated learning, and distributed
cognition) to investigate trends in social networking, game play, identity formation, and
Erica Fuhry | EdTech 504 |Summer 2014
collaborative practices. This section of the article is valuable to me in its overview of
learning, discourse practices, cultural analysis, and childhood development that are
embedded in the use of blogs, messaging, online communities, games, and profile
development. It would have been helpful if there was most discourse surrounding these
topics.
Although it is less relevant to my research, in this article we also learn of new specific
methods and tools for qualitatively studying and quantitatively measuring digital fluency.
One of these includes cooperative inquiry research methods that engage children as data
collectors and artifact curators, offering a more authentic perspective of their own
fluency. I can see the value in this is an evaluation and reflection tool for a networked
community. Nevertheless, Hsi points out there are many challenges and barriers to formal
research, including methodological limitations and ideological fragmentation from
multiple disciplines definition of learning.
The penultimate section on implications for educational practices is important in its
distinction between students using digital tools for leisure versus school-related tasks.
Teacher conceptions and behaviors with technology must be reassessed to curb potential
tension. Students transfer from informal to formal contexts should be studied and
supported to enhance out-of-school learning. Right now there is some muddiness to the
boundaries of learning spaces and control over technology. Hsi suggests general ways to
address these to link digital practices across settings and contexts, however they are not
particularly new or elaborate ideas. First and foremost, the author is calling for more
coordinated research efforts to inform how learning is achieved through the use of digital
technology in informal, interest-driven activities. It is a motivating and well-reasoned
call to arms; however it still leaves me searching for more information and case studies
of substance. This article has encouraged me to learn more about formal versus informal
learning with networked technologies, and consider how Web 2.0 technologies can blur
the distinction.

Hill, J. R., Song, L., & West, R. E. (2009). Social learning theory and web-based learning
environments: A review of research and discussion of implications. The American
Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 88-103. doi: 10.1080/08923640902857713
This article roots the design, development, and implementation of Web-based learning
environments (called WBLEs) in the constructs of social learning theories. The article
specifically focuses on formal learning environments and WBLEs that are interactive and
community-building. This context would be perfect for the learning communities
previously discussed in Hills publication Learning communities: Theoretical foundations
for making connections (2012). Here the authors, who are referenced quite often in
literature in this field, begin by delineating the factors of teaching and learning that are
consistent with social learning: context, culture and community, and learner
characteristics. Ways to maximize success with these various social learning
Erica Fuhry | EdTech 504 |Summer 2014
constructs are summarized in Table 1, followed by brief discussions of other authors
supporting studies.
Taken in context, interaction (with human or content), group size, and the creation and
use of resources are all critical to the building of support, encouragement, and shared
experiences in WBLEs. The authors emphasize the value of modeling as well as peer
support in the development of online discussion. Instructors and learners must also adopt
strategies to use resources effectively. There must also be careful attention to the role
gender and ethnicity in perpetuating an online community, but first and foremost we
should seek to integrate collaborative group activities, as supported by research (Hiltz et
al., 2000).
A WBLE doesnt exist without constant attention. The authors overall message is that
online learning must be purposeful and well-planned. This article also discusses social
learning theories view of learner characteristics in terms of personal epistemological
beliefs, individual learning styles, self-efficacy, and motivation. The authors make
reference to a study (Tsai and Chuang, 2005) in which students with constructivist beliefs
showed preference for Internet-based learning environments that featured reflection and
inquiry learning. Even though, as other authors have mentioned, online communities
align with constructivist ideologies, educators must take into account a diversity of
students cognitive styles.
The article concludes with a section on implications for research and practice. For
example, Hill et al. assert that research is needed to study learners individual
characteristics such as prior knowledge, epistemological beliefs, cultural background, and
self-regulation skills. In terms of WBLEs in practice, social interaction needs to take
precedence. While the authors allude to some studies that tackle issues of group work
and communication, they feel there is a need for further studies to develop effective
strategies for promoting collaboration and to address potential pitfalls on the reliance of
written communication online. In essence, they are asking for other researchers to
methodologically put the rhetoric of social learning theory to the test. The authors
maintain that waiting for these studies before actively designing these kinds of learning
experience is unrealistic. Research and development should go hand in hand. For
example, as social learning theories purport that self-efficacy and motivation is context-
dependent and directly tied to learning, it is implied that WBLE designers and
implementers must seek to maximize these individual characteristics with methods that
they believe would be the most beneficial.
Although this article briefly touches base on some epistemological elements of social
learning perspectives, I feel its biggest value lies in its featured case studies as they relate
to specific learning contexts, culture and community, and learner characteristics. These
would be great launching pads for further inquiry.

Erica Fuhry | EdTech 504 |Summer 2014
Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past?.
The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3), 1-13.
This paper discusses connectivism as a theory appropriate for the modern era,
highlighting its innovative features, such as distributed knowledge, and its relationship
with other learning theories. The authors begin with a helpful overview of connectivism,
pointing to the necessity of learning communities, called nodes. Both cognitive and
affective domains are engaged in the acquisition of knowledge, which is comprised of
constantly changing information. Seeking out and filtering extraneous information are
important parts of the cyclical and interdisciplinary learning process. Learning, itself, is
the network; knowledge is not rooted in logic or language.
The authors then propose connectivism as a developmental theory, suggesting that
Siemens connectivist model (http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm (a
reference referred to quite often)) and Downes theory of distributed knowledge require
further studies to support their philosophical domain. By citing others analyses and
critiques, they suggest that traditional theories (behaviorism (objectivism), cognitivism
(pragmatism), and constructivism (interpretivism)) already cover all the bases. Not only
that, but Kerr (2007a) discusses overlap with Vygotskys social constructivism, Paperts
constructionism, Clarks embodied active cognition, and Lave and Wengers
communities of practice. I believe these pre-connectivist theories all have something
unique to contribute to a discussion of Web 2.0 technologies, and will use this section as
a launching pad for further inquiry.
There appears to be much debate about the validity of connectivism as a stand-alone
theory. Some of this debate comes from connectivisms treatment of higher-order
thinking and pattern recognition. Nevertheless, connectivism addresses modern learners
needs, information growth, and advancing technologies through its pedagogy and
curriculum, which Verhagen (2006) views as more relevant than its role as a theory.
The section Teaching in a Connected Environment is quite salient for my focus. It
discusses the changing roles of students, teachers, and learning contexts. Some critics are
concerned about critical engagement and diverse perspectives in online communities.
The online environment is the most significant application for connectivism; however I
would be interested to find out how this theory (or developing model) is applied to face-
to-face learning experiences. They authors remind us that Downes and Siemens
networks are both internal and external, reminding us that knowledge is internally
(cognitively) and externally (socially) developed.
In the conclusion we finally hear the opinions of Kop and Hill, whereby they deliver a
powerful reminder that educators must follow the trends of their students less they be
replaced by new experts. The authors believe that connectivism has useful pedagogical
implications. The possibilities afforded by digital technologies in conjunction with
learners increasing autonomy are leading to a new paradigm for learning. Nevertheless,
the message is that connectivism is merely a player in this new epistemology. Ultimately
the authors implication is similar to Hill et al.s articles conclusion, which encourages
Erica Fuhry | EdTech 504 |Summer 2014
practitioners to continue creating innovative pedagogy without waiting to ground it in
new, established theory. Although the authors value the tenets of connectivism, the
majority of the article discusses its validity as a new theory versus demonstrating its
applicability to real-world practice. The following article (Transue, 2013) helps bridge
theory to practice.

Transue, B. M. (2013). Connectivism and information literacy: Moving from learning theory to
pedagogical practice. Public Services Quarterly, 9(3), 185-195.
doi:10.1080/15228959.2013.815501
This article is directed towards librarian educators as they adapt to new learning theories
and technologies and their corresponding pedagogical practices. Knowledge as
networked relationships (with humans and digital products) is the principle of
connectivism, and is also a critical feature of ACRL (Association for College and
Research Libraries) standards. I found Transues brief summary of others (Anderson and
Dron, Bell, and Downes) observations that connectivism is a third-generation learning
theory [for a] web 2.0 environment insightful, and would be interested to find out more
about these authors purported deficiencies in established learning theories. For example,
cognitive-behaviorist theories are less relevant because of their pre-web applications, and
constructivist theory limits information to a thing to be gained through experience
(rather than a relationship). Unlike Kop and Hills article, this publication seems to
consider connectivism a trustworthy, established, and exemplar learning theory worthy of
significant pedagogical application.
The author discusses information literacy, which is a component of Hsis definition of
digital fluency as described earlier (minus the design and develop action tasks). She
encourages teachers and librarians to use all of Drexlers (2010) proposed four domains
of student networks (information management, contacts, synchronous communication,
and RSS) to maximize the teaching of useful and transferable skills. She also offers
helpful, practical strategies for doing so. For example, we should adapt to technology
tools with which students are already familiar to improve their transliteracy (information
+ digital) instruction, such as by showing them how to use Google and Wikipedia in an
academic way that does not discredit their merit. Teachers should also encourage students
to expand their personal learning networks to librarians, who in turn should be
synchronously available to assist students in their information quests. In the connectivist
theory, I believe it is important that students have a broad, but reliable network of
knowledge experts that they can access by managing and maintaining personal networks.
Transue agrees, and also underscores the importance of students participation in the
network. Students must be taught and encouraged to synthesize, create, publish and
provide feedback to complete the cycle.
Many of the suggested applications of Drexlers model of student domains are slightly
outside of the scope of elementary education and are more appropriate for adult learning,
however the framework is adaptable. It would be a good structure to flesh out a
Erica Fuhry | EdTech 504 |Summer 2014
connectivist-style research project (similar to the Biology example in the article). I am
not convinced it would be a model appropriate for all types of learning, however,
particularly as it lacks impetus and direction for collaboration, creation, and high-order
thinking.

Chen, B., & Bryer, T. (2012). Investigating instructional strategies for using social media in
formal and informal learning. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 13(1), 87-104. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ979641.pdf
The authors believe that, despite their popularity, a low percentage of students and
instructors use social media for educational purposes. Their qualitative study explores the
use of social media among faculty in the discipline of public administration by
considering the responses of eight instructors via a phone interview. The participants
reflections about their experiences and perceptions of using social media for teaching and
learning are interesting, however the sample size of the experiment is rather small, and
the audience is not in line with the focus on my research. Nevertheless, this article is very
valuable in its qualitative empirical support for social learning theories as well as some
anecdotal examples of how social media can be used to connect formal and informal
learning. For example, according to the interview responses, social media allows
instructors to break down the limitation of course management systems, enable
collaborative interactions, connect textbook knowledge to real-world problems, and
facilitated personalized constructive learning (p. 97).
The authors trace the value of social media as learning tool back to the notion of social
learning (see annotation for Hill et al.s article), which has its roots in Vygotskys social
constructivism. (Many other authors in this field have made similar reference to this
theoretical foundation, which features teacher-as-facilitator, collaboration, problem-
solving, and learner autonomy.) The authors give equal attention to the role of
connectivism theory (as reviewed in the two previous annotations), whereby learning is
not internal and individual but rather interconnected and pluralistic. They feel that even
though there is limited use of social media by students and teachers, research has
supported the connectivism theory and should be adopted for teaching.
The authors claim that social networks have little no integration into formal learning
environments. I was surprised by this claim, especially considering the publication date
of the article, but understand their perspective considering they seem to have been
specifically looking at the temporary and limited nature of course management systems in
higher education. Nevertheless, their mission to blur lines between formal and informal
education is in line with my research (and related to the discussion brought up in Hsis
article found in an earlier annotation). In the authors opinion, learning can be achieved
if informal social networks are facilitated, learner-centered, and agenda-driven. Like the
authors of the following annotation (Williams et al., 2011), they believe that boundaries
must be erected to manage the free reign of social activity.
Erica Fuhry | EdTech 504 |Summer 2014
In a similar way to other articles in this bibliography, this paper concludes with a call for
institutional support to not only allow but promote the use of social media. It also calls
for more systematic studies to prove the benefits of these technologies. The authors point
to a gap between well-supported theory and the lack of research to support students
networked learning. However, besides encouraging us to use technologies to infuse
social practices into learning activities, Chen and Bryer do not provide any direction or
offer much in the way of concrete examples.

Williams, R., Karousou, R., & Mackness, J. (2011). Emergent learning and learning ecologies in
Web 2.0. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3),
39-59.
The authors present emergent learning as part of the learning networks and systems that
comprise the Web 2.0s learning ecology. Emergent learning is learning in which actor
and system co-evolve (p. 40), and is struggling to take root in technology-driven arenas
that are still shaped by traditional teaching modes and expectations, prescriptive
outcomes, and conventional hierarchies. A learner-centered environment, where students
determine the learning process and destination, is open-ended, collaborative, and self-
organized (e.g social networks, personal learning environments (PLEs), and some
communities of practice).
We learn that the internet provides a perfect environment for emergent social behavior,
but must still explore whether this leads to emergent learning. Part of the issue lies in
whether or not knowledge and behaviors generated by Web 2.0 tools can be validated and
self-correcting. Also, the authors assert that emergence is not a panacea; an inclusive
learning ecology must balance prescriptive learning with managed emergence. (A helpful
comparison of the two ideas is found in Figure 1 (p. 43)). The process of designing for
emergent learning should focus on philosophy versus practice, and should be flexible to
allow for an organic response. What follows are a few examples of this kind of balanced
emergent learning in practice. It would be helpful to learn more about the initial design
of these experiences, however, from an Instructional Design perspective. How did the
course developers initiate these open-ended tasks, courses, and projects? How do the
authors propose to plan for unstructured, self-organized, and self-managed learning?
The authors also explore whether and how we can integrate emergent and prescriptive
learning. To answer this they look at an analytic framework based on complexity theory,
communities of practice, and connectivism. They also provide overviews of case studies
that incorporate these ideologies. This article values the potential for social networking
media to increase emergent learning in our pluralistic learning ecologies (versus
controlled, predictable learning environments), but it also cautions us to balance openness
with constraint. As educators we need to be comfortable with unpredictability and a
dynamic sense of control, but also maintain responsibility for safe and productive
learning to take place.
Erica Fuhry | EdTech 504 |Summer 2014

Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a
digital age Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now?.
Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246-259. doi:10.3102/0013189X09336671
This article is written with strong support of Web 2.0 technologies for teaching and
learning. It discusses how the internet has evolved over time (in terms of both access and
nature), and how students are using it in different contexts for diverse purposes. As
mentioned earlier, Transues article (2013) made a similar brief observation of the
internets timeline, from Web 1.0s classical cognitive perspective of acquiring
knowledge from others to Web 2.0s participatory constructivist and connectivist
approach. I appreciate how the authors suggest that the modern internet promotes users,
knowledge, and all their interconnections. Knowledge is decentralized, accessible, and
co-constructed by and among a broad base of users (p. 247). These characteristics of
knowledge are in line with the theoretical foundations that Hill (2012) delineates in her
article about learning communities: Social Constructivist Theory, Social Presence, Social
Interdependence, and Situated Learning.
The authors discuss how Web 2.0 is currently in use by students and teacher. How does
the internet work as an information repository and communication tool for learning in
present day? We can value the Web for its interconnections, content creation and
remixing, and interactivity. It holds great potential. Like other literature on educational
social media, however, Greenhow et al. point to the disconnect between how students are
using classroom in their lives and how teachers are incorporating it into their classrooms.
Educators must revise their role to include modeling and facilitating 21st century skills,
which are more social and require higher-order thinking skills. Grounded in sociocultural
activity and situated learning theories, a learning ecology perspective (see annotation
for Williams et al. (2011)) might help bridge learning and teaching with the Web 2.0. In
these theories, and along the lines of Connectivism, learning is located in contexts and
relationships rather than merely in individuals minds. Therefore learning can formally
and informally cross boundaries. Hsis article left me intrigued about blurring school and
home boundaries of networked technology use, and this article equally calls for research
and practice that prioritizes bridging youth's formal and informal learning with
participatory media. At the same time the authors point out some potential ethical issues
to be wary of in designing research tools and methods to study this kind of context
transfer.
The themes of learner participation (e.g. inquiry) and creativity as well as online identity
formation are rooted in this analysis. The benefits of self-expression, belonging, and
interest-driven opportunities entice students to use the internet in the first place. Like
many other authors, Greenhow et al. call for a strong research focus on Web 2.0 use in
and outside the classroom. They believe questions should focus on what learners do with
these new technologies, issues of equity in and access to these experiences, and building
theory and corollary practice and policies. As in other discussions presented in this
bibliography, the authors point to the lack of modeling by instructors as a primary reason
Erica Fuhry | EdTech 504 |Summer 2014
for our education systems low level of Web 2.0 integration. They imply that educators
should build up their social scholarship online to help students, improve their practice,
develop their own identities, and share scholarship with a wider audience.
The final section of the article is very helpful in that it names a number of valuable Web
2.0 tools that are still in use today (in the year 2014), and notes their specific merits.
Aligning theoretical ideas, acclaim, and evidence gives more credence than does
hypothetical beliefs, suppositions, or generalizations alone.

Zhang, J. (2009). Comments on Greenhow, Robelia, and Hughes: Toward a creative social web
for learners and teachers. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 274-279.
doi:10.3102/0013189X09336674
This article responds to the previous article by looking at the strengths and weaknesses of
Web 2.0 in supporting students collaborative creativity in their knowledge creation and
the use of the Web for supporting teacher learning and innovation. The author views
learning as a social act, involving assimilating and building on a community's knowledge
and adopting diverse points of view (i.e. cross-fertilization (Sternberg, 2003) of different
domains and cultures). Going beyond a simple repository or information, the current
Webs features support collaborative creation, sharing, connecting, and remixing. One
limitation, however, is that this knowledge is temporary in time and space. It is not easily
available for indexing, tracing, monitoring, integrating, and advancing ideas (Zhang,
2009, p. 275). For example, Web 2.0 tools like social bookmarking and Wikis are great
for knowledge sharing (in accordance with a community-of-practice framework), but are
less apt to advance knowledge.
Zhang does echo Greenhow et al.s (2009) observation that Web 2.0 technologies can
foster creativity as well as identity formation. For example, there are ample opportunities
to share artistic expressions and personal feelings. However, he feels there is a general
trend of deficiency in depth and progressiveness in current internet contributions that use
these technologies. There is also an issue of quality control in the knowledge being
disseminated on the Web, and the advancement of knowledge through popularity versus
progress and higher-level ideas. Another challenge is the conflict between the chaotic,
open-ended Web and the rigidly organized structure and tradition of schooling. In her
publication (previously annotated in this collection) Hsi (2007) points to similar
challenges in this arena, more specifically in terms of teacher adoption of these kinds of
technology. This critique is important because it helps us remember that the traditional
(what he calls formal) ways of schooling were based on practices deemed most
appropriate by the ruling learning theories of the day. This model of formal education is
clearly in a time of redefinition and redevelopment, and perhaps some of this formality
will be shed in the process.
The overall message is that, yes, the internet is participatory and collaborative, but it is
not yet very creative in terms of information innovation. Expanding on the suggestions of
Erica Fuhry | EdTech 504 |Summer 2014
Greenhow et al., Zhang is calling for design-based research that focused on: 1) reflective
and integrated representation of community knowledge, 2) progressive inquiry, 3)
progress-focused review and feedback, and 4) social and cognitive scaffolding of
emergent collaboration and collectively evolved inquiry. He is also suggesting ways
teachers can use Web 2.0 tools for professional development, collaboration, and
innovation (an area left out in Greenhow et al.s discussion (2009)). Zhang does a good
job of highlighting the Web 2.0 strengths found in Greenhow et al.s literature, while
pointing out several areas of weakness that may have been overlooked by those authors.
Nevertheless, these weaknesses are certainly not strong enough to deter an educating
practitioner from incorporating Web 2.0 tools in their repertoire.