The Use of Web 2.0 Tools and Students’ Cognitive Engagement Among Tanzanian University Students

© 2020 by IJCTT Journal
Volume-68 Issue-9
Year of Publication : 2020
Authors : Issa Omar Malecela
DOI :  10.14445/22312803/IJCTT-V68I9P106

How to Cite?

Issa Omar Malecela, "The Use of Web 2.0 Tools and Students’ Cognitive Engagement Among Tanzanian University Students," International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology, vol. 68, no. 9, pp. 37-44, 2020. Crossref, 10.14445/22312803/IJCTT-V68I9P106

With the advent of information and communication technology, educators need to embrace technology tools to enhance critical and creative thinking. This study has aimed to investigate the actual use of Web 2.0 tools in learning among University students in Tanzania. The course has also explored the effects of the actual use of Web 2.0 tools on cognitive engagement. The Acceptance Model and Technological Affordances were used as the research framework. The study used a quantitative method. Data were obtained from 3 universities in Tanzania. The study applied a proportionate random sampling from the 3 selected universities. Descriptive statistics using mean scores and percentage, Post-hoc, and Multiple Regression Analysis were employed. The findings show a non-significant effect of Web 2.0 tools on student cognitive engagement even though the actual use is apparent. The implications of the study are discussed

[1] An, Y. J., & Williams, K. (2010). Teaching with Web 2.0 technologies: Benefits, barriers, and lessons learned. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 7(3), 41-48.
[2] Chawinga, W. D., & Zinn, S. (2016). Use of Web 2.0 by students in the Faculty of Information Science and Communications at Mzuzu University, Malawi. South African Journal of Information Management, 18(1), 1-12.
[3] Chawinga, W. D. (2017). Taking social media to a university classroom: teaching and learning using Twitter and blogs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 3.
[4] Conole, G., & Alevizou, P. (2010). A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in Higher Education. A report commissioned by the Higher Education Academy.
[5] Creswell, J (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
[6] Damoense, M.Y., (2003), "Online learning: implications for effective learning for higher education in South Africa," Australian Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 25–45.
[7] Daniel, G. R., Wang, C., & Berthelsen, D. (2016). Early school-based parent involvement, children`s self-regulated learning, and academic achievement: An Australian longitudinal study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 168-177.
[8] Den Exter, K., Rowe, S., Boyd, W., & Lloyd, D. (2012). Using Web 2.0 technologies for collaborative learning in distance education—Case studies from an Australian university. Future Internet, 4(1), 216-237
[9] Deng, L., & Tavares, N. J. (2015). Exploring university students` use of technologies beyond the formal learning context: A tale of two online platforms—Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3), 313.
[10] Deng, L., & Yuen, A. H. (2012). Understanding student perceptions and motivation towards academic blogs: An exploratory study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology.
[11] Franklin, T., & Harmelen, M. V. (2007). Web 2.0 for content for learning and teaching in higher education.
[12] Hair Jr, J. F., Black, J. W., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, E. R. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (Seventh Ed., pp.1–758). Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited.
[13] Hair, Jr, J., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & G. Kuppelwieser, V. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106-121.
[14] Hair Jr., J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (pp. 1–307). SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
[15] Herrmann, K. J. (2013). The impact of cooperative learning on student engagement: Results from an intervention. Active learning in higher education, 14(3), 175-187.
[16] Khalid, I. (2010). Role of Web 2.0 Technologies for Knowledge Building in Higher Education, Acevedo-Gil, N., Santos, R. E., Alonso, Ll., Sol. Retrieved from
[17] Kivunja, C. (2014). Innovative pedagogies in higher education to become effective teachers of 21st-century skills: Unpacking the learning and innovations skills domain of the new learning paradigm. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(4), 37.
[18] Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators, 3-29.
[19] Lwoga, E. (2012). Making learning and Web 2.0 technologies work for higher learning institutions in Africa. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 29(2), 90-107.
[20] Mcloughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2008). The Three P`s of Pedagogy for the Networked Society : Personalization, Participation, and Productivity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 10–27.
[21] McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2010). Personalized and selfregulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1).
[22] McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2007). Mapping the digital terrain: New media and social software as catalysts for pedagogical change. Proceedings Ascilite Melbourne 2008, 641–652. de: ughlin.pdf
[23] McLaughlin, J. E., Griffin, L. M., Esserman, D. A., Davidson, C. A., Glatt, D. M., Roth, M. T., & Mumper, R. J. (2013). Pharmacy student engagement, performance, and perception in a flipped satellite classroom. American journal of pharmaceutical education, 77(9), 196
[24] McMillan, J. (2000). Educational research: fundamentals for the consumer. (3rd edition). New York: Longman.
[25] Moulali, U., & Sasidhar, V. (2017). Competent pattern innovation designed for textual content mining. In I-SMAC (IoT in Social, Mobile, Analytics, and Cloud) (I-SMAC), 2017 International Conference on (pp. 572-577). IEEE.
[26] Mtebe, J., & Raisamo, R. (2014). Investigating students` behavioral intention to adopt and use mobile learning in higher education in East Africa. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 10(3).
[27] Mtega, W. P., & Benard, R. (2014). The Integration of library and e-learning systems: the case of selected public universities in Tanzania.
[28] Ngeze, L. (2017). ICT Integration in Teaching and Learning in Secondary Schools in Tanzania: Readiness and Way Forward. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 7(6), 424-427.
[29] Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology Readiness Index (TRI) a multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies. Journal of service research, 2(4), 307-320.
[30] Patil, H. J., & Surwade, M. Y. P. (2018) Web Technologies from Web 2.0 to Web 4.0.
[31] Sumuer, E. (2018) Factors related to college students’ selfdirected learning with technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2018, 34(4).
[32] Wagner, T. (2008). The Global Achievement Gap: Why Even Out Best Schools Don’t Teach The New Survival Skills Our Children Need - And What We Can Do About It. Education.
[33] Williams, A. M. (2015). Soft Skills are perceived by students and employers as relevant employability skills (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).
[34] Wilson, K. B., & Boateng, K. A. (2014) Integrating ICTs into the Teaching process: Issues in Pedagogical Practices in Teacher Education. International Journal of Computing Academic Research (IJCAR) ISSN 2305-9184 Volume 3, Number 4(August 2014), pp. 96-103
[35] World Economic Forum, (2016) New Vision for Education: Fostering Social and Emotional Learning through Technology. REF 040316
[36] Zacharia, L. (2014). Factors Causing Gender Inequality in Education in Tanzania: A Case of Korogwe District Secondary Schools (Doctoral dissertation, The Open University of Tanzania).
[37] Zanjani, N., Edwards, S. L., Nykvist, S., & Geva, S. (2017). The important elements of LMS design that affect user engagement with e-learning tools within LMSs in the higher education sector. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1).

Web 2.0, cognitive engagement, 21st Century, higher learning institutions