User-Generated Content: Perceived Affordances in Students’ Usage of the Web for Tertiary Learning Activities

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 746)

Abstract

This paper investigates which affordances students perceive when using the Internet for academic learning purposes, with a focus on user-generated content (UGC). Based on an explorative interview study, Wikipedia, Facebook, and YouTube were found to play an important role in students’ preparation and working settings. The findings indicate that the usage of Wikipedia and YouTube is mainly based on perceived content-related and physical affordances. In the case of Facebook, also social/relational and transactional affordances play a major role by enabling users to participate in peer groups and to share materials of interest. The results are to be validated in further research.

Keywords

Academic learning tasks Students User-generated content 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is supported with a netidee scholarship by the Internet Foundation Austria. Open image in new window

References

  1. 1.
    Benkler, Y.: Coase’s Penguin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Firm. Yale Law J. 112, 369–446 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pascu, C., Osimo, D., Ulbrich, M., Turlea, G., Burgelman, J.C.: The potential disruptive impact of Internet2 based technologies. First Monday 12 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wunsch-Vincent, S., Vickery, G.: Participative Web: User-Generated Content. Working Party on the Information Economy (WPIE). OECD, Paris (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Krumm, J., Davies, N., Narayanaswami, C.: User-generated content. Guest editors’ introduction. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 7, 10–11 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2008.85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bauer, C.A.: User Generated Content: Urheberrechtliche Zulässigkeit nutzergenerierter Medieninhalte. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daugherty, T., Eastin, M.S., Bright, L.: Exploring consumer motivations for creating user-generated content. J. Interact. Advert. 8, 16–25 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2008.10722139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Surowiecki, J.: The Wisdom of Crowds. Anchor Books, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schroer, J., Hertel, G.: Voluntary engagement in an open web-based encyclopedia: Wikipedians and why they do it. Media Psychol. 12, 96–120 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260802669466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Giles, J.: Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature 438, 900–901 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1038/438900aCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    König, R.: Wikipedia: between lay participation and elite knowledge representation. Inf. Commun. Soc. 16, 160–177 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.734319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stegbauer, C.: Wikipedia: Das Rätsel der Kooperation. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, Germany (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giles, J.: The Wiki-opoly threatening the world’s best encylopedia. New Sci. 218(2912), 38–41 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gorman, G.E.: Who Pays the ferryman? Will Wikipedia as a “democratic process survive, or cross the Styx?”. Online Inf. Rev. 37 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1108/oir.2013.26437daa.001
  14. 14.
    Ehmann, K., Large, A., Beheshti, J.: Collaboration in context: comparing article evolution among subject disciplines in Wikipedia. First Monday 13 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu, J., Ram, S.: Who does what: collaboration patterns in the Wikipedia and their impact on article quality. ACM Trans. Manage. Inf. Syst. 2, 11:1–11:23 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1985347.1985352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yoo, S.J., Huang, W.D.: Comparison of Web 2.0 technology acceptance level based on cultural differences. J. Educ Technol. Soc. 14, 241–252 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zakaria, M.H., Watson, J., Edwards, S.L.: Investigating the use of Web 2.0 technology. Multicult. Educ. Technol. J. 4, 17–29 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., Vojt, G.: Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Comput. Educ. 56, 429–440 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nagler, W., Ebner, M.: Is your university ready for the ne(x)t-generation? In: Siemens, G., Fulford, C. (eds.) Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2009–World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, pp. 4344–4351. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Honolulu (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., Healing, G.: Net generation or digital natives: is there a distinct new generation entering university? Comput. Educ. 54, 722–732 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lai, C.: Modeling teachers’ influence on learners’ self-directed use of technology for language learning outside the classroom. Comput. Educ. 82, 74–83 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Churchward, A., Gray, K., Krause, K.: First year students’ experiences with technology: are they really digital natives? Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 24, 108–122 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Howard, S.K., Ma, J., Yang, J.: Student rules: exploring patterns of students’ computer-efficacy and engagement with digital technologies in learning. Comput. Educ. 101, 29–42 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gibson, J.J.: The theory of affordances. In: The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception, pp. 127–143. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., New Jersey (1986)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Norman, D.A.: The Design of Everyday Things. First Doubleday (1990)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Harindranath, G., Bernroider, E., Kamel, S.: Social media and social transformation movements: the role of affordances and platforms. In: ECIS 2015 Completed Research Papers, Paper 73. Münster, Germany (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mesgari, M., Faraj, S.: Technology affordances: the case of Wikipedia. In: AMCIS 2012 Proceedings (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Olapiriyakul, K., Widmeyer, G.: Affordances of virtual world commerce: instrument development and validation. In: AMCIS 2009 Proceedings, Paper 304 (2009)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    O’Riordan, S., Feller, J., Nagle, T.: Exploring the affordances of social network sites: an analysis of three networks. In: ECIS 2012 Proceedings (2012)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Strauss, A.L., Corbin, J.M.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage Publications, Newbury Park (1990)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Strauss, A.L., Corbin, J.M.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (1998)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sarker, S., Lau, F., Sahay, S.: Using an adapted grounded theory approach for inductive theory building about virtual team development. DATA BASE Adv. Inf. Syst. 32, 38–56 (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1145/506740.506745CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Information Management and ControlWU Vienna University of Business and EconomicsViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations