EMPOWERING BUSINESS STUDENTS
Using Web 2.0 Tools in the Classroom
Alex Ramirez, Shaobo Ji, Rob Riordan, Frank Ulbrich and Michael J. Hine
Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Canada
Keywords: Learning, Learning Infrastructures, Social Software, Social Construction.
Abstract: This paper discusses the design of a course to empower business students using Web 2.0 technologies. We
explore the learning phenomenon as a way to bring forward a process of continuous improvement supported
by social software. We develop a framework to assess the infrastructure against expectations of skill
proficiency using Web 2.0 tools which must emerge as a result of registering in an introductory business
information and communication technologies (ICT) course in a business school of a Canadian university.
We use Friedman‟s (2007) thesis that the “world is flat” to discuss issues of globalization and the role of
ICT. Students registered in the course are familiar with some of the tools we introduce and use in the course.
The students are members of Facebook or MySpace, regularly check YouTube, and use Wikipedia in their
studies. They use these tools to socialize. We broaden the students‟ horizons and explore the potential
business benefits of such tools and empower the students to use Web 2.0 technologies within a business
context.
1 INTRODUCTION
New learning infrastructures have emerged with the
advent of Internet applications in business and
education. As shown in several business curricula,
one way to have an impact on students‟ views of
business practices is an introductory business course
in which many of the different areas of business are
discussed at once. A course of this nature is typically
not designed for depth, but for breadth and for a way
to make sense of how all these areas fit together. The
available infrastructure of an introductory course
seemed an excellent opportunity to support these
goals for the incoming „net gens‟ (Bennett, Maton
and Kervin 2008, Tapscott 1997, Tapscott and
Barnard 2005, Tapscott 2008) who have started to
arrive on campus.
This paper discusses the design of such a course
and the application of Web 2.0 technologies as a
learning infrastructure. Such an infrastructure is a
primordial component of how the students begin
their engagement with their chosen discipline. We
use the course to foster learning on becoming
professionals in their chosen area, i.e. information
systems, accounting, marketing or finance, etc. We
also want to empower students to use these tools to
develop skill that will help them succeed in a global
economy, that Friedman (2007) calls, “Globalization
3.0” –where individuals globalize due to advances in
ICTs.
Empowerment is a discourse that has been used
in training and education since the late 80s (Dede
1987) but has evolved into a major topic of interest
around possibilities arising with the development of
new ICT (Bement 2007, Bennett et al. 2008, Little
and Page 2009, McNamara 2009, OECD 2008,
Pence 2009, Rivoltella 2008, Rosen and Nelson
2008, Sheehy and Bucknall 2008, St. George 2007,
Williams 2007).
The structure of the paper is as follows: In
section 2 we briefly discuss the issue of learning
infrastructure in the age of Web 2.0. This is followed
by section 3 which describes the course in which we
introduced Web 2.0 tools as learning infrastructures.
In section 4, the course design and expected learning
outcomes as well as related tasks/assignments are
described. Section 5 concludes with a discussion of
the learning outcomes as well as our reflection of the
past and speculation on the future. It also identifies
some future research endeavors.
147
Ramirez A., Ji S., Riordan R., Ulbrich F. and J. Hine M. (2010).
EMPOWERING BUSINESS STUDENTS - Using Web 2.0 Tools in the Classroom.
In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Supported Education, pages 147-153
Copyright
c
 SciTePress

2 WEB 2.0 AND LEARNING
INFRASTRUCTURES
Since the introduction of the personal computer,
there have been many advocates working on using
computers to deliver learning materials. There have
also been, of course, people who have critically
commented on the lack of tangible results associated
with the introduction of computers in the classroom.
For instance, one article published by Oppenheimer
(1997), “The Computer Delusion,” sent a strong
message regarding the lack of accountability of
many projects using computers in classrooms in the
US. Also, Katz (1999) argues that today‟s colleges
and universities are faced with an environment in
which information technologies are rapidly
becoming the preferred mode of instruction to a
point that institutions cannot rely on traditional
methods to survive and prosper. Knowledge and
learning assisted by an organizational learning
infrastructure is not only about technology, it is
about culture, policies, processes, procedures, tools,
templates, incentives, etc. These infrastructures
include courses, communities, assessing the current
state of the technology, identifying long-term goals,
establishing metrics, prioritizing short-, medium-,
and long-term goals, and assessing them regularly.
Web 2.0 technologies allow people to converse,
communicate, collaborate and take collective action
as never before (Rosen and Nelson 2008, Shirky
2008). O‟Reilly (2005) conceptualized the Web 2.0
phenomenon as a reaction to the claims that with the
burst of the dot-com bubble, the Web was finished.
The term is used to describe how the World Wide
Web has changed to a collection of technologies that
have encouraged the evolution of communities and
services known as social software – Facebook,
MySpace, Bebo, LinkedIn; video sharing –
YouTube, Metacafe, Revver, Google Video, Yahoo
Video; wikis – Wikipedia; blogs – WordPress,
TypePad, LiveJournal, Blogger; and productivity
software – Zoho, Google Docs, ThinkFree Office,
Writeboard (Kroski 2008). MIT‟s iCampus project,
a recently concluded seven year, $25 million R&D
effort (funded by Microsoft Research) that focused
on building technologies that enable more effective
learning, is a good example of a Web 2.0 learning
infrastructure (Morrison and Long 2009). Users can
access the iCampus portal, observe its design, get
information about accessing material, and download
the open-source courseware. This project is entirely
open source, so you can implement material of your
own using their architecture. And visitors can try it
out; there is material that is publicly accessible.
Anybody can create an account by registering on the
welcome screen.
From a learning perspective, the advent of Web
2.0 has enabled students to use the Internet in a
completely new, participatory way. They can use it
to read about specific topics, but also to write and
contribute, as the barriers to content creation have
become so low. It is through this participation that
students are able to author their own online
experience, allowing them to have group
conversations as part of their learning experience.
Basically the only skill we assume our students have
is how to use a Web browser, and this has been met
without exception.
From a learning assessment perspective, the use
of Web 2.0 tools provides an opportunity for
instructors to observe the way students progress
along the stages of expertise (Dreyfus and Dreyfus
1986). There is a range of proficiency within student
groups. Working together, skills are transferred from
the more to the less skilled, facilitating a slow but
sure increase in proficiency and movement from
novice to advanced beginner and perhaps even along
the scale to competent user. By continually working
within the Web 2.0 learning infrastructure,
individuals will eventually reach the proficient and
expert levels, even though such achievement is
likely beyond the scope of our course.
From a problem solving and decision making
perspective, problem solving using computers has
been a predominant paradigm. Many courses are
dedicated to teaching skills in particular
applications‟ features and functions. Yet it is equally
important to know when to use a tool as it is to know
how when the time comes to solve specific
problems. The framework of problem solving and
decision making introduced along the use of
spreadsheets in a business context offers the
opportunity of presenting both the tool and the type
of problems in which they are used. Spreadsheets are
widely used in businesses. They are not only
powerful calculators, but also powerful tools for the
manipulation and analysis of data for decision
making. Spreadsheets allow discussions on what-if
analysis, financial analyses including rate of return,
amortization, and forecasting, and in converting data
into information. The goal is that students learn
„how to map a problem into a two dimensional
application using columns and rows.‟ They are
encouraged to explore new features and functions to
solve problems and support decisions. Along the
problem solving framework, the importance of
recognizing a problem is encouraged as well as the
analysis of available data to generate a problem
CSEDU 2010 - 2nd International Conference on Computer Supported Education
148

statement that can then be solved using any of the
tools within the application. Students can be exposed
to problems having different degrees of structure and
levels of complexity. The computer becomes a
means to think about problems, solutions and
decisions.
It is within this structure that we want to
empower our students. Empowerment, according to
the Oxford English Dictionary has two meanings.
One is to give authority or power, and the second is
to give strength and confidence. It is the second
interpretation that we reference when discussing the
empowerment of our students. After learning how to
develop skills using Web 2.0 tools, we expect our
students to gain confidence to use them effectively
in their careers.
3 AN INTRODUCTORY COURSE
ON BUSINESS INFORMATION
AND COMMUNICATION
TECHNOLOGIES
The course is a first-year core course in a bachelor
of commerce program in a Canadian university and
is offered in eight sections in a university calendar
year. Total annual enrolment is approximately 560
students (70 students per section on average). We
designed and introduced the course in fall 2008. The
course requires three hours/week of lectures and one
hour/week in a computer lab. Labs are run by
teaching assistants. Students enrolled in this course
are not necessarily novices in the use of Web 2.0
technologies or spreadsheets, but most likely have
not used said technologies in a business setting.
They have been introduced to spreadsheets during
their secondary school years at a very basic level.
Those familiar with Web 2.0 tools are not
necessarily aware that such tools have things in
common or even that they are Web 2.0; students
have used these technologies mostly for personal
tasks. Many have a presence on Facebook or
MySpace, most have watched videos on YouTube, a
few of them blog while others have contributed to a
wiki and all use e-mail regularly.
Our goal was to use the framework of business
problem solving using new computer tools. At the
same time, we wanted to bring in aspects of how
organizations have changed as a result of advances
in information and communication technologies.
One thesis we found relevant and accessible to
incoming students is Friedman‟s (2007) The World
is Flat: A brief history of the Twenty-First Century.
The main theme of the book is that ICT have leveled
the playing field of business world-wide, creating a
new Globalization 3.0 (driven by individuals and
groups) in which our students will have to work
once they have earned their bachelor of commerce
degree.
We introduce the theme using a video of
Friedman addressing MIT students. For this
generation of students, the video is very appealing.
Once they see it, they are willing to invest the time
in reading the book. Students are required to read the
first chapter and then, week by week, they are
required to read each of the ten flatteners that
Friedman (2007) identifies in his book. The ten
flatteners are the new age of creativity, the new age
of connectivity, work flow software, uploading,
outsourcing, offshoring, supply chaining, insourcing,
informing and the „steroids: digital, mobile, personal
and virtual.‟ Along these topics, the impact of ICT in
a globalized world is clearly present, and students
start to see the importance of these technologies and
the need to develop skills using them.
The book is full of examples of companies using
Web 2.0 technologies. Those examples are
introduced as evidence of how the world of business
has been leveled, but at the same time, provide
relevance to the tools themselves, their adoption by
individuals and organizations and the benefits they
present. It is easy to see how those tools can make a
difference between succeeding and failing. Students
see examples of potential role models that they can
emulate.
Friedman (2007) also addresses the issue of
empowerment and education directly in chapter 8.
He says that wealth in the age of flatness will
increasingly gravitate to those countries that: 1) have
the infrastructure to connect as efficiently and
speedily as possible, 2) the right education programs
and knowledge skills to empower more of their
people to innovate and do value-added work, and 3)
the right governance – the right tax policies,
investment and trade laws, support for research,
intellectual property laws, and inspirational
leadership.
The course is designed in three main modules:
Social Software, Microsoft Excel, and Productivity
Software. Each module takes about one fourth of the
term, while the other fourth is dedicated to the
introduction of a framework for problem solving and
decision making as well as Friedman‟s thesis and
how they are relevant to the modules. Students then
are expected to grasp Globalization 3.0, understand
Friedman thesis and develop some skills at different
levels, depending on the module in which they are
EMPOWERING BUSINESS STUDENTS - Using Web 2.0 Tools in the Classroom
149

working. At the same time, there is a “learning by
doing” component in which they learn to manage
their time and the expectations to work on several,
sometimes concurrent, tasks.
4 EXPECTED LEARNING
OUTCOMES
The course includes several tasks/assignments in
which specific learning outcomes are facilitated.
These are tailored differently depending on whether
the outcome is expected to be achieved individually
or as a result of group work.
Assignment 1 and Portfolio: Individual Aspects of
Learning
Students have two tasks that they must complete
individually based on assigned reading material.
Expectations from these tasks are that students
become more versed in the language of Friedman‟s
thesis and Globalization 3.0 and will familiarize
themselves with material describing business
situations that they read using the problem solving
framework. For example, we have used Carr (2008),
Renaud, Ramsey and Hair (2008) and Baker (2009)
in different semesters. These papers discuss issues
regarding society and/or businesses and ICT.
Generally, there is a level of criticism that students
must consider while looking for ways to describe
those issues as problem statements and then to
propose alternative solutions. Once completed, they
upload their documents to the course‟s WebCT site.
Similarly for the Portfolio, which is basically a take-
home mid-term examination, students were required
to discuss their understanding of Friedman‟s thesis
as presented in his introductory chapter, While I was
Sleeping, and a second assigned chapter. Students
present their reflections on the material guided by
specific questions and then write their views on how
the text opens possibilities to understand the world
of business differently. They have up to six weeks to
go through the material at their leisure and submit
their document through WebCT. Students are
provided with rubrics that guide them in preparing
their documents. They know in advance how they
will be evaluated and what our minimum
expectations are. Portfolios capitalize on students‟
natural tendencies to work at their own pace, save
work and meet deadlines without the stress
associated with examinations (Canada 2002).
Portfolios are valued as an assessment tool because
they are very useful in observing advancements
allowing some time for feedback that can be used by
students to better perform in their courses.
Assignment 2: Collaborative Problem-solving using
Web 2.0 Tools
The purpose of this assignment is to provide
students with hands-on experience with Web 2.0
collaborative tools and to provide experience in
working collaboratively in virtual teams. Web 2.0
technologies have the potential to enable and
facilitate collaboration and knowledge sharing
within the organization via corporate intranets as
well as with customers, partners and suppliers in
both internal corporate intranets and on the public
Internet. This fact is one we have tried to emphasize
in the design of the course and in particular in the
design of Assignment 2. Assignment 2 requires
students to work in teams of n, where n represents
the number of sections of the same course being
offered concurrently. At our university, n is either 3
or 4 depending on the semester. Students had four
weeks to complete the assignment. Teams were
created by randomly choosing one student from each
section. Given this is a first year course we were
reasonably assured that students within a team had
no history together. This was important, as we
wanted students to appreciate the challenges of
working in an ad-hoc virtual team where team
members have no previous knowledge of each other.
Students were asked to create introductory YouTube
videos of themselves and embed the video in a
collaboration space so other team members had
access to them. All teams were required to
collaborate to create a unified problem statement
using a wiki. Each team started with each
individual‟s problem statement from Assignment 1.
By extending work from Assignment 1, and given
the reasonably long amount of time to complete the
assignment, students were able to appropriately
reflect on their work and their interactions and
accommodate and assimilate new knowledge into
their existing cognitive schemas.
All teams were required to research and
collaborate to generate several possible solutions to
said problem statement as well as expand on a
chosen single solution. All problem statement and
solution generation was done inside a wiki.
Consistent with constructivist theory, students were
left to make their own inferences, findings and
conclusions through extensive collaboration. The
patterns of interaction and knowledge construction
naturally allowed the structure of the wiki to emerge
(as opposed to dictating a structure for the wiki). In
supporting the single solution, individuals were
CSEDU 2010 - 2nd International Conference on Computer Supported Education
150

required to use external web sources to support their
views. Referenced sites were tracked using social
bookmarking and each team member was required to
tag each bookmark. Furthermore, each team member
was required to set up an RSS feed from the team‟s
wiki so that changes in the wiki were automatically
pushed to the students‟ RSS reader environment. A
criticism of the “learning by doing” approach is that
students (as novices) often do not have sufficiently
well developed cognitive schemas to assimilate and
accommodate newly generated knowledge (Sweller
1998). To alleviate this concern, we ensured that
lectures provided a solid grounding in Web 2.0 tools
and virtual teams, such that the positive impacts of
“learning by doing” could be maximized.
Assignment 3: Communicating using Online Office
Tools
While Assignment 2 focused on collaboration,
Assignment 3 focused on using communication tools
to make weekly stock market picks. This was a
team-based assignment and students were allowed to
pick their own within section team members. The
assignment took place throughout the semester and
had weekly deliverables. Similar to Assignment 2,
the length of the assignment allowed students plenty
of time to reflect and incorporate new knowledge
into their cognitive schemas. Teams were instructed
to research and create a portfolio of stocks traded on
the S&P TSX using the Globe and Mail‟s
GLOBEINVESTOR.COM site. Teams were
required to participate in regularly scheduled
(weekly) strategy meetings regarding the
management of the stock portfolio using email, Web
CT, Instant Messenger, or face to face. All
interaction was required to have an electronic trail.
Teams were required to use a shared spreadsheet
application from Zoho.com to track their stocks
performance throughout the semester. Near the end
of semester, teams produced summary statistics and
charts of the trajectory of the stock portfolio both by
itself and in comparison with the overall
performance of the TSX using Zoho spreadsheet and
chart applications. Teams were required to present
their results to the class using Zoho Show. In
addition, individual students were required to write
about their experiences with the Internet enabled
office tools and make technological
recommendations.
Assignment 4: Using Microsoft Excel to solve
Business Problems
The fourth assignment was designed to enhance
the students‟ problem solving skills. For this
purpose, the assignment was designed to give the
students opportunities to use Microsoft Excel to
solve business problems. In assignment 4, students
were given four separate mini cases. For each mini
case, students were required to identify related
business problems, potential solutions to the
problems, and implement their solutions using
Microsoft Excel. Prior to the due date of the fourth
assignment, students were given the opportunity to
familiarize themselves with basic Excel operations
in the weekly scheduled labs. This included creating
and formatting graphs and charts, basic data
operations, formatting and presentation, etc.
Teaching assistants help the students gain
experience through hands-on exercises in a
computer lab. In addition to the hands-on labs,
instructors taught four modules in class related to
problem-solving concepts and methods using Excel.
In-class material covered statistical analysis,
relational and logical operations, what-if and
sensitivity analysis. In–class, hands-on exercises
were used through class demonstrations and student
engagement (by encouraging all students to bring
their laptop computer to the wireless classrooms).
The first teaching module was designed to allow
students to use formulas, and boolean and logical
functions in the context of the human resources
function. The second module dealt with a business
loan application where students were given the
opportunity to learn and apply Excel financial
functions. The emphasis was on business decision-
making logic and the use of tools to derive the
solutions. Modules three and four dealt with
business data processing, such as data
representation, categorization, reporting, statistics,
and sensitivity/what-if analysis. Students receive
“evaluation/grading” rubrics at the time the
assignments are posted online, so they know exactly
what is expected in each component of the Excel
exercises. All students are required to submit their
assignments online through Web CT before the
deadline.
5 CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION
AND FUTURE RESEARCH
In this paper we have opened a discussion around
whether adopting emerging ICT-based learning
infrastructures in university-level business school
courses empowers students to acquire the necessary
knowledge and skill to survive in a global economy.
We have presented an example showing how ICT-
EMPOWERING BUSINESS STUDENTS - Using Web 2.0 Tools in the Classroom
151

based learning infrastructures can be used to support
different components of learning: individually, and
as part of teams, and virtual teams. It has been
argued that using Web 2.0 tools allows students to
use the Web in a participatory way that enhances
their learning experience. Furthermore, students
developed an understanding of how to use new
Web-based business tools in organizations. Focus
was on collaborative tools for different types of
problem solving so that students could explore
potential business benefits.
Individual, team, and virtual team assignments
were used to develop necessary skills proficiency.
Being able to effectively use Web 2.0 as individuals
as well as in a collaborative setting is important for
the students to survive in a flat world where
globalization and the role of ICT in business are
central (Friedman 2007). It is vital therefore that
students understand Web 2.0 tools to accomplish
business benefits when leaving university and
entering the market. We not only let the students
know about the tools but ensured that they become a
part of the students‟ everyday toolkit.
“Do we practice what we preach?” Going back
to beliefs such as Aristotle‟s (2004) that we learn by
doing, or using empiricism as a learning technique
(Bower and Hilgard, 1981; Gardner, 1987), suggests
that we need to not only tell students how to use
Web 2.0 tools but also use them ourselves. This
requires us to continuously re-evaluate our teaching
practices, which has some practical implications. For
example, when we teach the use of modern ICT in
our courses, we should use ICT in them. It is by far
the best way to empower students because it directly
shows the relevance of learning how to master the
tools.
Practicing what we preach is, however, not
always an easy task. The analytical way that was
introduced by philosophers such as Descartes (1968)
and several rationalists (Audi, 2000; Bourke, 1962;
Lacey, 1996) have dominated scientific learning and
is institutionalized in educational curricula.
Changing such institutionalized practices demands a
lot from the profession, but it is essential to
acknowledge, understand, and incorporate new ICT-
based learning infrastructures in courses. Using ICT-
based learning infrastructures and showing how they
can be beneficial in both education and business is
critical to optimally prepare students for survival in
the global market. By changing the described course,
we have shown how this can be accomplished and
what the expected benefits are for our students.
This course change was a complex undertaking.
It required a long-term commitment and still
requires a longitudinal study to evaluate the course
outcomes. We suggest for future research to follow
up on whether skills are better acquired by the
students based on the newly adopted ITC-based
learning infrastructure. We have received ethical
clearance to request student consent to use their
portfolios to see how the experience has changed
their views of the business world, of globalization,
and on the use of computers to solve business
problems, pursue opportunities or fulfill directives.
We will use a qualitative research technique,
Discourse Analysis (Potter 1996, 1997), to analyze
them in search for ways to understand how the
students are moving along the stages from novice to
expertise (Dreyfus and Dreyfus 1986).
REFERENCES
Aristotle (2004). The Nicomachean Ethics, London, UK:
Penguin Classics.
Audi, Robert (2000). Epistemology: A contemporary
introduction to the Theory of Knowledge, London,
UK: Routledge.
Baker, Stephen (2009). Learning, and Profiting, from
Online Friendship, BusinessWeek, May 21, available
at http://www.businessweek.com/ magazine/content/
09_22/b4133032573293.htm?chan=magazine+channel
_in+depth
Bement, Arden (2007). Cyberinfrastructure: The Second
Revolution, Chronicle of Higher Education, 53, (18),
B5.
Bennett, Sue, Karl Maton and Lisa Kervin (2008). The
“Digital Natives” Debate: A Critical Review of the
Evidence, British Journal of Educational Technology,
39, (5), 775-786.
Bourke, Vernon J. (1962). Rationalism, in D. D. Runes
(ed.) Dictionary of Philosophy, Totowa, NJ:
Littlefield, Adams, and Company.
Bower, Gordon and Ernest Hilgard (1981). Theories of
Learning 5
th
Edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Canada, Mark (2002). Assessing E-Folios in the On-line
Class, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 91,
Fall, 69-75.
Carr, Nicholas (2008). Is Google making us stupid? What
the Internet is doing to our brains, The Atlantic
Monthly, July. Available at http://www.theatlantic.
com/doc/200807/google.
Dede, Christopher (1987). Empowering Environments,
Hypermedia and Microworlds, Computing Teacher,
15, (3), 20-24.
Descartes, Rene (1968). Discourse on the Method and The
Meditations, London, UK: Penguin Classics.
Dreyfus, Hubert and Stuart Dreyfus (1986). Mind over
Machine: The Power of Human Intuition and
Expertise in the Era of the Computer, New York, NY:
The Free Press.
CSEDU 2010 - 2nd International Conference on Computer Supported Education
152

Friedman, Thomas (2007). The World is Flat: A brief
history of the Twenty-First Century, Release 3.0, New
York, NY: Picador.
Gardner, Howard (1987). The Mind‟s New Science: A
History of the Cognitive Revolution, New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Katz, Richard (1999). Dancing with the Devil:
Information Technology and the New Competition in
Higher Education, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Kroski, Ellyssa (2008). Web 2.0 for Librarians and
Information Professionals, Ney York, NY: Neal-
Schuman Publishers, Inc.
Lacey, A. R. (1996). A Dictionary of Philosophy, 3
rd
edition, London, UK: Routledge.
Little, Julie and Carie Page (2009). Charting the Course
and Tapping the Community: The EDUCASE Top
Teaching and Learning Challenges 2009, EDUCASE
Review, 44, (3), 30-45.
McNamara, Billie (2009). The Skill Gap: Will the Future
Workplace Become an Abyss? Techniques:
Connecting Education and Careers, 84, (5), 24-27.
Morrison, James, and Phillip Long (2009). The iCampus
technology-enabled active learning project at MIT: An
interview with Phillip Long. Innovate 5, (4).
http://www.innovateonline.info
/index.php?view=article&id=666 (accessed April 2,
2009).
OECD (2008). Trends Shaping Education 2008 Edition,
Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, Paris, FR: OECD Publishing.
Oppenheimer, Todd (1997). The Computer Delusion, The
Atlantic Monthly; July, 280 (1), 45-62.
O‟Reilly, Tim (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns
and Business Models for the Next Generation of
Software, [available at http://www.oreilly.com
downloaded 2008/06 /23].
Pence, Harry (2009). Are There Badlands Ahead for
Higher Education? Journal of Educational Technology
Systems, 37, (3), 319-325.
Potter, Jonathan (1996). Representing Reality: Discourse,
Rhetoric, and Social Construction, London, UK: Sage
Publications.
Potter, Jonathan (1997). Discourse Analysis as a way of
Analyzing Naturally Occurring Talk, in D. Silverman
(Ed.) Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and
Practice, London, UK: Sage Publications, 144-160.
Rivoltella, Pier Cesare (2008). Digital Literacy: Tools and
Methodologies for Information Society, Hershey, PA:
IRM Press.
Rosen, Dina and Charles Nelson (2008). Web 2.0: A New
Generation of Learners and Education, Computers in
the School, 25, (3/4), 211-225.
Sheehy, Kieron and Sue Bucknall (2008). How is
Technology Seen in Young People‟s Visions of Future
Education Systems?, Learning Media and Technology,
33, (2), 101-114.
Shirky, Clay (2008). Here Comes Everybody: The Power
of Organizing without Organization, New York, NY:
The Penguin Press.
St. George, Art (2007). Imagining Tomorrow‟s Future
Today, EDUCAUSE Review, 42, (6), 106-126.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving:
Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(1), 257-285.
Tapscott, Don (1997). Growing up Digital, New York,
NY : McGraw-Hill.
Tapscott, Don (2008). Grown up Digital: How the Net
Generation is changing your world, New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Tapscott, Don and Robert Barnard (2005). The Net
Generation as a Consumer, Syndicated Research
Project, nGenera, August. Available at
http://www.ngenera.com
Williams, Peter J. (2007). Valid Knowledge: The
Economy and the Academy, Higher Education – The
International Journal of Higher Education and
Educational Planning, 54, (4), 511-523.
EMPOWERING BUSINESS STUDENTS - Using Web 2.0 Tools in the Classroom
153