You are here:

Conducting Action Research with Emerging Web 2.0 Technologies: A Review of the Literature PROCEEDINGS

, University of West Virginia, United States ; , Dionysius Technologies, United States

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-90-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


Abstract: This paper examines recent action research that was conducted using Web 2.0 “Cloud-Computing” technologies to support collaboration and communication opportunities. The spread of web-based technologies has led to questions regarding which tool is most appropriate to support the research design. An analysis of the literature identifies two themes 1) action research projects that have been aided by technology, and 2) action research with technology that supports collaboration. Drawing from this analysis a list of Web 2.0 tools are identified that support action research. What emerging technologies have the potential to enhance action research? Expansion, transparency, and feedback are identified as fruitful intersection points of where future actions research projects could emanate.


Fierstein, M. & Page, G.A. (2011). Conducting Action Research with Emerging Web 2.0 Technologies: A Review of the Literature. In C. Ho & M. Lin (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2011--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1183-1192). Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 22, 2018 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Berger, C.F., Lu, C.R., Belzer, S.J., & Voss, B.E. (1994). Research on the uses of technology in science education. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning (pp. 466-490).
  2. Burkett, E. (2008). A new way of looking? Reflections upon one teacher's experience of supporting learners using handheld computers. Educational Action Research 16(4)481-493.
  3. Calhoun, E.F. (2002). Action research for school improvement. Educational Leadership 59(6), 18-23.
  4. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge, and action research. London: Falmer Press.
  5. Capobianco, B., Lehman, J. (2006). Integrating technology to foster inquiry in an elementary science methods course: An action research study of one teacher educator's initiatives in a PT3 Project. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching. 25(2) 123-146.
  6. Dexter, S.L., Anderson, R.E., & Becker, H.J. (1999). Teachers' views of computers as catalysts for changes in their teaching practice. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31, 221-238.
  7. Foth, M. (2006). Network action research. Action Research, 4(2), 205-226.
  8. Hendricks, C. (2009). Improving schools through action research: A comprehensive guide for educators. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Pearson.
  9. Laurillard, D. (2008). The teacher as action researcher: Using technology to capture pedagogic form. Studies in Higher Education, 33(2) 139-154.
  10. Leh, A. (2002). Action research on the changing roles of the instructors and the learners. TechTrends, 46 (5) 44-47.
  11. Lim, H.L., & Sudweeks, F. (2009). Constructivism and online collaborative group learning in higher education. In C. Payne (Ed.) pp. 231-246 Information technology and constructivism in higher education:
  12. Moore, D.E., Niebler, S.E., Schlundt, D.G., & Pichert, J.W. (2007). A conceptual model for using action inquiry technologies to address disparities in depression. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 1(27), 55-64.
  13. Moreillon, J., Tartarchuck, B. (2003). Digital discussions: "La Esperanza" in the shared virtual classroom. Reading Online, (6)10.
  14. O’Reilly, T. (2005). Web 2.0 Presentation available at:
  15. Page, G.A., & Ali, R. (2009). The power and promise of Web 2.0 tools. In C. Payne (Ed.) Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks. Hershey, PA: IGI.
  16. Pederson, J.E., & Yerrick, R.K. (2000). Technology in science teacher education: Survey of current uses and desired knowledge among science educators. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 11(2), 131-153.
  17. Peterson-Bishop, A., & Bruce, B. (2005). Community informatics: Integrating action, research and learning. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science& Technology,31(6) 6-10.
  18. Royer, R. (2002). Supporting technology integration through action research. The ClearingHouse. 75(5). 233-238.
  19. Singh, J.P. (2008). Paulo Freire: Possibilities for dialogic communication in a market-driven information age. Information, Communication& Society,11(5). 699-726.
  20. Strong-Wilson, T. (2008). Changing literacies, changing formations: The role of elicitation in teacher action research with new technologies. Teachers& Teaching, 14(5/6). 447-463.
  21. Swinglehurst, D., Russell, J., & Greenhalgh, T. (2008). Peer observation of teaching in the online environment: An action research approach. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(5). 383-393.
  22. Tobolka, D. (2006). Connecting teachers and parents through the internet. [Electronic Version] Tech Directions, 66(5). 24-26.
  23. Welch, G.F., Howard, D.M., Himonides, E., Brereton, J. (2005). Real-time feedback in the singing studio: An innovatory action-research project using new voice technology. Music Education Research, 7(2). 225249.
  24. Zandt, D. (2009). How social tech fuels Iran's election revolution social change– Iran. Retrieved July 7 from http://DeannaZandt

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact