American Journal of Information Science and Technology

Submit a Manuscript

Publishing with us to make your research visible to the widest possible audience.

Propose a Special Issue

Building a community of authors and readers to discuss the latest research and develop new ideas.

Perceived Usefulness of Web 2.0 Tools for Knowledge Management by University Undergraduate Students: A Review of Literature

This is a review of the extant literature on the types of the Web 2.0 tools available, their use and perceived usefulness by university undergraduate students for knowledge acquisition, construction and management. Some past works revealed that students found the Web 2.0 tools useful for knowledge construction and sharing and that the gainful use of the tools should be encouraged by stakeholders. The main objective of this work is to educate university undergraduate students on the great learning and knowledge management possibilities offer by the Web 2.0 tools and to inform lecturers of the need to consider and enquire into their students’ acceptance and perception of usefulness (or otherwise) of these educational tools before integrating them into teaching and learning processes in so much that students will make an optimal and gainful use of them and hence prevent undue resistance to use from them. The authors concluded by making recommendations on how the students and lecturers could be motivated to make more academic use of Web 2.0 tools for veritable learning and teaching outcomes and a furthered perceived usefulness of the tools. It was also suggested that governments and stakeholders should encourage the lawmakers to legislate functional educational technology policies, provide adequate funding (which is always a constraint in developing countries) to procure modern, state of the art ICT infrastructure through which sustainable access to a wider range of the Web 2.0 tools is given and seasonal training of teachers and students in the educational use of Web 2.0 tools and other relevant technologies is promised. Adequate electrical power backup should also be assured so as to successfully, gainfully and sustainably use the Web 2.0 tools for knowledge creation, sharing and management.

Web 2.0 Tools, Perceived Usefulness, University Undergraduate Students, Knowledge Sharing, Knowledge Management

Mercy T. Adewoye, Taiwo Adetoun Akinde. (2023). Perceived Usefulness of Web 2.0 Tools for Knowledge Management by University Undergraduate Students: A Review of Literature. American Journal of Information Science and Technology, 7(3), 101-109.

Copyright © 2023 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License ( which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1. Adams, D. C. (2008). Gaga for Google in the twenty-first century advanced placement language classroom. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, 82 (2): 96-100.
2. Ajjan, H. and Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 11 (2): 71–80.
3. Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning. Educause Review, 41 (2): 32–44. Available at:
4. An, Y. J. and Williams, K. (2010). Teaching with Web 2.0 technologies: Benefits, barriers and lessons learned. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 73: 41-48.
5. Anderson, P. (2007). “What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education” [online], Bristo Joint Information Systems Committee, Retrieved 10 August, 2015 from tsw0701b.
6. Boulos, M., Maramba, I. and Wheeler, S. (2006). Wikis, blogs and podcasts: A new generation of web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and education. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 107 (4): 553−555.
7. Bryant, T. (2006). Social software in academia. Educause Quarterly, 2: 61–64. Retrieve 28 November, 2014 from
8. Burkšaitienė, N. and Selevičienė, E. (2015). University students’ attitudes towards the usage of Web 2.0 tools for learning ESP: A preliminary investigation. Socialinių Mokslų Studijos Societal Studies, 7 (2): 270–291.
9. Chandra, V. and Chalmers, C. (2010). Blogs, wikis and podcasts: Collaborative knowledge building tools in a design and technology course. Journal of Learning Design, 3 (2): 35-49.
10. Chauhan, S. and Jaiswal, M. (2016). Determinants of acceptance of ERP software training in business schools: Empirical investigation using UTAUT model. The International Journal of Management Education, 143: 248-262.
11. Chinnery, G. M. (2006). Emerging technologies – Going to the MALL: Mobile Assisted Language Learning”, Language Learning and Technology, 10 (1): 9-16.
12. Cochrane, T. (2006). Learning with wireless mobile devices and social software. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ASCILITE Conference: Who’s learning? Whose technology? (143-146). Sydney, Australia: The University of Sydney.
13. Dabbagh, N. and Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal learning environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15 (1): 3–8.
14. Davis, B. G. (2009). Tools for teaching (2nd ed). New Delhi: Wiley Publication (181-189).
15. Devereaux, M. (2007). The Web 2.0 visual glossary. Technology & Learning, 27 (11): 40-44.
16. Downes, S. (2005). E-learning 2.0. eLearn Magazine. Retrieved 28 November, 2014 from
17. Duke University (2006). Duke digital initiative. Available:
18. Ebersbach, A., Glaser, M., Heigl, R. and Warta, A. (2008). Wiki: Web collaboration (2nd ed.). Springer-Verlag: Germany.
19. Elgort, I., Smith, A. G. and Toland, J. (2008). Is wiki an effective platform for group coursework? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24 (2): 195-210.
20. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C. and Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook "friends": Social capital and college students' use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12 (4): 1. Available at
21. Eriksson, K., Kerem, K. and Nilsson, D. (2005). Customer acceptance of Internet banking in Estonia, Int. J. Bank Mark, 23 (2): 200-216.
22. Farmer, B., Yue, A. and Brooks, C. (2008). Using blogging for higher order learning in large cohort university teaching: A case study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24 (2): 123-136.
23. Franklin, T. and van Harmelen, M. (2007). Web 2.0 for content for learning and teaching in higher education. London: Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). Available at:
24. Gibbons, S. (2007). Web 2.0 in the academic library and the net gen student: Making the connections (43-57). Chicago: American Library Association.
25. Groff, J. and Haas, J. (2008). Web 2.0: Today’s technologies, tomorrow learning. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36 (2): 12-15.
26. Guriting, P. and Ndubisi, N. O. (2006). Borneo online banking: Evaluating customer perceptions and behavioral intention. Management Research News, 29 (1/2): 6-15.
27. Hemmi, A., Bayne, S. and Land, R. (2009). The appropriation and repurposing of social technologies in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25: 19–30.
28. Hernandez, A. A. (2017). Green IT Adoption Practices in Education Sector: A Developing Country Perspective. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 9 (3), 1–16. doi: 10.4018/IJSKD.2017070101
29. Hussein, A. S., Rosita, N. H. and Ayuni, R. F. (2019). Knowledge Management Orientation Behaviour and Innovation: A Lesson from Indonesia Creative Economy Sector. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 11 (1): 17–28. doi: 10.4018/IJSKD.2019010102
30. Jaruwachirathanakul, B. and Fink, D. (2005). Internet banking adoption strategies for a developing country: the case of Thailand. Internet Research, 15 (3): 295-311.
31. Jonassen, D.; Howland, J.; Marra, R. M. and Crismond, D. (2008). Meaningful learning with technology (3rd ed.). Columbus, Ohio: Pearson Education.
32. Jucevičienė, P. and Valinevičienė, G. (2010). A conceptual model of social networking in higher education. Electronics and Electrical Engineering – Kaunas Technology, 102 (6): 55–58.
33. Jung, I. and Lee, J. (2020). A cross-cultural approach to the adoption of open educational resources in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 511: 263-280.
34. Kane, G. C. and Fichman, R. G. (2009). The shoemaker’s children: Using wikis for information systems teaching, research and publication. MIS Quarterly, 33 (1): 1-17.
35. Ke C, Sun H. and Yang, Y. (2012). Effects of user and system characteristics on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use for the web-based Classroom Response System. TOJET: The Turkish Online J. Educ. Technol., 11 (3): 128-136.
36. Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Gray, K., Judd, T., Waycott, J., Bennett, S. J., Maton, K. A., Krause, K., Bishop, A., Chang, R. and Churchwood, A. (2007). The Net generation are not big users of Web 2.0 technologies: Preliminary findings. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, S. Soong & C. Cheers (Eds.). Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (517-525). Singapore: Nanyang Technology University.
37. Laforet, S. and Li, X. (2005). Consumers’ attitudes towards online and mobile banking in China. Int. J. Bank Mark, 23 (5): 362-380.
38. Lee, M. J. W., Miller, C. and Newnham, L. (2008). RSS and content syndication in higher education: Subscribing to a new model of teaching and learning. Educational Media International, 45 (4): 311-322.
39. Liao Z. and Cheung, M. T (2002). Internet-based e-banking and consumer attitudes: An empirical study. Info. Manage., 39 (4): 283-295.
40. Martins, M.; Farias, J. S.; Albuquerque, P. H. M. and Pereira, D. S. (2018). Adoption of Technology for Reading Purposes: A Study of E-Books Acceptance. Brazilian Business Review, (November).
41. McLester, S. (2007). Web 2.0 for educators. Technology & Learning, 27 (9): 1-9.
42. Mcloughlin, C. and Lee, M. J. W. (2011). Pedagogy 2.0: Critical challenges and responses to Web 2.0 and social software In: Tertiary teaching, Web 2.0-based e-learning: applying social informatics for tertiary teaching. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference (Pp. 43-69).
43. McLoughlin, M. and Lee, J. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. In: ICT: Providing Choices for Learners and Learning. Proceedings of Ascilite, Singapore (664-675).
44. Miller, D. B. (2006). Podcasting at the University of Connecticut: Enhancing the educational experience. Campus Technology. Available at:
45. O’Reilly, T. (2005). Web 2.0: Compact definition? Retrieved 1 August, 2005 from web-20-compact-definition.html
46. Olasina, G. (2011). The Use of Web 2.0 tools and social networking sites by librarians, information professionals and other professionals in workplaces in Nigeria. Available online at:
47. Page, G. A. and Ali, R. (2009). The power and promise of Web 2.0 tools In C. R. Payn (Ed.), Information technology and constructivism in higher education: Progressive learning frameworks (146-158). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
48. Parker, K. R. and Chao, J. T. (2007). Wiki as a teaching tool. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3: 57-72.
49. Polatoglu, V. N. and Ekin, S. (2001). An empirical investigation of the Turkish consumers' acceptance of Internet banking services. International J. Bank Mark, 19 (4): 156-165.
50. Redecker, C. (2009). Review of Learning 2.0 practices. Study on the Impact of Web 2.0: Innovations on Education and Training in Europe. Available online at
51. Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts and other powerful web tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
52. Shen D., Laffey J., Lin Y., Huang X. (2006). Social influence of perceived usefulness and ease-of-use of course delivery systems. J. Interact. Online Learn, 5 (3): 270-282.
53. Silius, K., Miilumäki, T., Sairanen, H., Huhtamäki, J., Liukkonen, A. and Pohjolainen, S. (2009). Students’ motivations for social media enhanced studying and learning. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 2 (1): 51-67.
54. Solomon, G. and Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tools, new schools. Washington, D. C.: International Society for Technology in Education.
55. Tarhini, A. (2015). Towards the acceptance of RSS to support learning: An empirical study to validate the Technology Acceptance Model in Lebanon. The Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 13 (1): 30-41. Retrieved 24-08-2018 from
56. Tautkevičienė, G. and Dubosas, M. (2014). The purposes of students’ use of Web 2.0 tools for learning at the university. Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences, 5 (12): 962 – 967.
57. Thompson, J. (2007). Is education 1.0 ready for Web 2.0 students? Innovate 3 (4). Retrieved March 10, 2011, from df
58. Valtonen, S., Hacklin, S., Kontkanen, A., Hartikainen-Ahia, S., Kärkkäinen, S. and Kukkonen, J. (2013). Pre-service teachers’ experiences of using social software applications for collaborative inquiry. Computers and Education, 69: 85 - 95.
59. Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Qi Dong, J., Fabian, N. and Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122: 889-901.
60. Woodward, J. (2007). Podcasts to support workshops in Chemistry. Available
61. Xia, Y. and Shama, P. (2010). The effect of peer-interaction styles in team blogging on students’ cognitive thinking and blog participation. Journal of Educational Computing, 42 (4): 459-479.
62. Yu-Li, C. (2014). A study on student self-efficacy and Technology Acceptance Model within an online task-based learning environment. Journal of Computers, 9. 1: 34-43. Retrieved 24-08-2016 from