Seite - 249 - in Intelligent Environments 2019 - Workshop Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Intelligent Environments

2. Review Method and Sources To report on the most recent trends in Web 2.0 research, we used the search terms “social media,” “LMS,” and “higher education,” locating over 800 peer-reviewed articles published between 2016 and 2019. We considered articles up to five years old but focused on a constricted timeframe as there are several literature reviews on Web 2.0 tools and sites published in recent years. Our aim is to build on these reviews and report the latest developments. A continuous effort to examine ongoing research is particularly important for Web 2.0 tools that can change rapidly. For example, past potential issues related to constructs such as Ease of Use may lack relevance today. 3. Recent Trends in Web 2.0 Research As Hashim and colleagues discovered, the extent of Web 2.0 tool and LMS integration in higher education is expanding across the globe, platforms, and instructional contexts [1]. This section will cover some of these trends and a discussion of customized integrations, such as the initiative to build personalized learning environments (PLE). 3.1 Platforms Studied While Web 2.0 tools include a variety of user-generated websites and user-centered platforms, such as social networking sites, blogs, wikis, video streaming sites, and the widely used WeChat, most studies we found focused on Facebook or Twitter [1][2]. We also examined locality-specific platforms [2], and implementations using multiple platforms, such as the ones noted by Moreira, Mesquita, and Peres [6]. Seventy percent of the studies reviewed in the Hashim and colleagues study [1] focused on specific platforms, while the remainder focused on social media tools in general. 3.2 Academic Disciplines and Course Contexts The variety of disciplines incorporating Web 2.0 tools is increasing as well. Courses in medicine [7], law [8], natural sciences such as physics [9], business and professional development [10], teacher education [11] and others represent the diversity of academic disciplines exploring Web 2.0 platform use in classrooms among students and instructors. These platforms are studied and used in a variety of course contexts, including face-to-face courses [12], distance education [4], massive open online courses (MOOCs) [13][14], and hybrid online and face-to-face courses [15]. 3.3 Personalized Learning Environments (PLEs) Personalized learning environments (PLEs) are Web 2.0 environments that allow learners to self-manage their learning [15][16]. Moreira and colleagues [6] suggested a customized x-learning environment (CxLE) that links students to each other, their instructors, community members (e.g., potential employers) and resources in an LMS- Web 2.0 integration. Their work aligns with findings from a 2016 study carried out by Josefsson and colleagues [17]. They found that students compartmentalize their use of social media according to personal, professional, and educational purposes. Thus, the CxLE suggested in [6] may rectify the disconnection. Similarly, the review by Zachos and associates [2] reported on personalized learning networks (PLNs) linking learners E.Damianoetal. /Bridging theDivide: TheCurrentStatusofWeb2.0 inHigherEducation 249