Students’ Inquiry Learning in the Web 2.0 Age

  • Jacky W. C. Pow
  • Sandy C. Li
  • Alex C. W. Fung
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP – The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 292)


The information proliferation in the Web 2.0 age has led to several emerging issues, namely, the authenticity of information, disorientation, and information searching and citation issues in the academic field. Students often find themselves in a difficult situation when they are doing Web-based inquiry learning when the usefulness and truthfulness of the Web information are doubtful. Based on the study of pre-reading activity and Web searching behaviour of Lawless, Schrader, and Mayall (2007), and the Web information evaluation work of Eagleton and Dobler (2007), this paper proposes a guiding framework to help students determine the usefulness and truthfulness of information in their inquiry process. This framework also provides guidance on how to store and cite Web 2.0 information. However, the effectiveness of the guiding framework has not been empirically tested and further study regarding its applicability is called upon.


Web 2.0 Inquiry Learning guidance framework 


  1. Alberta Learning (2004) Focus on inquiry, Alberta, Canada: the Minister of Learning.Google Scholar
  2. APA Style (2007) Electronic Media and URLs, APA Style Guide to Electronic References. Retrieved 2 Feb 2008, from
  3. British Computer Society (2007) The Web: Looking back, looking forward. Retrieved 3 June 2007, from WebDoc.10773
  4. Cafolla, R. (2006) Project MERLOT: Bringing Peer Review to Web-Based Educational Resources. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(2), p. 313–323.Google Scholar
  5. Eagleton, M.B. and Dobler, E. (2007) Reading the Web. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  6. Edmonds, R. (2006) Up from the grassroots. E.learning Age, October, p.14–16.Google Scholar
  7. Hmelo-Silver, C.E. (2006). Design principles for scaffolding technology-based inquiry. In A. M. O’Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.) Collaborative reasoning, learning and technology (pp. 147–170). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Hmelo-Silver, C.E., Duncan, R.G. and Chinn, C.A. (2007) Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), p. 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lawless, K.A., Schrader, P.G., and Mayall, H.J. (2007) Acquisition of Information Online: Knowledge, Navigation and Learning Outcomes, Journal of Literacy Research. 39(3), p. 289–306.Google Scholar
  10. The New Media Consortium and the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (2008) The Horizon Report 2008 Edition. CA: Author.Google Scholar
  11. O’Reilly, T (2005) What Is Web 2.0? O’Reilly. Retrieved 25 December 2007, from
  12. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R.G., (2004) A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol.13, p. 337–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Richardson, W. (2006) Blogs, WiKis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  14. Sandars, J. (2006) Twelve tips for using blogs and wikis in medical education. Medical Teacher. Vol. 28, Iss. 8; p. 680–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Skul, D. (2008) Web 2.0 – Advertising Advantages. Article Alley. Retrieved 30 Jan 2008, from
  16. Wikipedia: Verifiability, Retrieved 8 December 2007 from,

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacky W. C. Pow
    • 1
  • Sandy C. Li
    • 1
  • Alex C. W. Fung
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Education StudiesHong Kong Baptist UniversityHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations