International journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN:2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 5, Issue 3 (March 2018), Pages: 82-88

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

 Title: Web 2.0 applications usage: A comparative study between Erbil and Istanbul

 Author(s): Hala Najwan Sabeh 1, 2, *, Ahmad Suhaimi Baharudin 1, Rosni Abdullah 1, 3

 Affiliation(s):

 1School of Computer Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Penang, Malaysia
 2Department of Marketing, Lebanese French University, Erbil, Iraq
 3National Advanced IPv6 Centre (NAv6), Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), 11800 Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2018.03.012

 Full Text - PDF          XML

 Abstract:

The global usage of Web 2.0 applications is increasing daily. Due to the rapid advancement of the digital revolution, the Web 2.0 applications are currently becoming an essential in our personal and professional lives because of the digital revolution. Most of these applications have user-friendly interfaces that encourage users to become socially active. Therefore, as to gain more understanding of this phenomenon, this research was constructed with the aims to investigate the Internet usage habits in Erbil City, to determine the preferred Web 2.0 applications and compare the results of this research with that of past research done in Istanbul (Turkey). The required data were collected through a survey of close-ended questions. The researchers employed the convenient sampling method in the collection of the data in Erbil city, which summed up to a total of 450 samples. These data were then analyzed and described using SPSS software version 22.0. During the analysis of the data, the frequency and percentage methods were utilized. As a result, it was discovered that Facebook is the most popular Web 2.0 application in both Erbil and Istanbul. However, the findings also show significant differences in the usage of Web 2.0 applications in terms of gender, age, and education level in Erbil. 

 © 2018 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Web 2.0 applications, Facebook, Social networks, Erbil, Istanbul

 Article History: Received 8 July 2017, Received in revised form 5 January 2018, Accepted 10 January 2018

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2018.03.012

 Citation:

  Sabeh HN, Baharudin AS, and Abdullah R (2018). Web 2.0 applications usage: A comparative study between Erbil and Istanbul. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 5(3): 82-88

 Permanent Link:

 http://www.science-gate.com/IJAAS/2018/V5I3/Sabeh.html

----------------------------------------------

 References (31)

  1. Alexander B (2006). Web 2.0 a new wave of innovation for teaching and learning. Educause Review, 41(2): 32–44. 
  2. Alexander B and Levine A (2008). Web 2.0 storytelling: Emergence of a new genre. Educause Review, 43(6): 40–56.     
  3. Alonso S, Pérez IJ, Cabrerizo FJ, and Herrera-viedma E (2013). A linguistic consensus model for Web 2.0 communities. Applied Soft Computing Journal, 13(1): 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2012.08.009 
  4. Azab NA (2012). Cases on Web 2.0 in developing countries: Studies on implementation, application, and use: Studies on implementation, application, and use. IGI Global, Hershey, USA.     
  5. Boyd D and Ellison NB (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 13(1): 210-230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x 
  6. Chen S, Yen DC, and Hwang MI (2012). Factors influencing the continuance intention to the usage of Web 2.0 : An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3): 933–941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.12.014 
  7. Constantinides E and Fountain SJ (2008). Web 2.0: Conceptual foundations and marketing issues. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 9(3): 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.dddmp.4350098 
  8. Duncan I, Yarwood-Ross L, and Haigh C (2013). Nurse education today Youtube as a source of clinical skills education. Nurse Education Today, 33(12): 1576–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.12.013  PMid:23332710 
  9. Gardner J (2008). Blogs, wikis and official statistics: New perspectives on the use of Web 2.0 by statistical offices. Statistical Journal of the IAOS, 25(3-4): 81–92.     
  10. Grosseck G (2009). To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher education?. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1): 478–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.087 
  11. Grosseck G and Holotescu C (2008). Can we use Twitter for educational activities. In the 4th International Scientific Conference, eLearning and Software for Education, Bucharest, Romania: 1-8.     
  12. Hao Y and Lee KS (2015). Teachers' concern about integrating Web 2.0 technologies and its relationship with teacher characteristics. Computers in Human Behavior, 48: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.028 
  13. Khan ML (2017). Social media engagement : What motivates user participation and consumption on YouTube ?. Computers in Human Behavior, 66: 236–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.024 
  14. Khatoon S (2016). A conceptual framework for effective organizational adoption of social technologies. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 3(9): 78–89. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2016.09.012 
  15. Kim DH, Seely NK, and Jung J (2017). Do you prefer, Pinterest or Instagram ? The role of image-sharing SNSs and self-monitoring in enhancing ad effectiveness. Computers in Human Behavior, 70: 535–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.022 
  16. Kuyucu M (2016). The social media generation : social media use in Turkey in the sample of Istanbul. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 21(2): 84–98.     
  17. Levy M (2009). WEB 2.0 implications on knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1): 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270910931215 
  18. Lucky RW (2009). To twitter or not to twitter? [Reflections]. IEEE Spectrum, 46(1): 22–22. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSPEC.2009.4734303 
  19. Mansor AZ (2012). Google docs as a collaborating tool for academicians. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59: 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.295 
  20. Mazman SG and Usluel YK (2010). Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Computers and Education, 55(2): 444–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.008 
  21. O'Reilly T (2005). What Is Web 2.0 : Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Available online at: http://www.oreillynet.com     
  22. O'Reilly T (2007). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generations software, September 2005. Available online at: http://www.oreillynet.com     
  23. Penni J (2017). The future of online social networks (OSN): A measurement analysis using social media tools and application. Telematics and Informatics, 34(5): 498–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.10.009 
  24. Ross C, Orr ES, Sisic M, Arseneault JM, Simmering MG, and Orr RR (2009). Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2): 578–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.024 
  25. Sadaf A, Newby T, and Ertmer P (2016). An investigation of the factors that influence preservice teachers' intentions and integration of Web 2.0 tools. Education Technology Research Development, 64(1): 37–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9410-9 
  26. Salomon D (2013). Moving on from Facebook using Instagram to connect with undergraduates and engage in teaching and learning. College and Research Libraries News, 74(8): 408–412. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.74.8.8991 
  27. Selwyn N (2012). Social media in higher education. Routledge, London, UK. PMCid:PMC4940059     
  28. Thompson J (2007). Is education 1.0 ready for Web 2.0 students?. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 3(4): 1-8.     
  29. Usman SH and Oyefolahan IO (2014). Encouraging knowledge sharing using Web 2.0 technologies in higher education: A survey. International Journal of Managing Information Technology (IJMIT), 6(2): 19–28. https://doi.org/10.5121/ijmit.2014.6202 
  30. Virkus S (2008). Use of Web 2.0 technologies in LIS education: Experiences at Tallinn University, Estonia. Program, 42(3): 262–274.     
  31. Yoo SJ and Kim S (2013). How and why college students use Web 2.0 applications: the role of social media in formal and informal learning. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 9(2): 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJWBC.2013.053242