Anda di halaman 1dari 10

Sarah Paterson

Collin Sutherland
John Bunker
Dylan Dyer

Web 2.0 Technologies in Education

Introduction

The situation presented in the cartoon above is, unfortunately, not far from reality. Today,
students are constantly immersed with new technology that has the ability to “enthrall” them in
experiences that they will never forget. Learners of all ages are using different forms of
technology outside of the classroom that has raised their expectations of how information is
presented inside the classroom. However, thousands of teachers across the country are faced
with the daunting challenge of effectively integrating new and innovative technologies into the
learning environment in order to engage their students.

Throughout the last century, the question of whether or not innovative technology contributes
positively to the educational experience has been at the center of the educational world. In
1922, Thomas Edison declared that, "I believe the motion picture is destined to revolutionize our
educational system and that in a few years it will supplant largely, if not entirely, the use of
textbooks" (Monke, 2004). In the 21st century, this doesn't appear to be the case. However,
what is certain is that the 21st century has provided a wide variety of different technologies that
possess educational potential which greatly surpasses the power of motion pictures and the
television. Presently, one of the greatest technologies available for use in the classroom are
course management systems (CMS) and Web 2.0 tools.
History and Development
Prior to the 21st Century were a few notable successes in online learning. The rapid evolution of
the World Wide Web and the developments of online learning were to some degree hand in
hand, though the scope and sequence of online learning was far behind the curve of the

World Wide Web (Sclater, 2008). Online learning found its roots in the concept of distance
education (Morabito, 1999). Interestingly, the idea of online learning came about before even
the most basic conception of the World Wide Web. During the 1960's, one of the first notable
learning systems, a computer-based learning program called PLATO, was developed at the
University of Illinois. Though initially developed for single computer access, PLATO eventually
allowed multiple user access and in 1976 provided one of the first online messaging communities
(Wooley, 1994). From its conception in 1960 to its shut down in 2006, PLATO established key
online concepts such as forums, message boards, online testing, e-mail, chat rooms, picture
languages, instant messaging, remote screen sharing, and multi-player games (Culatta, 2009).

A few other notables in the history of online learning environments and course managment
systems are CALCampus.com, Blackboard, Moodle, and Sakai. Similar to PLATO,
CALCampus.com originated from an offline, computer-based program for individual learners.
The computer-based program was further developed from 1985-1995 for courses on private
networks. Then, as the internet became more widely available to consumers in 1995,
CALCampus.com was created and classes were made available to the general public. What made
CALCampus.com unique was its innovation in being the first to develop and implement the
concept of a totally online-based school which incorporated real-time classroom instruction, all
materials, and administration (Morabito, 2009).

While PLATO and CALCampus. com were created specifically for higher education and adult
learners, Blackboard and Moodle stand out because each has heavily emphasized roles in K-12
education as well as higher education (Blackboard, 2009) (Moodle, 2009). Like
CALCampus.com, both Moodle and Blackboard are course management systems that provides
the infrastructure for a totally online-based school. However, Moodle, unlike Blackboard, is free
of any licensing costs and schools have found it to be significantly less to use than Blackboard
even when including hosting fees and the costs of managing their Moodle sites.

Both Blackboard and Moodle rode the Web 2.0 wave at the turn of the century and were among
the most popular and most well-known course management systems. However, as the shift from
Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 created fundamental differences in the way the internet was used (O'Reilly,
2005), course management systems were not quick to follow suit (Sclater, 2008). As a result,
there has been a disconnect between the services provided by course management systems and
the way the internet is used by students (Sclater, 2008).

"Like the web itself, the early promise of e-learning - that of empowerment - has not been
fully realized. The experience of e-learning for many has been no more than a hand-out
published online, coupled with a simple multiple-choice quiz. Hardly inspiring, let alone
empowering. But by using these new web services, e-learning has the potential to become
far more personal, social and flexible" (O'Hear, 2006).
Most course management systems have been used by teachers to simply provide a "digital
facelift" for their classrooms (Campbell, 2009); being teacher-centered, providing limited
student-led interactions, and suggesting the continued disempowerment of students in the
learning (Sclater, 2008). Based upon what Web 2.0 tools have to offer to education, the lacking
of most course management systems has sparked many discussions of the future of course
management systems. These conversations have centered around the concept of a "shared
learning environment" or a personal learning environments (PLE) (Sclater, 2008). The three
camps situated around the concept of the PLE promote client software that can mediate between
the learner and the resources on the web, initiatives such as Elgg that do not require client
software but enable participation through a web browser, and lastly the initiative of learners to
facilitate and customize personal use of a variety of online services (Sclater, 2008). Though a
conclusion has not been reached, the development of initiatives such as Elgg, Google Wave,
Sakai, Dolphin and others show a trend towards the concept of shared learning environments that
encourage and improve student interactions and making learning environments more student-
centered. 

"Shared Learning Environment"


The term "Web 2.0" is used to describe open
source applications that faciliate collaboration and
information-sharing. These services provide rapid
deployment and can be edited in real time by
anyone with access. Materials can be published
and pushed to subscribers in minutes as well as
downloaded to portable players creating learning
experiences anytime and anywhere. The “virtual
learning environment” has transformed into a
“shared learning environment.” Blogs, wikis,
social bookmarking, podcasts, and RSS feeds
have altered the way students receive knowledge,
communicate, and learn allowing for greater
student independence, autonomy, and
collaboration as well as increased pedagogic efficiency. Web 2.0 applications enable project-
based opportunities for students to share their ideas and creations with other disciplines, teachers,
and the external learning community. Continuous access to new knowledge and skills
promotes a deepen level of engagement in learning without the requirement of a higher level of
technology (Kamel Boulos, 2006).

Web 2.0 Uses in Education

"If access to higher education is a necessary element in expanding economic prosperity and
improving the quality of life, then we need to address the problem of the growing global demand
for education (Seely Brown, 2008).”
Open source applications provides
the necessary access to education
required to prepare students for
post-secondary education and
careers. Wikis enable
collaborative content creation and
peer assessments of simple
instructional websites providing a deeper understanding of the subject matter (Franklin, 2007).
Wikis create a learning environment that engenders progressive problem-solving and group
authoring. Students can track a group project, review classes and teachers, track progress in your
research topic, work in real time, collect data with ease, provide direct links to authorship, and
make feedback public and potentially durable. Through the use of wikis, work is displayed in
real time, technology becomes text-based, and direct links connect the reader to the original
public document (Kamel Boulos, 2006). Wikis promote negotiation and explain complex issues
through verbose technical writing also known as "digital literacy (Greenhow, 2009)."

Blogs are another form of Web 2.0 tools being used for education purposes (Podcasts, 2009).
Blogs provide an avenue for networking, personal knowledge sharing, instructional tips for
students, direct links to course
announcements and readings, annotated
links, and knowledge management for
educators. Students have the opportunity to
create reflective writing journals, knowledge
management, assignment submission and
review in real time, dialogue to group work,
e-portfolios, and share course-related
resources (Kamel Boulos, 2006).

The Web 2.0 learning environment is not complete


without the mention of podcasts. A podcast is a series
of digital media files (either audio or video) that are
released episodically and downloaded through web
syndication. They provide a way for students to create
and share powerful media for little to no cost. Podcasts
should be short and to the point. Students do other tasks
while listening. Notes are usually not taken during a
podcast. The act of taking notes enables active listening
and learning for many individuals. Podcasts work well
for auditory learners (Kamel Boulos, 2006).
Risks

As Web 2.0 learning environments progress, concerns regarding effects on literacy, the accuracy
of web resources, and the synthesizing of definitions evolve. K-12 teachers question if this
learning format allows for memorizing. Wikis require trust of the author, volunteer collaboration,
user buy-in, and may be a challenge for users that lack time and resources. Wikis are not
managed by a set of rules or guidelines and do not ensure critical thinking of a subject matter.
Premature judgement due to lack of verbal discussions can emerge (Franklin, 2007).

Parental knowledge of the technology is generally low, and this leads to less engagement of the
parents in monitoring its use for both personal and educational purposes. It is important to
engage these parents and provide them with the information they need to know. This can help
prevent fall out from arguments and postings which often leads to cyber bullying (Shariff, 2008).
The statistics of cyber bullying show its significance in today's learning. According to iSAFE,
58% of kids admit someone has said mean or hurtful things to them online, and 40% of these
had it happen more than once (i-SAFE, 2009). This makes teaching the students how to maintain
a separation of personal and school life incredibly important, as well as informing parents about
these possible risks. Teachers must also maintain control of all postings with careful monitoring
for these types of behaviors.

With this in mind, planning and structure play a critical role. All students should have
Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs) signed by both themselves and a parent. The AUP should cover
the terms and conditions of school or district computer networks and internet use including
online behavior and access privileges. In order avoid access to undesirable and inappropriate
material, site access must be regulated in same way. While web filters are easily available,
student use of proxy-bypass sites and devices (which allow the user to avoid the network filters
and access undesirable material) needs to be controlled.

Guidelines for online postings must also be implemented and followed. Possible guideline ideas
could include the use of proper capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. In order to maintain
privacy, students should also only use their first names and not include any information such as
email accounts , school name, addresses, or any other information which could make them
personally identifiable. Students must also obtain permission before using intellectual property
(audio, text, video, images, etc.) of others, unless they can clearly explain and justify fair use
under copyright laws. The importance of consent for recording others for use in online
broadcasts must also be considered (Shamburg, 2009).

In order to provide for effective use of wikis, blogs, and podcasts in the classroom, students must
understand and follow the particular guidelines established for a class wiki. For example,
Wikipedia does not allow for any reporting of original research, but it aims to provide the reader
with currently available knowledge, much like a traditional encyclopedia. Typically, a
"StyleGuide" is also provided within a wiki to clarify the writing customs and culture for the
wiki. (Wikipedia, 2009). Having the students work collaboratively to create a classroom style
guide provides a great opportunity to discuss issues such as use of conventions for co-authoring
texts.
Implementing these systems require some training for students on privacy, security, free
expression, and intellectual property rights. They must learn to practice safe, acceptable, and
sensible behavior as online authors and readers. Lessons should also be taught in constructive
criticism, reflective, and descriptive postings as well as starting and continuing conversations
using comments. Depending on the level of students, creating posts, pages, and using
dashboards may also be of importance. Teacher modeling for the students plays a critical role in
the process as well. With proper instruction and guidance (as well as continual monitoring) on
these basic principals, however, the risks can be controlled as students learn to become better
21st century citizens (Franklin & van Harmelen, 2007).

Individual teachers and classes must also develop a system for recording the efforts and
accomplishments of individuals. While different approaches can be taken to achieve this,
students can simply sign their names after their own writing. Another approach to this can be to
have students play particular roles such as editor or be responsible for a particular section of the
wiki. With this system, the teacher is also able to differentiate for strengths and interests of
students thus making work more engaging (Schrum & Solomon, 2007).

Costs

The open source environment fosters content that is freely contributed and distributed with few
restrictions or costs. The low cost bridges the gap in accessibility to learning tools. Web based
learning tools enable support staff groups to share information across campuses and allows
educators to reflect and record progress in their own work. Technical support is hosted by the
central web team and supported by the help desk. This is where higher education tends to see a
cost associated with Web 2.0 integration. Universities utilize open course ware in an effort to
increase individuals' free access to cutting-edge research. Incorporating Web 2.0 technologies
into education subsystems provides increased tutoring and learning support services, access to
free research materials, access to expert, up-to-date content, and a hub for social activities at no
additional cost to the monthly internet bandwith (Wiley & Hilton, 2009).

Long Term Effects of Web 2.0

Net neutrality is the principle that says all information flowing across the Internet should be
treated equally. As more people stream data-rich video and play online video games, the Internet
faces congestion concerns. If net neutrality regulations are implemented, Web 2.0 sites that
generate massive traffic like Google and Yahoo will be required to pay extra fees. Net neutrality
allows carriers to sell multi-tiered access to heavy users. The US government is examining net
neutrality and its financial, legal, and social implications. As free, web based educational tools
expand into the "shared learning environment," there is apprehension of the Internet's impending
collapse due to the explosive growth in Internet bandwith. Those opposed to net neutrality
provide an argument that the cost will be passed on to the consumers, regulations will backfire,
and that this is a technical issue for engineers. The organizations fighting for net neutrality
regulations believe that without government intervention, freedom of speech is being impacted,
monopolies will take over the market, and innovation of the web is at stake (Schonfeld, 2008).
Another profound impact of the Internet, is its ability to support and expand the various aspects
of social learning.

"The emphasis on social learning stands in sharp contrast to the traditional Cartesian view
of knowledge and learning - a view that has largely dominated the way education has
been structured for over one hundred years. The Cartesian perspective assumes that
knowledge is a kind of substance and that pedagogy concerns the best way to transfer this
substance from teachers to students. By contrast, instead of starting from the Cartesian
premise of "I think, therefore I am," and from the assumption that knowledge is
something that is transferred to the student via various pedagogical strategies, the social
view of learning says, "We participate, therefore we are (Seely Brown, 2008)."

The open source community engenders a social learning infrastructure that promotes planning
and problem solving by providing the framework for real-world practices and examples. The
social view of learning follows the cycle of attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation.
Web 2.0 applications enable a tutorial-based educational system that fosters motivation among
cohorts through continuous editorial support and group critiques (Suresh, 1996).

Conclusion

With the arrival of Web 2.0 tools and course management systems, educators have been provided
with endless opportunities to integrate easy-to-use technology into the classroom. These tools
encourage student achievement by enforcing critical thinking and problem solving skills,
allowing students to collaborate with their fellow classmates or students around the world and
offer students a way to take greater ownership over their learning. The field of educational
technology has experienced countless changes and advancements over the last century and will
continue to develop in the future due to the rapid pace of technological innovation. There will
always be new ways to implement technology into the learning environment in order to provide
students with a cutting edge education. However, determining whether or not technology has
clear benefits and positively impacts the learning environment remains a debatable question.
What is apparent is that Web 2.0 tools are a trend in the educational world that will be around
for a long time and will play an increasingly significant role in the classroom of the future.
References

Alexander, B. (2006, Mar. - Apr.). Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and
Learning?. Educause Review, 33-34

Blackboard What We Do . (n.d.). Blackboard Home . Retrieved December 1, 2009, from


http://www.blackboard.com/Company/What-We-Do.aspx

Campbell, G. (2009). A Personal Cyberinfrastructure.EDUCAUSE Review, 44(5), 58-59.


Retrieved November 24, 2009, from
http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume4
4/APersonalCyberinfrastructure/178431

Culatta, R. (n.d.). Online Learning Timeline. Innovative Learning. Retrieved November 26,
2009, from http://www.innovativelearning.com

Greenhow, Christine, Beth Robella, and Joan Hughes. "Learning, Teaching, and Scholarship in a
Digital Age: Web 2.0 and Classroom Research: What Path Should We Take Now? --
Greenhow et al. 38 (4): 246 ." Educational Researcher. Version Vol. 38, No. 4, 246-259.
American Educational Research Organization, n.d. Web. 7 Dec. 2009.
<http://edr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/full/38/4/246?ijkey=V3cfgjmrwwqew&keytype=ref
&siteid=spedr>

Franklin, Tom and van Harmelen, Mark. "Web 2.0 for Content for Learning and Teaching in
Higher Education." 28 May 2007. http://staff.blog.ui.ac.id/harrybs/files/2008/10/web-2-
for-content-for-learning-and-teaching-in-higher-education.pdf.

i-SAFE Inc.. (n.d.). i-SAFE Inc.. Retrieved December 9, 2009, from


http://www.isafe.org/channels/sub.php?ch=op⊂_id=media_cyber_bullyin

Kamel Boulos, Maged, Inocencio Maramba, and Steve Wheeler. "BioMed Central | Full
text | Wikis, blogs and podcasts: a new generation of Web-based tools for virtual
collaborative clinical practice and education." BioMed Central | The Open Access
Publisher. Version doi:10.1186/1472-6920-6-41. BMC Medical Education, 15 Aug.
2006. Web. 7 Dec. 2009. <http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/6/41/>.

McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. J. W. (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 ascilite Singapore 2007.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/mcloughlin.pdf

Moodle.org: About. (n.d.).Moodle.org: open-source community-based tools for learning.


Retrieved November 28, 2009, from http://moodle.org/about/
Monke, Lowell. (2004). The Human touch. Education Next, Fall 2004. Retrieved from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MJG/is_4_4/ai_n6335687/?tag=content;col1

Morabito, M. G. (n.d.). Origins of CALCampus. Accredited Distance Learning Courses--


CALCampus Online. Retrieved December 1, 2009, from http://www.calcampus.com/calc

Morabito, M. G. (1999). Online Distance Education: Historical Perspective and Practical


Application. Boca Raton: Dissertation.Com.

O'Hear, S. (2006, August 8). e-learning 2.0 - how Web technologies are shaping
education. ReadWriteWeb. Retrieved December 1, 2009, from
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/e-learning_20.php

O'Reilly, T. (2005, September 30). What Is Web 2.0.Technology Books, Tech Conferences, IT
Courses, News - O'Reilly Media. Retrieved November 24, 2009, from
http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html

Sclater, N. (2008). Web 2.0, personal learning environments, and the future of learning
management systems. Educause Center for Applied Research, 2008(13). Retrieved
November 21, 2009, from http://www.educause.edu/ecar

Schrum, L., & Solomon, G. (2007). Web 2.0: New Tools, New Schools. NY: Intl Society For
Technology In.

Seely Brown, John , and Richard Adler. "Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and
Learning 2.0 (EDUCAUSE Review) | EDUCAUSE."EDUCAUSE Review. Version vol.
43. no 1. pg 16-32. EDUCAUSE, 1 Jan. 2008. Web. 7 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.educause.edu/EDU

Schonfeld, Erick. "The Net Neutrality Debate All on One Page." Tech Crunch. Aug. 31, 2008.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/08/31/the-net-neutrality-debate-all-on-one-page/

Suresh Kumar , Vivekanandan. " Why Collaborative Learning?." Department of


Computer Science. University of Saskatchewan , 2 Apr. 1996. Web. 9 Dec. 2009.
<http://www.cs.usask.ca/grads/

"Podcast." Wikipedia. 7 Dec. 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podcast

Shamburg, Christopher. Student-Powered Podcasting. Eugene, OR: International Society for


Technology in Education, 2009. Print

Shariff. (2008). Cyber-Bullying: Issues and Solutions for the School, the Classroom and
the Home (1 ed.). New York: Routledge.

Style guide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (n.d.). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Retrieved December 9, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_guide
Wiley, David and John Hilton. "Openness, Dynamic Specialization, and the
Disaggregated Future of Higher Education." International Review of Research in Open
and Distance Learning. Vol. 10, no. 5. Brigham Young University. November, 2009.

Woolley, D. R. (1994). PLATO: The Emergence of Online Community. Thinkofit: Consultants


in Online Communication. Retrieved November 24, 2009, from
http://thinkofit.com/plato/dwplato.htm

Anda mungkin juga menyukai