Web 2.0: Education 2.0 Other reading

Engeström, J. (2008) ‘Why some social network services work and others don’t — Or: the case for object-centered sociality’ [online], Zengstrom Blog, http://routes.open.ac.uk/ ixbin/ hixclient.exe?_IXDB_=routes&_IXSPFX_=g&submit-button=summary&%24+with+res_id+is+res19995

'object centred sociability.' 'social networks consist of people who are connected by a shared object'

It's the objects that mediate the ties between people (very activity theory!) and not just the people.

A quick interesting blog post, that helps to reflect back on my earlier musings about participation. Being there isn't the same as participating. There needs to be something binding it together.

 Grosseck, G. (2009) 'To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher education?' Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 1. , pp. 478-482, doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.087

"Specific technologies and services contributing in higher education include blogs, microblogs, wikis, syndication of content through RSS, tag-based folksonomies, social bookmarking, mediasharing, social networking sites and other social software artifacts."

" The reason these social technologies work is because teachers can foster collaborative work not only among their own students, but with colleagues, students, and community members from around the world. It is quite clear that the Universities need to act to ensure that it makes best use of such tools. Still, careful thinking and research are needed in order to find the best way to leverage these emerging tools to boost our teaching and learning activity."

Grosseck gives some great example of how 2.0 technologies can be used in HE, and a summary of the pros and cons. Grosseck also suggests that new technologies need to be introduced to the curriculum properly -ie. teacher must prove they work first. Grosseck however points to learners being an explicit part of the process - partners in the act of learning.

Price, K. (2006). Web 2.0 and education: What it means for us all. Paper presented at the 2006 Australian Computers in Education Conference, 2-4 October, Cairns, Australia.

• provision of software tools is often in response to demand from teachers (based on their understanding of the potential in educational setting)
• education tends to pick up technology after it has reached maturity else where.
• education systems are cautious in adopting new technologies (finance, risk, security/privacy/protection of students)
• unlikely that education system can compete in developing web applications for themselves
• young people are already using technologies

" A difficult situation has developed. We have a range of new and potentially valuable services, but education systems are not likely to be able to respond rapidly enough to provide them"

2 responses

1. ignore or prohibit use of web 2.0 applications until schools can provide them in a controlled manner.
2. look at ways to capitalise on the informal learning elements they could afford

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.Available at: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/mcloughlin.pdf

(Another Australian paper.)

• social software enables choice - learners make decisions on what suits them
• social - constructivism - effective learning is conversational in nature
• social software can be integrated into scaffolding - multiple forms of support
• active participation - affordance of social software
• active participation, learner self-direction and personal meaning construction - learning to learn

"However, in order for these goals to come to fruition, there is a need for careful

planning, as well as developing a detailed understanding of the dynamics of Web 2.0 and social software tools and their affordances. The limitations of the medium and the importance of risk management cannot be ignored."

Lim, Wei-Ying, Hyo-Jeong So, and Seng-Chee Tan. 2010. “eLearning 2.0 and New Literacies: Are Social Practices Lagging Behind?,” Interactive Learning Environments 18(3): 203-218.

• web 2.0 extremely effective in supporting online community building
• Web 2.0 applications are easy to create, combine, publish and share, thus empowering  people to participate as content producers
• integrating Web 2.0 technologies necessitates the fundamental reconsideration of the culture of higher education institutions for teaching and learning (HE is not Informal learning
• could you lose the character of 2.0 by embedding into institutions?
• New literacy mindsets - evolved from acquisition of skills for reading and writing, into multiplicity of illiteracies as community based social practices. " Production and productivity no longer hinges on a single party but increasingly leverages the participation and intelligence of the collective
• " From both learners’ and teachers’ perspectives, the use of social software may be perceived as disruptive technology due to the clash between working alone versus working collaboratively and between fixed teaching frameworks versus open learning opportunities (Anderson, 2007; Thompson, 2007)."
• In the emerging Web 2.0 eLearning paradigm, the focus of learning shifts from content-centric to learner-centric, and from what we are learning to how we are learning.
• Transitory issues - must consider dimensions - cultural belief(what learners and teachers believe about learning, identities, power); practice(learning activities - from receiving to dialectic);socio-techno-spatial(what influences the interactions - changing from end product to process); interaction with outside world

Collis B, Moonen J. Web 2.0 tools and processes in higher education: quality perspectives. Educ Media Int. 2008;45(2):93–106.

" Openness is a main differentiator of the current uses of these processes compared to their earlier manifestations. The processes represent new ways of making, sharing and consuming digital documents where traditional gatekeepers of quality are being overlooked by mass user opinion."

"it can, unfortunately, be predicted that the empowerment offered by Web 2.0 tools and processes will

not be able to overcome the inertia in higher education institutions when it comes to the mainstream uptake of new views of learning facilitated by new technologies."

• primarily being used to support logistical processes (De Boer, 2004)
• 'filing cabinet' attributes

Perceptions of quality

relates to:

• mobility from country to country(skills/learning frameworks)
• acceptability to employers and accreditation agencies
• international recognition of research
• learning resources, curricula or experts/reputations
• for students - understandability and clarity

"For Web 2.0 tools and processes to become embedded in mainstream practice in higher education, they must be seen as bringing added quality to instructional processes."

AM - Quality from an acquisition perspective places an emphasis on how effectively pre-selected learning materials are prepared or selected, transmitted, explained, and clarified. The burden for this quality rests partly on the textbook and study resources selected to support acquisition and partly on the teaching skill

of the instructor.

(Sfard tells us to align to PM metaphor before considering web 2.0 tools)

Need to focus on instructional quality, institutional quality and technology quality

Moving to learner control.(instructional quality)

• Zurita (2006) - approach did not fit with learner expectations. 'students perception of quality was different from those who designed the course'
• more learner led - more scaffolding, more work for instructors
• “the unwillingness of highly goal-directed students to engage with what was seen as a frivolous activity not directly related to assessment”.Cann et al (2206)

Institutional quality

accreditation frameworks, expectations from external stakeholders, quality concerns relating to learning resources and experiences endorsed by the institution, and issues relating to intellectual property.

Technology quality

possible strain on IT infrastructure and support services

IT policies may be barrier

Other interesting resources

Learning 2.0

Redecker, C. et al. (2009), Learning 2.0: The impact of web 2.0 innovations in education and training in Europe, Seville: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.

A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in Higher Education

Conole, G. & Alevizou, P. (2010) A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in

Higher Education. York: Higher Education Academy.