For many users, Web 2.0 tools are associated more with on-line social activities; however, it can be argued that they have pedagogical applications as well. With the emergence of new platforms for social interaction, Anderson
The term Web 2.0 not only describes the technology that is now freely available for social and epistemological interaction, but also depicts a revolution in the way the internet is used. Although this is disputed by the father of the web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee (2006), who claims that ‘interaction’, was the purpose of the web all along. The fact is that only a minority of people made contributions with Web 1.0 technology; that is, until the emergence of Web 2.0 platforms. With this in mind, it is safe to say that the term Web 2.0 can be used to describe all technology in general, which has made the web more accessible for contributors, collaborators and communities. In effect, Web 2.0 tools allow students to become active learners in a digital world, rather than passive recipients of information.
Like traditional forms of verbal, written and visual communication, Web 2.0 tools can be viewed as either synchronous or asynchronous, however, they may cross over multiple platforms as shown in the examples below.
Tool
|
Communication Type
|
Platform
|
Instant Messaging
|
Synchronous
|
AIM, GoogleTalk, MSN Messenger
|
Audio Chat
|
Synchronous
|
Skype, AIM, GoogleTalk, (any VoIP)
|
Video Chat
|
Synchronous
|
Skype, Googletalk, MSN Messenger
|
E-mail
|
Asynchronous
|
Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo Mail, Outlook
|
Discussion Forums
|
Asynchronous
|
UseNet, Tangler, Fireboard
|
Blogs
|
Asynchronous
|
Blogger, Wordpress
|
Wikis
|
Asynchronous
|
Wikipedia, PBWiki, Wikispaces
|
Social Networks
|
Synch. & Asynch.
|
Friendster, MySpace, Facebook
|
Micro-Blogging
|
Synch. & Asynch.
|
Twitter, Tumblr
|
(Richards, Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2010)
In addition to communication tools, internet users now have access to numerous platforms for sharing multi media, such as videos, photos, maps, documents, and music. However, it is not the platform, but rather the tool it supports that is of interest to education providers, and probably why some of the most useful ones are integrated into virtual learning environments, such as Blackboard, Moodle and WebCT. Although, it must be said that purpose built platforms for Web 2.0 interaction seem to have better user interfaces and tend to be more popular.
The web-log or blog is a basic webpage that could be used for a variety of purposes such as expressing personal opinions, sharing information, recording personal diary events, publishing links and receiving feedback in the form of comments. It is a fundamental tool for sharing views between the author and the readers who may then become contributors. The author may choose to keep all or some of the blog private, or share information, either publicly or with a closed group of selected readers. It is quick to update or edit, and automatically records the time, date and sequence of entries. The exchange of information can take place over extended periods of time, or with the aid of notifications can be almost instantaneous. They have the advantage of accommodating a diverse range of media to publish thoughts and responses, such as written, audio, photo and video blogs, which from a pedagogical perspective empowers students of all capabilities and learning styles to collaborate in a preferred format.
A similar platform for collaborative thought is the discussion board or forum. Like the blog, the discussion board provides a host for interaction with one significant difference. A moderator may start a thread on a given topic of interest and make no further input. The thread is allowed to develop on the input of other users and may even take a different path than the administrator intended. In essence, the content is determined by the contributors alone, albeit under the guidance of a moderator. Although the thread would not exist without contributions, it is interesting that ‘lurkers’ can still benefit from the information that surfaces either during the conversation or long after it has ended.
The Wiki is an open authoring approach to constructing web pages. They add another dimension to the blog by allowing ‘posts’ to be edited or deleted by subsequent contributors, making it a live collaboration tool for the cooperative construction of knowledge.
‘Wikis can be powerful tools to facilitate collaborative work and the development of online communities. The ability for distributed individuals to contribute to the same document or project with just a web browser and a network connection’ (WikiEducator)
Wikis can be used to develop assignments, projects, replace handouts, organise links to online resources and provide a focal point for group tasks. They can evolve over time as opinions and parameters change.
Food for Thought...
Is Web 2.0 just a set of applications or is it a new internet culture? - Does it matter which platform provides the Web 2.0 service? - Can these tools make a difference in vocational training?
What do you think…
Interesting reading. I suppose one needs to assume that learners are IT literate with the appropriate IT infrastructure to participate in Web 2.0 tools. A recent transition by the Northampton University from paper based modules for distance learning to an entirely IT based platform has not proven to be succesful for distance learners in the Lift Industry. One of the failures was on account of access to the NILE system, a type of Blackboard. Not withstanding the lack of communication and reaction by the Tutors involved. Perhaps a blog or discussion board would have been useful to learners not only to interact with the tutor but be lead through other bloggers learning experience and drawing on their knowledge through a discusion based forum. Unfortunately this has been very detramental to the course and might lead to the loss of support and accreditation currently provided by the Lift and Escalator Industry Association. In the end it has fundamentally been the learner that has lost out and educational institutions and employers should consider these alternative methods to support vocational learning.
ReplyDeletegood point annon. it is true that there are some assumptions over the network and user capabilities which is why every learning environment is different. What works in some establishments may not work in others.
ReplyDeleteIn line with Annon, users must be IT literate, inquisitive, happy to move away from the main page via your links and then know how to get back, perhaps a "how to do" page?
ReplyDeleteFrom an initial review, I then started to investigate and was soon dipping in and out of links and before I knew it had lost over 2 hours.
As learning tool, I believe it would require some form of facilitation to support the learning experience, although I did welcome the freedom to explore and decide what I wanted to learn.
The Military were looking at this type of technology to deliver all training - not a blended solution without a clear understanding regarding what it could offer. Lecturers at RMAS Sandhurst still use chalk and talk as they do not understand their audience of learners. I feel that learners and instructors / lecturers etc are missing out on an opportunity to broaden their learning via using this type of media.
Thank you for the opportuity to review your site.
thanks annon. i think it may be better if I set the links to open in new windows. A how to do page would be a good idea and could demonstrate Mayer's point that unguided constructivism may not always work.
ReplyDeleteIs Web 2.0 just a set of applications or is it a new internet culture?
ReplyDeleteSurely, most would agree that ‘Web 2’ is a thriving internet culture (although it may be necessary to read your blog first to understand what ‘Web 2’ is all about). It should be plainly apparent, even to those who are reluctant to gasp new information technology, that there is an enormous number of Facebook and Twitter users (to name just two social media sites). These websites are enthusiastically used by broad spectrum of people (young and old) to discuss a vast number of subjects (granted that most of it is trivia). The challenge for Instructors and E-learning designers is to make ‘Web 2’ learning content lively, engaging, interesting and fun. If Facebook can engage hundreds of millions of active followers then there is surely massive potential for similar technology to be used as an educational tool. http://www.howmanyarethere.org/how-many-facebook-users-are-there-2012/
Does it matter which platform provides the Web 2.0 service?
To answer this I would think it would be necessary to carefully consider what each ‘Web 2’ service provides, e.g. type of media it can support, and how well the services can be adapted to E-learning. Having said that I would think is also worth considering the popularity of existing Web 2 services such as Facebook and Twitter if educators want learners to use E-learning – you can’t escape the fact that some things have to be seen as ‘cool’ to be used, particularly for younger users.
Can these tools make a difference in vocational training?
My opinion is definitely yes, but as previously mentioned, the challenge is making E-learning material lively, engaging, interactive, interesting and hopefully with a splash of fun and enjoyment. Possibly the reason why some schemes have failed previously is the lack of these elements.
As a side issue, I consider the reason for previous unsuccessful E-learning schemes is partly due to the lack of commitment and investment from management. To make a difference in vocational training there has got to be sustained commitment and investment to support E-learning and the use of technologies such as ‘Web 2’. This support should be directed mainly towards the training of instructors and developers of E-learning teaching methods. I have personally witnessed a very poor attempt at starting an E-learning scheme at a large learning establishment in Kent. The management arranged a half-day training session for a handful of tutors they selected to run the course. From then on the tutors where left to their one devices and were given hardly any further support. Understandably, only few learners who enrolled on the course completed. I believe most learners gave up due to lack of interactive course content and lack of guidance on how to proceed with the course material (this may be partly the fault of the tutors but mainly due to lack time allocated to tutors by management). The course didn’t run a second time, however, this happened about nine years ago and I expect the establishment are now more successful at running E-learning courses.
Thanks Kev, yes it’s true that Web 2.0 platforms like Facebook and Twitter engage millions of users for social interaction. Maybe the key to engaging students in Web 2.0 environments is to find the right educational platform(s) that encourage collaboration and discovery.
ReplyDeleteHi Richard well constructed lots of good stuff here.
ReplyDeleteWeb2.0 is already old hat and Web 3.0 is on its way. Some good info on the following site
http://www.labnol.org/internet/web-3-concepts-explained/8908/
The platform is critical as as you know if the connectivity is not possible then we are wasting our time. However you can't stop the wheels of motion. Students will find a way smartphones are in our learning environment as are IPads. So tools like Twitter etc can be brought into learning even if the LAN forms a barrier.