Web 2.0-Based E-Learning: Applying Social Informatics for Tertiary Teaching Mark J.W. Lee Charles Sturt University, Australia Catherine ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Web 2.0-Based E-Learning:
Applying Social Informatics for
Tertiary Teaching
Mark J.W. Lee
Charles Sturt University, Australia
Catherine McLoughlin
Australian Catholic University, Australia
InformatIon scIence reference
Hershey • New York
Director of Editorial Content: Kristin Klinger
Director of Book Publications: Julia Mosemann
Acquisitions Editor: Lindsay Johnston
Development Editor: Mike Killian
Production Editor: Jamie Snavely
Cover Design: Lisa Tosheff
Printed at: Lightning Source
Published in the United States of America by
Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: cust@igi-global.com
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com
Copyright © 2011 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or com-
panies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Web 2.0-based E-learning : applying social informatics for tertiary teaching / Mark J.W. Lee and Catherine McLoughlin, editors.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Summary: "This book deals with Web 2.0 and how social informatics are impacting higher education practice, pedagogical
theory and innovations"--Provided by publisher. ISBN 978-1-60566-294-7 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-60566-295-4 (ebook)
1. Education, Higher--Effect of technological innovations on. 2. Web-based instruction--Social aspects. 3. Web 2.0--Social
aspects. 4. Learning-- Physiological aspects. I. Lee, Mark J. W., 1981- II. McLoughlin, Catherine.
LB2395.7.W434 2010
378.1'7344678--dc22
2009054308
British Cataloguing in Publication Data
A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.
All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the
authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.
21
Chapter 2
Understanding Web 2.0 and its
Implications for E-Learning
Tony Bates
Tony Bates Associates, Canada
ABSTRACT
A whole new range of web-based tools and services now provides learners with the opportunity to create
their own digital learning materials, personal learning environments, and social networks. What are the
implications for the design of learning materials, workplace training, and accreditation of learners?
This chapter focuses on integrating educational principles of virtual learning with the application of
these new technologies. The argument is made that these tools provide an opportunity for new design
models for education and training that will better prepare citizens and workers for a knowledge-based
society. It rejects, though, the notion that these tools of themselves will revolutionize education and make
formal institutions redundant.
INTRODUCTION Stephen Downes (2006), have argued that with
these new tools,
A whole new range of web-based tools and
services, including but not limited to blogs, e- Learning is centered around the interests of the
portfolios, virtual worlds, massively multiplayer learner … Learning is immersive—learning by
online games (MMOGs), Really Simple Syndi- doing—and takes place not in a school but in an
cation (RSS), podcasting, and synchronous tools appropriate environment (such as a living arts
such as Skype and Elluminate, now provides centre). (Slide 27)
learners with the opportunity to create their own
digital learning materials, personal learning en- Downes argues that so far, the mainstream
vironments, and social networks. Some, such as education system has either tried to ban these
tools outright, or has tried to do what traditional
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-294-7.ch002 educators have always done with technology,
Copyright © 2011, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Understanding Web 2.0 and its Implications for E-Learning
namely incorporate them into a classroom-based some of the social philosophy implicit in many
environment. discussions of Web 2.0, the focus is primarily on
Although agreeing in many ways with Downes’ the educational functionality and implications of
position and arguments, this chapter recognizes the these new tools, and an attempt is made to situate
diversity of approaches to teaching and learning, them not only in a socio-philosophical context,
and therefore offers an approach to the use of Web but also in the context of economic development,
2.0 tools that focuses on choice for both teachers and educational theory and practice.
and learners. The argument is made that these While the terms “Web 2.0” and “E-learning
tools could facilitate new models of design for 2.0” suggest a clean break from earlier applications
education and training that will better prepare citi- of the Web, in education the differences, although
zens and workers for a knowledge-based society. significant, are due more to a gradual development
The chapter rejects, however, the notion that the and evolution of tools and teaching practice than
tools of themselves will revolutionize education a sudden “big bang.” Indeed, there is cause for
and make formal institutions redundant, because concern that the term “Web 2.0” has been hijacked
many learners require structure and guidance. to describe one particular application of second-
Furthermore, whatever organizational arrange- generation web tools, while excluding other new
ments are made (or not made) to support learning, web tools equally of value to education. Thus some
these new technologies need to be integrated with understanding of the history of the application
a variety of educational approaches if all learners of information and communications technolo-
are to be accommodated. gies (ICTs) in education is important in order to
The term “Web 2.0” was coined by Tim provide the necessary context for understanding
O’Reilly in 2004. Wikipedia defines Web 2.0 as Web 2.0 in education.
follows:
E-LEARNING 1.01–1.02 (1978–2005)
the changing trends in the use of World Wide Web
technology and web design that aim to enhance One of the first recorded uses of the Internet for
creativity, communications, secure information teaching is the use of computer-mediated com-
sharing, collaboration and functionality of the munication systems (CMCS) at the New Jersey
web. Web 2.0 concepts have led to the develop- Institute of Technology in the 1970s (Hiltz &
ment and evolution of web culture communities Turoff, 1978; Hiltz, 1986). This was a “blended”
and hosted services, such as social-networking learning model, combining classroom teaching
sites, video sharing sites, wikis, blogs, and folk- with online discussion between students and
sonomies. (“Web 2.0,” 2008, para. 1) teacher. A variety of software programs to support
computer-mediated communication (CMC) were
Web 2.0 is a neat term, reflecting a new ver- developed in the 1980s. One of the most used at
sion of the Web in the language of computer sci- this time was CoSy, developed by the University of
ence. However, although the term describes new Guelph in Canada. An important feature of CoSy
technologies that have emerged over the last few was that it enabled threaded discussion, that is,
years, “Web 2.0” reflects as much a social as a postings were linked directly to a specific previ-
technological development. At the same time, Web ous posting to which the student or teacher was
2.0 has been given an educational twist, through replying, rather than just being listed by the timing
the parallel term “E-learning 2.0” (Downes, 2005), of the posting. In 1988, the author of the present
which involves e-learning based on Web 2.0 chapter used CoSy as an instructor on DT200:
tools. Therefore in this chapter, while addressing An Introduction to Information Technology, a
22Understanding Web 2.0 and its Implications for E-Learning
second-year distance education course developed It took post-secondary education about three
by The Open University in the UK, with 1,500 years to understand how the Web could be used
students a year (see Mason, 1989). This again for teaching and learning. Initially professors cre-
was a blended model, but delivered wholly at a ated their own web pages or online courses using
distance, with content provided mainly through hypertext markup language (HTML), then very
specially designed printed material, audiocas- quickly commercial products became established,
settes, and broadcast television programs. CoSy providing teachers with “off-the-shelf” online
was used to provide students with the opportunity learning environments that included “pages” for
to discuss issues raised in the other medium. Thus online course materials, tests and assignments,
the use of computers for collaborative learning discussion forums, and access to other web-based
through discussion forums is not new. This could resources. These are now called learning man-
be described as “E-learning 1.01.” agement systems (LMSs). WebCT was designed
Up until 1990, educational applications of the originally by Murray Goldberg at the University
Internet were limited mainly to email and discus- of British Columbia (UBC), and was one of the
sion forums such as CoSy. It was difficult to store first LMSs. Subsequently, UBC sold WebCT to
or send large amounts of content over the Inter- an American venture capital conglomerate, and
net, because of the narrow bandwidth available in 2005 WebCT was bought over by its leading
at the time to most users (56 Kbps using dialup competitor, Blackboard. Over 90% of two- and
modems), and the difficulty and cost of creating four-year colleges in the USA had an LMS system
and transmitting large amounts of textual material. in 2007 (Lokken & Womer, 2007).
This limitation was removed by the development At the same time, and partly in response to
of the World Wide Web, the Wikipedia entry for Blackboard’s near monopoly now of commercial
which states: LMSs, there has been a move, particularly by large
research universities and some government agen-
Using concepts from earlier hypertext systems, the cies, towards the development and implementa-
World Wide Web was begun in 1989 by English tion/use of open source LMSs, such as Moodle and
scientist Tim Berners-Lee, working at the Euro- Sakai. Gartner Research, based on the results of
pean Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) their 2007 Higher Education E-Learning Survey,
in Geneva, Switzerland. In 1990, he proposed estimated that open source LMSs constituted 26%
building a “web of nodes” storing “hypertext of the market and that this was likely to grow to
pages” viewed by “browsers” on a network, and 35% by the end of 2008 (Lowendahl, Zastrocky,
released that web in 1992. Connected by the exist- & Harris, 2008). Open source LMSs have the ad-
ing Internet, other websites were created, around vantage of being free, in that, unlike commercial
the world, adding international standards for LMSs, there are no user license fees. However,
domain names & the HTML language. (“World by the nature of open source software, there are
Wide Web,” 2008, para. 1) so far undetermined but nevertheless, according
the 2007 Gartner survey, very real costs in instal-
Initially, the importance of the Web was that lation, adaptation, and maintenance of open source
it allowed large amounts of content (in particular, LMSs, which have not yet been clearly identified.
text and graphics) to be created, stored, searched Just as important as the use of LMSs has been
for, and transmitted cheaply over the Internet, by the way the Web has been used to deliver teaching.
breaking down the information into tiny packets In the classroom aids model, the teacher decides
and reassembling them again at the destination on the use of the computer, and uses it mainly to
computer. add to the classroom experience, for instance, by
23Understanding Web 2.0 and its Implications for E-Learning
Figure 1. Different forms of e-learning (from OECD, 2005; Bates & Poole, 2003)
providing a list of readings, lecture PowerPoints, were making it compulsory for a student to take
assignment questions, and URLs to additional at least one of their courses online before graduat-
online resources. ing (Lokken & Womer, 2007). Across the North
With laptop programs (where the students American post-secondary system, fully online
bring their own or a leased computer to class), or programs have been increasing by an average of
programs using computer labs, where the institu- 20% per annum since 2002 (Allen & Seaman,
tion provides the computers, the students and the 2008).
teachers are active users of the computer, but still Thus by and large we have two main forms of
in a fixed-time-and-place classroom. e-learning in post-secondary education, both based
In the mixed-mode (or hybrid) model, students on the use of LMSs: blended learning—using a mix
still spend some time in class, but class time is of classroom and face-to-face teaching (although
reduced to give students more time for online the proportion may vary substantially)—and fully
study. There are several versions of mixed-mode online learning. However, whether the Web is used
teaching, from dropping from three class sessions as a classroom aid, or for blended learning, or for
a week to one, with the rest done online, to the fully online courses, nearly all these applications
Royal Roads University (http://www.royalroads. are based on the use of an LMS. An LMS these
ca/) model, where students study online before days, whether commercial or open source, is a
and after a semester spent on campus. “heavy” piece of software, with a million lines
Lastly, there are courses where the student of code or more. It is institutionally driven, link-
studies entirely online, which of course is one ing teaching with administration. The teaching
form of distance education. Figure 1, then, shows through an LMS is controlled by the instructor,
e-learning as a continuum. Note that blended who chooses content and activities, including the
learning can be any one of the three “middle” organization of the asynchronous online discussion
modes (Bates & Poole, 2003). forums. This is what Stephen Downes (2005) is
By far the greatest use of computer and commu- referring to when he talks about “E-learning 1.0.”
nications technologies is to support—rather than
replace—classroom teaching (80% of e-learning
applications, according to Allen & Seaman, 2008). THE TOOLS OF WEB 2.0 (2005–)
However, what is important here is the trend. More
and more universities and colleges are now adding Around 2005, a new range of web tools began to
fully online courses. A study conducted for the find their way into general use, and increasingly
American Association of Community Colleges into educational use. These can be loosely de-
found that 24% of all students were taking at least scribed as Web 2.0 tools, as they reflect a different
one fully online course in 2007. Some colleges culture of web use from the former “centre-to-
24Understanding Web 2.0 and its Implications for E-Learning
Table 1. Examples of Web 2.0 tools
Type of tool Example(s) Application
Blogs • Stephen’s Web Allows an individual to make regular postings to
(http://www.downes.ca/) the Web, e.g., a personal diary or an analysis of
current events
Wikis • Wikipedia An “open” collective publication, allowing people
(http://en.wikipedia.org/) to contribute or create a body of information
Social networking • Facebook A social utility that connects people with friends
(http://www.facebook.com/) and others who work, study, and live around them
• MySpace
(http://www.myspace.com/)
Multimedia archives • Podcasts Allows end-users to access, store, download, and
• YouTube share audio recordings, photographs, and videos
(http://www.youtube.com/)
• Flickr
(http://www.flickr.com/)
• iTunes
• e-portfolios
Synchronous communica- • Skype Allows free “real-time” audio and visual commu-
tion tools • Elluminate nication over the Web
• Adobe Connect
3-D virtual worlds • Second Life Real-time semi-random connection/ communication
(http://secondlife.com/) with virtual sites and people
Multiplayer games • Lord of the Rings Online Enables players to compete against or collaborate
(http://www.lotro.com/) with each other or a third party/parties represented
by the computer, usually in real time
Mobile learning • Mobile phones Enables users to access multiple information formats
• Ubiquitous computing devices and applications (voice, text, video, etc.) at any time, any place
Open content • MIT OpenCourseWare Digital learning materials available free over the
(http://ocw.mit.edu/) Internet, for use either by instructors or learners
periphery” push of institutional websites. Table emerging, and their use is either free or very low
1 shows some of the tools and their uses (this is, cost. However, not all the new tools developed
of course, by no means an exhaustive list—there since 2005 are social software tools, and not all are
are many more possible examples). free or low cost (e.g., many commercial games).
The main feature of Web 2.0 tools is that Web 2.0 tools have proved increasingly popular
they empower the end-user to access, create, dis- in both social and business applications. One fea-
seminate, and share information easily in a user- ture of such tools is to empower the end-user—the
friendly, open environment. Usually the only cost learner or customer—to self-access and manage
is the time of the end-user. There are often few data (e.g., online banking) and to form personal
controls over content, other than those normally networks (e.g., through Facebook).
imposed by a state or government (such as libel
or pornography), or where there are controls, they
are imposed by the users themselves. Some have EDUCATIONAL APPLICATIONS:
called Web 2.0 the “democratization” of the Web. E-LEARNING 2.0?
In general, Web 2.0 tools are based on very
simple software in that they have relatively few Web 2.0 tools are so relatively new to education
lines of code. As a result, new tools are constantly that educators have yet to find new designs for
25Understanding Web 2.0 and its Implications for E-Learning
teaching and learning that fully exploit such tools. Multimedia Archives
Most uses to date have been within the framework
of a teacher-controlled model of instruction. For Multimedia archives such as YouTube, Flickr, and
instance, teachers may add their own blog to an Google Video, and the increasing access to cheap
online course, or encourage students to chat or digital video cameras or integrated video and audio
work offline then post their work back in the recording in mobile phones, now enable learners
“teaching” area. They may use Elluminate to to create their own digital e-portfolios of work,
deliver a live lecture with slides, or a podcast incorporating text, graphics, audio, and video.
to catch an update from a visiting expert, or to These tools again are relatively simple to use.
transmit a recorded classroom lecture. Note that YouTube, for example, provides a video toolbox
Web 2.0 tools can be used quite independently of (see http://www.youtube.com/video_toolbox/)
an LMS (although they can also be made available that includes a set of guidelines for producing
within or in parallel to an LMS). Nevertheless, good-quality video material. Posting video to sites
there are now an increasing number of examples such as YouTube is free, quick, and easy.
of teaching and learning using Web 2.0 tools that This means that learners can now go out and
exploit the learner’s capacity to access, create, do local fieldwork, and create digital multimedia
and publish materials. web-based portfolios of their work, either individu-
ally or collaboratively (see Lorenzo & Ittelson,
Social and Collaborative Networking 2005). This raises questions regarding online
assessment as well as the design of teaching and
The first Internet educational tool, well preced- learning experiences (see Joint Information Sys-
ing the invention of the Web, was discussion tems Committee [JISC], 2007; see also Chapter
software that allowed multiple users to discuss 17). Learners can demonstrate what they are able
asynchronously online in a common, if virtual, to do and what they have learned, record their
area (CMC—see Hiltz, 1986). This technology experiences, and allow others—such as potential
has gradually evolved through discussion forums employers—to access their work.
into community-based collaborative networks.
Social software, such as discussion forums, allows Synchronous Technologies
students to test, question, and construct their own,
personalized knowledge. The case could be made that tools such as El-
In the personal networking areas, there are luminate that allow synchronous two-way com-
several tools that “are fostering collaboration munication (mainly audio, supplemented with
webs that span almost every discipline … [Col- graphics such as PowerPoint) and Skype are not
laborative workspaces] are easy to create, and “authentic” Web 2.0 tools. This is because they
they allow people to jointly collaborate on com- are most commonly used to reflect the “old” para-
plex projects using low-cost, simple tools” (New digm of an instructor giving a lecture, and are also
Media Consortium, 2008, p. 14). These collab- more expensive to use than social software such
orative workspaces serve as hubs where groups as blogs, wikis, or social networking sites (e.g.,
of people with common interests can gather and Facebook). However, synchronous communica-
share resources—such as relevant references or tion tools take advantage of improved compression
publications—related to their interests. technology and wider bandwidth capacity, and can
also be organized and managed by end-users or
learners for communication. Certainly for certain
educational tasks such as learning a language,
26Understanding Web 2.0 and its Implications for E-Learning
these tools provide much more flexibility than consultations (Takahashi, 2008). There are several
the previous generation of web tools. projects in SL in the language learning domain,
involving the creation of environments where
Virtual Worlds learners can practice languages and meet other
foreign language speakers. Several architectural
Virtual worlds (or Massively Multiplayer Vir- projects have used SL for collaborative design
tual Worlds—MMVWs) are complex digital (see, for instance, Studio Wikitecture at http://
environments that allow participants to project studiowikitecture.wordpress.com/). Robert C.
a non-physical presence of themselves—an ava- Amme, a research professor of physics, and his
tar—into a generated three-dimensional (3-D) colleagues at the University of Denver received a
reality, and within that reality to interact with $200,000 grant from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
other participants. Users can build and modify this Commission to build a simulated nuclear reactor
world to a large degree. Second Life (SL) is the to train the next generation of environmental as-
best-known virtual world with the largest number sessment specialists (Guess, 2007).
of users. Senges, Praus, and Bihr (2007) reported The relative novelty of SL means that there
six million accounts in SL in 2006. By June 2008, are as yet no well-established educational designs
this had grown to 14 million accounts (Parsons, for exploiting the uniqueness of the virtual world.
2008), although active accounts are much fewer. Some merely replicate traditional classroom prac-
Senges et al. (2007) identified a number of edu- tice. It is also not yet possible to build a business
cational applications of SL (see Kay & FitzGerald, model that will set costs against benefits. It is
2008 for a detailed list of educational applications thus still very much an experimental environment
of SL). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric for learning (Senges et al., 2007). Nevertheless,
Administration has built immersive environments especially with such a large potential number of
where participants can virtually experience tsuna- participants, a learner in SL is presented with a
mis and simulated weather fronts, combined with wide array of learning opportunities, enabling
explanations about the causes and strategies to knowledge to be constructed through a combina-
reduce harm (see Earth System Research Labora- tion of social interaction, collaboration, explora-
tory, 2008). Hydro Hijinks, developed by students tion, and experimentation, in real time.
at Montgomery College, USA, is a diplomacy
adventure game set in a scenario where farmers Digital Games
are suffering a water shortage, and players have
to discover the cause of the water shortage (see There have been major advances in games tech-
morebrainsmedia, 2006). nology over recent years. A few games have
More recently, Cigna Healthcare has created been designed or adapted for educational pur-
a virtual environment in SL to educate people poses (“serious gaming environments”), mainly
on how to improve their health. Like many for the K-12 sector (Prensky, 2006). However,
insurance companies, Cigna offers healthcare educational games to date have had limited ap-
advice to those it insures as an attempt to keep plication and utility, mainly because of the high
its long-term costs lower and its insurance rates cost of development and lack of appropriate and
more affordable. The Cigna Virtual Healthcare sound instructional design (Burgos, Tattersall, &
Community is an “island” in SL where users can Koper, 2007).
walk through 3-D interactive displays with their Nevertheless, there is strong potential for
avatars, play educational games, listen to seminars taking some of the building blocks of games
on nutrition and health, and receive virtual health technology, such as “off-the-shelf” software for
27Understanding Web 2.0 and its Implications for E-Learning
scenery animation, hand–eye coordination, and copyright management sites such as Creative
crowd behavior, and adapting them to educational Commons (http://www.creativecommons.org/),
purposes, thereby cutting down the cost of build- which allows instructors to make available con-
ing all software from scratch. tent with some protection against improper or
commercial use.
Mobile Learning The move to more open content has several
implications. Teachers and learners now have
Worldwide, more people have mobile phones an increasing range of quality-assured learning
than personal computers. Green (2007) reports materials that they can access, free of charge, for
that more than two-thirds of all classes in North educational purposes. Teachers no longer need to
American colleges now have wireless access. create all their own material online; learners are
The rapid expansion of wireless technology has no longer restricted to the content and curriculum
stimulated interest in mobile learning—delivery provided by the university or college at which
of education and training to people on the move. they are enrolled. Thus one can imagine an “open
Mobile learning has been developed in a content” approach to a subject, where the instructor
number of ways. The simplest is the use of RSS is a guide, providing goals and criteria for assess-
feeds to alert students to course news and informa- ment, but where the students track down, assess,
tion, such as the imminent deadline for the next and organize appropriate learning materials.
assignment. However, as mobile technology has
become more sophisticated, with larger, clearer Educational Implications of
screens, touch-controlled keyboards, and motion- the New Web 2.0 Tools
controlled navigation, the potential for educational
applications has also increased. Learners now have powerful tools for creating
One major application is to use mobile phones their own learning materials or for demonstrat-
for student data collection, in the form of real-time ing their knowledge and skills. Courses can be
polling and interviews, photographs, and video for structured around individual students’ interests,
project work, etc. that students can then organize allowing them to seek appropriate content and
and post on a class website (Alexander, 2004; resources to support the development of negoti-
JISC, 2005). (See also Chapter 10 in this book, ated competencies or learning outcomes. Content
on “Mobile 2.0.”) is now open; learners can go and seek, use, and
apply information beyond the bounds of what a
Open Content professor or teacher may dictate. Increasingly,
quality educational content will become free, open,
Another major development has been the move and abundant. Students can create and customize
to digital open content. Institutions such as the their own online personal learning environments
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (see the (see also Chapter 5 in this book).
MIT OpenCourseWare initiative at http://ocw. This represents a major power shift from
mit.edu/) and The Open University in the UK teachers to learners. Some commentators (e.g.,
(see the OpenLearn website at http://openlearn. Downes, 2006) have argued that traditional institu-
open.ac.uk/) have been making available their tions such as schools and universities are now no
educational content free of charge for educational longer needed for learning purposes, as the tools
purposes. Intellectual property management, and of Web 2.0 allow learners to control what and
recognition of instructors’ contribution to content how they learn. The idea of abolishing schools
creation, has been managed through cooperative of course is not a new idea—Ivan Illich (1973)
28Understanding Web 2.0 and its Implications for E-Learning
wrote about deschooling and learning webs long are not changing their teaching method sufficiently
ago—but the Internet multiplies infinitely the to make full use of the new Web 2.0 tools. One
number of connections an individual may now reason is that institutions are locked into support-
make to the point where it becomes much easier ing LMSs such as Blackboard or Moodle. Even
for those who wish to learn this way to do so. more importantly, most instructors are locked into
Supercool School (http://www.supercoolschool. a classroom-based, 9:00–4:00, five-days-a-week,
com/) now uses Facebook to network learners 13-weeks-a-year semester system—essential
with a common interest who teach themselves: for classroom teaching, but meaningless in a
no curriculum, no formally appointed teachers, fully online environment. For many students, this
and no examinations. structured education is necessary, even when they
However, although the technology continu- begin to move online, and such tools as LMSs
ally changes, some things do not. Many of the also have administrative advantages like linking
services that educational institutions currently student records to teaching activities. Neverthe-
provide—such as guidance, learner support, and less, this mode of teaching does not empower
accreditation—will still be needed. Many students learners in the way that some of the newer Web
are not, at least initially, independent learners 2.0 tools can. Downes (2006) argues that these
(see Candy, 1991), and many deliberately seek new tools allow for immersive learning—learning
guidance and help from teachers and institutions. everywhere and at any time, within all aspects of
One reason we have educational institutions that life, without the need for formal, time-and-place-
are supported by the public is because, to quote dependent institutions.
former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rums- The use of Web 2.0 tools raises the inevitable
feld (2002), “there are known unknowns; that is issue of quality. How can learners differentiate
to say we know there are some things we do not between reliable, accurate, authoritative informa-
know.” This is one reason why students choose tion and inaccurate, biased, or unsubstantiated
to go to university, or why parents send children information, if they are encouraged to roam
to school. Many students come to a learning task free? What are the implications for expertise and
without the necessary skills or confidence to study specialist knowledge, when everyone has a view
independently from scratch (Moore & Thompson, on everything? As Andrew Keen (2007) has com-
1990). They need structured support, structured mented, “we are replacing the tyranny of experts
and selected content, and recognized accreditation. with the tyranny of idiots.” Not all information
The advent of new tools that at last give students is equal, nor are all opinions. Unless we are to
more control over their learning will not change descend into subjective, quarreling beasts (the
their need for a structured educational experience. tyranny of idiots, as expressed by Keen), expertise
However, learners can be taught the skills needed remains critical for progress. Many students look
to become independent learners (Moore, 1973; for structure and guidance, and it is the responsi-
Marshall & Rowland, 1993). The new tools will bility of teachers to provide it. A middle ground
make this learning of how to learn much more is therefore needed between the total authority
effective, but still only, in most cases, within an and control of the teacher, and complete anarchy
initially structured environment. as seen in the children roaming free on the desert
At the same time, research by the Sloan Con- island in the novel Lord of the flies (Golding,
sortium, which found that over 80% of online 1954). The new Web 2.0 tools allow for such a
teaching in the USA was performed to support middle ground, but only if teachers have a clear
traditional classroom teaching (Allen & Seaman, pedagogy or educational philosophy to guide their
2006), suggests that most teachers working online choices and use of the technology.
29Understanding Web 2.0 and its Implications for E-Learning
The point here is that the choice of technology tation of historical sources such as the Bible or
and the design of the learning experience is an Qur’an), and constructivism.
academic decision that will vary depending on A theory of teaching or learning will be strongly
the type of students being taught and the nature of influenced by one or more epistemological posi-
the subject. However, perhaps the most important tions. However, an epistemology does not in itself
factor determining choice of the actual tools to address issues of teaching or learning. Learning
be used in online learning will be the educational or teaching theories are applications of a more
theory or approach (the pedagogy, for want of a general set of epistemological positions or beliefs
better term) most favored by those responsible about the nature of knowledge. Thus behaviorism
for the teaching or learning. is an approach to teaching and learning reflect-
ing an objectivist epistemology, but then so are
some forms of cognitive psychology or artificial
DIFFERENT PEDAGOGICAL intelligence.
APPROACHES TO WEB- Three epistemologies will be dealt with here—
BASED LEARNING objectivism, constructivism, and connectivism—
that are relevant to the application of Web 2.0
There are many different theories of learning, tools. It should be noted, however, that there are
and most of these theories reflect underlying but other epistemologies that could be applied. The
different philosophical beliefs about the nature point here is that it is important for teachers to be
of knowledge (epistemologies). This is a large aware of different epistemologies and to be sure
and complex topic and can be dealt with only that their use of Web 2.0 tools is consistent with
briefly in this chapter. For a good discussion of their own preferred epistemological positions.
the overall epistemological issues raised by ICTs,
see Lyotard (1979/1984) and Lankshear, Peters, Objectivism
and Knobel (2000).
It is necessary here to make a distinction be- An objectivist view of knowledge is that truth
tween epistemologies and theories of learning. exists outside the human mind. In particular, there
An epistemology basically describes the basis on are undeniable facts, concepts, and principles that
which we know or believe something to be true. are constant, reflecting an unchanging reality, and
This can be illustrated by the famous debate be- independent of personal beliefs (Popper, 1972).
tween Thomas Huxley and Bishop Wilberforce in Scientific laws are examples of an objectivist ap-
1860 on the origin of man. Huxley argued that man proach to knowledge. Whatever one may happen
was descended from the apes, based on Darwin’s to believe, there is a law of gravity. The apple will
work on the origin of species. Huxley’s argument fall downwards, at a certain speed that is predict-
was in the form of a scientific theory grounded able with enough known “facts.”
in empirical evidence. Wilberforce argued that For teachers who hold an objectivist position,
man was created by God, based on evidence from there is a body of knowledge to be learned and
the Bible. The basis for their beliefs were by and defined by experts. This is organized into subject
large irreconcilable, because they started from disciplines or content areas. The job of the teacher
fundamentally different views of what consti- is to transmit that body of knowledge. Teaching
tutes “evidence” for their belief. There are many is about moving knowledge from those that know
different epistemologies, including rationalism to those that do not know. The learner’s task is
(based on logic), objectivism (empirically tested to understand, memorize, reproduce accurately
knowledge), scholasticism (authorized interpre- what has been learned, and perhaps apply that
30Understanding Web 2.0 and its Implications for E-Learning
knowledge to specific, well-defined contexts. For constructivists, teaching is about ob-
Good teaching is authoritative, correct, well or- servation, comparison, questioning, reflection,
ganized, clear, and not to be questioned. Learning discussion, and above all, the assimilation and
is assessed by the production of correct answers accommodation of new experiences with previ-
and efficient reasoning based on the facts and ous forms of understanding. This is done through
concepts taught in the course. Objectivist teaching reflection (internal contemplation) and discussion.
can be found in all subject areas, but for obvious Discussion, in particular, is important, because this
reasons it is particularly strong in the natural sci- is how we test and challenge new ideas or unfa-
ences, computer sciences, engineering, and law. miliar concepts. Thus learning is both a personal
Objectivist instructional design is based strongly and a social activity.
on behavioral approaches, systems thinking, and The teacher’s job is to create an environment
quantitatively measured outputs (see, for instance, in which questions are raised, problems are pre-
Dick & Carey, 1996). sented for solution by the learners, and discussion
and argument can take place. In this environment,
Constructivism learners are more equal in that they are encour-
aged to challenge not only other learners but also
Constructivists believe that all knowledge is a the teacher. Assessment is based on the quality of
human construct (Gould & Brown, 2003). Even argument or reasoning, not the reproduction of
the laws of science are what scientists believe facts or concepts. Constructivist approaches to
at a particular time, and are open to change as a teaching and learning are also found in all subject
result of not just new facts, but also new ideas, areas, but are more common in the humanities,
and agreement is reached through discussion. social sciences, and education. (See Jonassen,
Particularly important to constructivists is that Davidson, Collins, Campbell, & Bannan Haag,
all knowledge is relative, personal, and dynamic. 1995 for a discussion of how constructivism can
For instance, the concept of heat is understood be applied to online learning.)
early in life through sensation. A baby learns
about heat by touching something hot, like a Connectivism
stove. As the child grows older, he or she real-
izes that heat is relative, and can be quantified. Connectivism is a theory advanced by George
For a child in Vancouver, a daily temperature of Siemens (2005). A connectivist view of knowledge
30 degrees Celsius is hot, and a temperature of is that the nature of knowledge is radically trans-
minus 30 is cold. However, this is not true for formed by the technology of the Internet. Lyotard
a child in Riyadh or one in Iqualuit, where the (1979/1984), for example, has argued that the
concepts of a hot or cold day are quite different. nature of knowledge derived from the use of in-
As the child gets older, he or she may learn that formation technologies is radically different from
heat is the transfer of energy between two objects the knowledge derived through scientific thinking.
due to temperature differences. Thus the concept According to Lyotard, knowledge derived from
of heat is dynamic, relative, and personal. One science and rationalism has an intrinsic value,
person’s understanding of heat will be different whereas knowledge in the information society
from that of another, because their experiences has a commercial or utilitarian value. Siemens
are different. There may be enough shared un- argues that knowledge is advanced and trans-
derstanding of heat for them to agree on what formed by the contributions of those connected to
it is, but their understandings of it will not be particular networks, which are in turn connected
quite the same. to other networks (collective intelligence). The
31Understanding Web 2.0 and its Implications for E-Learning
interconnectedness of people through the Internet the design of teaching will be influenced by the
allows for the learning that occurs overall to be dominant epistemological position of teachers,
greater than the learning of each individual con- and this will need to “match,” to some extent, the
nected (the “wisdom of crowds”—Surowiecki, needs of learners. It is important, then, to ensure
2004). For Siemens, it is more important to be that learners are developing the skills and com-
connected to the “right” nodes to “catch” new petencies they will need in the “outside world,”
knowledge than to be outside the network with which brings the discussion to the teaching and
“old” knowledge, or connected to networks that learning needs of a knowledge-based society. In
are less “useful”. According to him, “Nodes that particular, this will provide some guidance on
successfully acquire greater profile will be more the appropriate choice and use of Web 2.0 tools.
successful at acquiring additional connections”
(p. 6); “The pipe is more important than the
content within the pipe” (p. 8). Thus knowledge LEARNING IN A KNOWLEDGE-
is constantly shifting and changing. Recognizing BASED SOCIETY
patterns within the chaos of shifting knowledge
is a core skill to be learned, as is recognizing the In any country, there are at least three somewhat
networks of connections that matter. different economies operating at the same time
Although he describes it as a theory of learning, (Porter, 1990):
and his ideas certainly have profound implications
for teaching and learning, Siemens’ position is • Resource-based economies: These are
more of an epistemology—a view of the nature primarily land- and sea-based economies:
of knowledge—than a theory of teaching and agriculture, mining, fishing. Increasingly
learning. Thus there are hints of possible actions over time, they have become more knowl-
to be taken, but at this stage of development, there edge-based, but the majority of workers in
are no clear guidelines for teachers and learners. these industries have learned their skills in
However, Web 2.0 tools and practices will likely traditional ways, either from relatives or
be critical elements of any teaching or learning on the job. The numbers working in these
that is consciously built around the concept of industries in economically advanced coun-
connectivism. tries has rapidly declined, even though in
countries such as Canada and Australia
Choosing Epistemological Positions resource-based economies still are ma-
jor contributors to gross national product
Teachers are always making choices about how (Smith, 2007). Nonetheless, they employ
to teach based on their views of what constitutes relatively few workers, because the num-
knowledge, and the best means to help learners ber of workers in relation to economic out-
acquire that knowledge. Frequently teachers put is very low, due to innovation, mecha-
will use a variety of approaches, depending on nization, and the high value of the goods
the nature of the subject matter and the needs of produced per worker.
individual learners. For instance, an objectivist, • Industrial-based economies: These are
didactic approach—delivering information in a based primarily on manufacturing, that
well-structured and organized way—may be nec- is, converting the raw materials of the re-
essary to get learners quickly to a position where source-based industries into goods through
they can start asking questions or solving problems factories. Such economies are mainly ur-
in a more constructivist manner. Nevertheless, ban. Labor is a major cost, and economies
32Understanding Web 2.0 and its Implications for E-Learning
of scale—manufacturing the same product bine, and disappear very quickly, although
many times—is essential, because of the in some areas there are dominant industry
high fixed cost of equipment. The organi- players (e.g., Microsoft, Google).
zation of labor is mainly hierarchical, with
owners, managers, supervisors, skilled Over time, there has been a significant shift in
workers, and unskilled workers. Skilled economies (Porter, 1990). Because labor is a major
workers are relatively narrowly trained cost in industrial organizations, manufacturing
within a specific occupation; only the own- has been moving from high-cost labor markets to
ers and managers require advanced levels lower-cost labor markets. To retain their global
of education, although as manufacturing competitiveness, economically advanced coun-
becomes more automated, labor costs are tries have been switching from industrial-based
reduced and knowledge and skill levels to knowledge-based economies. Their advantage
for some workers increase. In spite of the is that knowledge-based industries require work-
above, even industrial-based companies ers with high levels of education and knowledge,
now are relying more and more on knowl- which countries such as Canada and the USA,
edge-based products and services. For in- with over 50% of an age group going on to some
stance, Volkwagen estimates that 70% of form of post-secondary education, have in abun-
the value of a modern car is knowledge- dance. It should be noted though that the skills of
based, mainly in the form of its electronic knowledge-based workers are markedly different
systems and the costs of research and de- from those of industrially based workers, except
sign. In the past, manufacturing provided at the senior management level. Thus the shift
large numbers of workers with steady work to a knowledge-based economy is dependent on
and relatively high wages. large numbers of highly educated workers with
• Knowledge-based economies: These are different skills from those of industrially based
primarily based on the production, trans- workers (Conference Board of Canada, 1991).
mission, management, and organization The shift in economies has been quite dramatic.
of information, mostly digital information Figure 2 and Figure 3 show this effect on employ-
(Drucker, 1969). Typical knowledge-based ment in Canada. Figure 2 shows the division of
industries are telecommunications, finan- the workforce between the three economies from
cial services (banking, insurance), health the middle of the 19th century to the present
services, entertainment (movies, games), day. Before 1850, nearly 80% of jobs in Canada
biotechnology, information technology were based on working the land and sea. As the
companies (computing, etc.), and educa- Industrial Revolution impacted on Canada, many
tion. These economies are “virtual,” that people left the countryside and migrated to jobs
is, they are not dependent on a particular, in factories. Between the 1930s to around 1985,
single location (although companies oper- nearly 75% of employed Canadians worked in
ating in them may have headquarters), they manufacturing (Marcus, 1952).
are global, and they require workers with a Figure 3 shows a dramatic change in Canadian
high level of education and multiple skills. employment from 1985 onwards. Manufacturing
Often, knowledge-based companies are jobs in Canada have dropped from nearly 75% in
small, with between two and 100 employ- 1985 to under 15% by 2007. They have almost
ees. They are networked to other organi- entirely been replaced by jobs in the service sector.
zations, highly flexible, and emerge, com- The service sector hides, though, the important dif-
33Understanding Web 2.0 and its Implications for E-Learning
Figure 2. Shifting jobs: Canada
Figure 3. Percentage share of Canadian industrial employment (Source: The Globe and Mail, April 27,
2006, B9)
ferences between high-paying knowledge-based in many other economically advanced countries
jobs and low-paying, unskilled or semi-skilled (according to the Financial Times in the UK, for
service jobs (e.g., shop assistants). Nevertheless, example, the British economy reached the “cross-
despite this huge drop in manufacturing jobs, over” point between employment in goods and
Canada’s unemployment rate is at an all-time services in 2008 [Laitner, 2008]). The reason is
low, and its economy has been booming (Note that manufacturing jobs have migrated to countries
that the figures reflect the proportion of jobs in with low labor costs. However, much of the value
each sector, not the proportion of gross domestic of goods produced in low-labor economies is
product [GDP]. The resource sector—mining created (and retained) in economically advanced
and oil in particular, which are land-based—is a countries. For instance, the Conference Board of
major contributor to Canada’s GDP, but employs Canada (2008, p. 2) states that
relatively few people.)
Although the timing and magnitude of the Every US$300 Apple iPod adds $150 to the of-
change may vary, similar patterns will be found ficial U.S. imports from China, but only $3 of its
34Understanding Web 2.0 and its Implications for E-Learning
value is actually created in China. About $147 is knowledge in these areas, such as mathematics,
created in the rest of Asia, and another $149 in accountancy, anatomy, etc. Furthermore, skills
the United States. such as problem solving are not generic: problem
solving in medicine is different from problem
The point here is that economically advanced solving in business. The skill needs to be embed-
countries are increasingly depending on knowl- ded within the content area. This means teaching
edge-based workers to maintain and increase content and designing learning activities in such
their standard of living. In an industrial society, a way as to develop these skills.
less than 15% of those in the workforce (mainly A second feature of knowledge-based work
owners, managers, and those working in financial is that knowledge workers must continue to go
services) needed post-secondary education. In on learning (Senge, 1990). The knowledge bases
knowledge-based economies, more than 50% need of medicine, IT, and biotechnology, for example,
post-secondary education (the Alberta Provincial are constantly changing. To stay competitive,
Government, 2008 has put this figure at 62.7% knowledge-based companies and their employ-
of all jobs by 2011). ees must continually change and adapt through
Education therefore needs to be focused par- a process of lifelong learning. Thus universities
ticularly on the knowledge and skills required and colleges face two challenges: with regard to
in knowledge-based companies. What are those those entering from high schools, how to develop
skills? The Conference Board of Canada (1991) the thinking skills identified as needed within
surveyed employers in knowledge-based compa- a knowledge-based society within a traditional
nies and identified the following: undergraduate program; and equally as important,
how to provide ongoing opportunities for learning
• good communication skills (reading/ for those who have already graduated and are in
writing/speaking/listening); the workforce.
• ability to learn independently; This is where the epistemological basis for
• social skills: ethics, positive attitudes, teaching and learning becomes critical. Con-
responsibility; structivism, with its emphasis on learner-centered
• teamwork; teaching, discussion, and communication between
• ability to adapt to changing circumstances; learners, and connectivism, with its emphasis on
• thinking skills: problem solving; critical/ Internet-mediated knowledge construction and
logical/numerical; digital literacy, seem to provide a better basis
• knowledge navigation: where to get/how for developing the skills needed in knowledge-
to process information; based economies than what is possible with a
• entrepreneurial skills: taking initiative to predominantly objectivist approach. Noteworthy,
seize an opportunity; however, is Lyotard’s (1979/1984) observation
• IT and computing skills. about the changing nature of knowledge as hav-
ing commercial rather than intrinsic value in a
It might be argued that these are not very dif- knowledge-based society.
ferent from the kinds of skills one would expect
from any traditional liberal arts program. The
catch, though, is that these skills are required in CHANGING STUDENTS
addition to specialist qualifications in engineer-
ing, management, health sciences, business, etc. In discussing the topic of changing students, it
It will still be essential to build the foundations of may be useful to begin with a warning from a
35Understanding Web 2.0 and its Implications for E-Learning
study commissioned by the British Library and stage that the skills digital natives have developed
JISC, the UK universities’ computer network in their personal and social lives carry over into
organization. The study used log file analysis of academic work. Laurillard (2002, p. 218) points
actual search behavior of a wide range of users of out, for instance, that
different ages (Centre for Information Behaviour
and the Evaluation of Research [CIBER], 2008): academic knowledge is distinct from experiential
knowledge. It is a reflection on experience, rather
There are very, very few controlled studies that than being synonymous with experience per se. It
account for age and information seeking behavior also includes knowledge of how that knowledge
systematically: as a result there is much misinfor- came to be known.
mation and much speculation about how young
people supposedly behave in cyberspace. (p. 14) The British Library/JISC study (CIBER, 2008)
looked at the “Google generation,” defined as those
Nevertheless, Marc Prensky (2001) claims: born after 1993, and asked the following ques-
tion (among others) in relation to this generation:
Our students have changed radically. Today’s “[Are they] searching for and researching content
students are no longer the people our educational in new ways and … [is this] likely to shape their
system was designed to teach … today’s students future behaviour as mature researchers?” (p. 5).
think and process information fundamentally dif- This study reported that
ferently from their predecessors. (p. 1)
young people scan online pages very rapidly (boys
He argues that students now entering univer- especially) and click extensively on hyperlinks—
sity have grown up all their lives with technol- rather than reading sequentially. Users make very
ogy—mobile phones, computers, video games, little use of advanced search facilities, assuming
and so on—and therefore are “digital natives.” that search engines “understand” their queries.
As a result of this exposure to technology, digi- They tend to move rapidly from page to page,
tal natives access and process information more spending little time reading or digesting informa-
quickly, multitask more easily, prefer graphics to tion and they have difficulty making relevance
text and random to sequential access, thrive on judgments about the pages they retrieve. (p. 14)
instant gratification and rewards, and prefer games
to serious work. This makes them different from Although this somewhat supports Prensky’s
“digital immigrants,” that is, people who did not position, the CIBER study goes on to challenge a
grow up with this technology, but have learned number of apparent myths about “digital natives,”
to adapt to it later in life. As a result, according to with varying degrees of confidence. However, one
Prensky, educational institutions need to change point they do make clearly is that
their approach to accommodate the needs of such
learners, but it is difficult for most teachers to do the evidence indicates that more people across
this, since they are digital immigrants, not natives. all age groups are using the Internet and Web 2.0
It is certainly true that many digital natives are technologies widely and for a variety of purposes.
early and heavy adopters of Web 2.0 tools such The young... may have been the earliest adopters
as MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. but now older users are fast catching up... the so-
These mesh well with their prior experience and called Silver Surfers. In many ways the Google
needs. However, there is little research or sys- generation label is increasingly unhelpful. (p. 21)
tematically collected empirical evidence at this
36You can also read
