Author: Sarah Wood

“Collaboration is the process of shared creating. It is about collective intelligence.” (Attaran, 2007).

Bryan Alexander, a leading researcher of emerging technology for teaching and learning, believes that the social software movement is not new, he argues started in the 1960’s with the idea “to connect people in order to boost their knowledge and their ability to learn” (Alexander, 2006, p.33).  More recently, Web 2.0 has taken hold of our culture and educators are attempting to keep up.  Home Economics classes have traditionally focussed on theory and lab work that is created within the classroom.  Asking Home Economics educators to expand their horizon’s, the most recent BC Foods and Nutrition curriculum states, “when planning for instruction and assessment in Foods and Nutrition 8 to 12, teachers should provide opportunities for students to develop literacy in relation to information and communications technology sources” (BC Ministry of Education, 2009).  Utilizing Web 2.0 technology in the Home Economics classroom allows students to create a more authentic and enriched learning experience.  Students can expand their own knowledge base around their interests and collaborate with fellow students and students globally.  Using Bryan Alexander’s research, this paper will examine the opportunities and threats for utilizing Web 2.0 in the Home Economics classroom; in particular, social bookmarking, course management systems and Web 2.0 storytelling will be explored.

Social bookmarking can be done by individuals or groups and is used to store, describe and share bookmarks (Alexander, 2006).  Alexander comments from a pedagogical standpoint that social bookmarking can be beneficial in the following ways:

1. Acts as a memory device – retaining memory from each student and different classes.
2. Students can connect with others of similar interests and build upon their own knowledge base.
3. Since tags are created by users they can offer a different perspective on how to view content.
4. Cooperative nature fosters teamwork and collaboration.
5. Benefits the teacher as they can follow the train of thought of the students.

Within a Home Economics classroom, social bookmarking can be used to assist students in meal planning and skill building.  Working in groups, students are required to plan and prepare a meal of their choice for term projects.  Social bookmarking sites, like Delicious, can be a working space where students collect and collaborate with recipes and techniques.  The threats to this approach are that students may not be aware of the time and budget constraints of all their meal choices; however this provides an opportunity for the technology, the students and the teacher to work together to create a meaningful experience.

Course management systems (CMS) evolved around the same time as Web 2.0 and allow for social networking and collaboration within a classroom environment (blogs, wikis, discussions, etc.) (Alexander, 2008).  Alexander does not believe that CMS offer a true Web 2.0 experience as users are usually confined to the localised classroom versus the global web environment (discussion threads and wikis are usually class based).  That being said, CMS do offer Home Economic students the ability to explore beyond the classroom walls and participate globally.  Please see an example of a Home Economics CMS (username: wood and password: password) Ms. Wood’s Foods 9 Moodle.  This Moodle site provides a platform and a jumping off point for Home Economics students interact with social bookmarking and storytelling technology that Alexander believes both “promotes higher order critical thinking skills” (2009, p.157).  This Moodle also introduces students to a wiki environment so that they become more familiar with adding information and editing others content. 

Please see an example of a Home Economics Web 2.0 story using Mapwing.

 

http://www.mapwing.com/explore/view_tour.php?t=MQKWMoWooffidoi

Web 2.0 storytelling is revolutionizing the way stories are being told – “stories now are open-ended, branching, hyperlinked, cross-media, participatory, exploratory, and unpredictable” (Alexander & Levine, 2008, p.40).  Alexander and Levine argue that traditional stories have a beginning, middle and an end; in contrast, Web 2.0 stories can have multiple starting points, can be hyperlinked and can allow user editing of content.  Alan Levine, co-author of Web 2.0 Storytelling Emergence of a new Genre, created the site CogDogRoo which explores 50+ tools for creating a digital story.  In true Web 2.0 fashion, Levine created his site as a wiki to enable users to edit and add as they see fit.  Web 2.0 stories also can take many forms and there is a myriad of available applications to assist Home Economics students with creating their own stories. As Web 2.0 stories, do not follow the traditional linear path they have many applications in the Home Economics classroom.  The Mapwing story, Foods Around the World, is a personalized story that allows the individual to tell a story about cuisine that they are passionate about.  The story also encourages students to research the ingredients and techniques used in creating the dishes of a particular region.  One of the threats to Web 2.0 storytelling is following proper copyright laws and only using images and recipes that are legally available.  Students will need to be educated on Creative Commons licensing and sites offer this. 

Alexander credits much of the success of Web 2.0 to openness and “wisdom of the crowd” and (2006, p.34).  Much of the learning that goes on in the Home Economics classroom mirrors this philosophy as students are encouraged to work together to create recipes.  Web 2.0 technology allows students and educators to work together to expand learning opportunities beyond the classroom walls.  Social bookmarking, CMS, and storytelling facilitate students in creating collaborative learning experiences based on their own interests.  Home Economics is a lifelong skill and as educators, we have succeeded if we can instil a passion for learning new cuisine and techniques.

 Reference list:

Alexander, B. (2006) “Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning?” Educause Review, 41(2), 34-44. Retrieved, April 5, 2008, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0621.pdf

Alexander, B. (2008)  “Web 2.0 and Emergent Multiliteracies.” Theory into practice. 47(2), 150-60. Retrieved, July 20, 2009, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405840801992371

Alexander, B., and Levine, A. (2008).  Web 2.0 story-telling: The emergence of a new genre. Educause Review. 43(6), 40-56. Retrieved, August 10, 2009, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0865.pdf

Attaran, M. (2007) Collaborative computing: a new management strategy for increasing productivity and building a better business. Business Strategy Series. Vol 8(8). p. 397-393.

BC Ministry of Education. (2008). Retrieved November 22, 2009 from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/he_foodnutri812.pdf.

New technology alters the structure of our interests: the things we think about.  They alter the character of our symbols: the things we think with.  And they alter the nature of community: the arena in which thoughts develop. (Postman, 1992, p.20)

Walter Ong in his acclaimed book, Orality and Literacy, posits that “more than any other single invention, writing has transformed human consciousness” (1982, p.77).  Writing has also transformed the way in which people connect with each other.  In an oral culture, communication was limited to what an individual could witness first hand or what they heard via another medium (clergy, messengers, etc.).  As the technology of writing developed, books, letters and telegraphs further evolved how people communicated with each other and allowed people to communicate with a broader audience.  This paper contends that there has been a revolution of communication as digital technologies have altered the way in which people communicate.  The question remains – Is digital technology creating connections or digitally dividing us? 

The Internet, and particularly Web 2.0, has altered our ability to refute written text.  In an oral culture, people had the opportunity to directly discuss (or disagree) with a message as the message and the source were one (Ong).  Ong argues that there is “no way to directly refute a text” (p.78).  Written work has had a long history of “stability and authority” and the average person was not given the power to question it (Bolter, 2001).  As writing evolved to include letters and newspaper, people could write editorials (that may or may not be published) to voice their opinions.  Web 2.0 has altered the landscape for personal expression and opened up communication.  Dobson and Willinsky agree that digital literacy is allowing people to “speak out and make one’s views widely available” (2009, p.1).  Even the terminology used has changed; books have readers, whereby websites have visitors (Kress, 2001).  A visitor can instantly comment on a story and share that with friends, family or the World Wide Web.  Take for example, CNN’s website, whereby at the end of each story, visitors are given the option of Mixx, Facebook, Twitter, Share, Email, Save and Print (CNN).  CNN also allows visitors to instantly comment on all stories posted.  Writing opened up communication lines and Web 2.0 further breaks down institutional barriers and allows individual voices to be heard. 

Ong comments, “A chirographic (writing) culture and even more so a typographic (print) culture can distance and in a way denature even the human, itemizing such as the names of leaders and political divisions in an abstract” (p. 42).  In an oral situation people are more guarded with their opinions as not to offend others.  When speaking, the audience is present and the speaker has to express their thoughts succinctly and timely.  On the other hand, writing puts a distance to what is being said both in terms of time and space.  A writer has time to reflect and revise their work.  Digital technology has created a new medium that allows written text to be more instantaneous like oral dialogue.  In UBC’s MET program, the students had a written discussion about the differences between an email message and a phone conversation and Clare Roche (2009) wrote, “if we are imagining that someone is reading our words, it is usually because we know that our written words can be kept and may be used as evidence against us”.  Laurie Trepanier (2009) commented that “email dehumanizes events and some people use it as an escape from having to do the dirty work”.  What people write and what people say are often very different. 

According to Ong, in an oral culture, people speak to be heard and unity is created when a speaker addresses an audience.  Ong argues that print isolates and is not written for any particular group.  Postman also believes that in a classroom orality leads to cooperation where as print emphasises individualized learning and competition.  The evolution of the World Wide Web to include Web 2.0 technology like blogs, social book marking, and wiki’s is altering that perception of text; Alexander comments that “an entire genre of Web services has emerged solely for connecting people to each other based on their interests and personality” (2008, p.152).  The goal of many social software applications is to create openness, collaboration and a community – very much the same as orality.  The Web also allows the audience to be global as it is not bound by location.  UBC’s Master of Educational Technology prides its self on being an internationally recognized program that is offered fully online and taken by students from thirty different countries (MET, 2009).  Jerry Bleecker comments, “When a document begins in BC, is refined in China, polished in Ontario, proofed in Japan, and submitted from New York, you know you’ve been part of a truly global learning experience” (MET).

In 1982, when Ong wrote his book, the World Wide Web was in its infancy and Web 2.0 was not yet on the horizon.  Web 2.0 and digital technology has evolved to incorporate many of the attributes that oral cultures appreciate: a sense of openness and community.  Digital technology is not without its pitfalls, but it gives the individual power to refute and let their voices be heard.  The line is already blurred between oral dialogue and written correspondence with instant messaging and texting and it will be interesting to watch as communication patterns continue to evolve and improve.  Digital technology holds the power to create connections between people.  These connections are different than that of a traditional oral culture, but strong communication channels and a sense of community can still be built.

References:

Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0 and emergent multiliteracies. Educase Review, 4(1), p. 34-44.

Bolter, J. (2001).  Writing spaces: computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print.  Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum.

CNN. (2009). Retrieved November 19, 2009 from http://www.cnn.com/.

Dobson T, Willinsky J. Digital Literacy. In: Olson D, Torrance N, editors. Cambridge Handbook on Literacy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2009. http://pkp.sfu.ca/files/Digital%20Literacy.pdf

MET website. (2009).  Retrieved November 19, 2009 from http://met.ubc.ca/.

Ong, Walter. (1982.) Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage Books.

Roche, C. (2009). Orality and Literacy [ETEC 540 class discussion]. Retrieved from e-Learning @ UBC website: https://www.elearning.ubc.ca/.

Trepanier, L. (2009). ). Orality and Literacy [ETEC 540 class discussion]. Retrieved from e-Learning @ UBC website: https://www.elearning.ubc.ca/.

As a typographic culture (and becoming more so a Web 2.0 culture), we take for granted the power that writing has on our everyday existence.  Neil Postman (1992) in his book, “Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology” asks us to consider both the “burden and blessing” that technology holds within our lives.  To examine writing as a technology, Postman refers to Plato’s Phaedrus whereby King Thamas is opposed to sharing the new technology of writing as he fears that it will be detrimental to his people.  Although Postman argues that we should not be as one sided as King Thamas, I find that his position is sceptical and often Luddite in nature.  That being said, I feel that Postman’s “Technopoly” offers numerous points for further reflection.

“The words technical change have come to symbolize for people all over the world a hope that is new to mankind” (Mead, 1955, p.1).  Postman shares that Plato’s Theuth shared a similar interest to Mead of spreading the new technology of writing to the masses.  Many see technical change as a means to add to a cultures knowledge base and should be widely distributed.  I also think that we should take what we know and better ourselves with new techniques and technologies.  Postman on the other hand cautions that a “new technology does not add or subtract something.  It changes everything” (p. 18).  I don’t agree with Postman that new technology can change everything as I feel it needs to be proven valuable and useful first.  An example of this is the perseverance of Sidney Pressey to revolutionize teaching with his “Automatic Teacher” machine (Petrina, 2004).  Pressey’s goal was to create a new technology that would free teachers from mechanical tasks so they could spend more time with individual students (Petrina).  While the intentions were admirable, both the technology did not live up to its standards and the culture of teaching was not agreeable to machines as teaching aids.  The teachers in Pressey’s time did not believe that this technical change was a blessing to them as thus Pressey’s “Automatic Teacher” was never widely adopted.  Similar sentiments were felt when writing was the new technology and people opposed its adoption.

Ong (1982) shares the story of A.L. Luria who did fieldwork with literate and illiterate people in rural Uzbekistan in 1931.  Luria found that “it takes only a moderate degree of literacy to make a tremendous difference in thought processes” (p. 50).   Both Ong and Postman agree that those that are in control of knowledge have power.  Postman cautions that this elite group have been “granted undeserved authority and prestige by those who have no such competence” (p. 9).   Postman makes an excellent point of “underserved wisdom” and I would argue that this is reflected with what is taking place in today’s classroom.  There are teachers, administrators and parents that believe that using new technology in the classroom is of paramount importance and thus, those who use it are applauded and those who refrain from adoption are seen as obsolete.  I would agree with Postman that there are “winners and losers” in the knowledge monopoly.  The technological knowledge gap that exists within a school creates a burden on teachers.  As someone from a literate cultural circle it is hard to understand the struggle that occurred as writing was the new technology and was gaining popularity.

Postman urges us to examine the introduction of computers into the classroom as he feels they will alter they way in which we teach and learn.  Postman describes how King Thamus believed that communication and instruction were tied to orality.  He argues that orality stresses group learning and cooperation whereby print learning focuses on individualization and competition.  Ong would agree with Postman in that he feels that orality creates unity and “writing and print isolate” (p. 73).  Both Postman and Ong wrote in a time that differs from now: widespread adoption of computers in classrooms is inevitable.  I consider the points that both make and I would agree to some, but I would argue that an evolution has taken place and that computers are being used to increase collaboration and improve overall learning among students.  Web 2.0 has taken hold and wiki’s and community weblogs are being implemented into classrooms and are facilitating cooperation and collaboration among students.  The successes of Learning Management Systems, such as Moodle, are built on the premise of social constructionist beliefs whereby knowledge is created by the expertise of the group (Moodle).

Technology is ever changing.  Technological change has occurred from oral cultures to chirographic cultures, to now a Web 2.0 culture.  If Postman was writing in 2009 he would have to include discussions of digital footprints and such into his discourse.  I believe that we have to take lessons from the past to decide if the latest and greatest technology is a burden or a blessing and if we as individuals chose to adopt it.  It is hard to understand that once writing was the new technology and it had opponents.  I think Heidegger (1953) said it best, “but we are delivered over [technology] in the worst possible way when we regard it as something neutral.”

References:

Heidegger, M. (1953/1977). The question concerning technology. In M. Heidegger, The question concerning technology and other essays (trans. W. Lovitt) (pp. 3-35). New York: Harper & Row.

Mead, Margaret. (1955). Cultural Patters and Technical Change. New York: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

Moodle. (2009) Retrieved September 27, 2009 from http://docs.moodle.org/en/About_Moodle.

Ong, Walter. (1982.) Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.

Petrina, S. (2004). Sidney Pressey and the automation of education, 1924-1934. Technology and Culture, 45(2), 305-330.

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage Books.