Web 2.0 in the Classroom: Literature Review
http://web2pointointheclassroom.weebly.com/framework–summary.html
Web 2.0 in the Classroom: Literature Review
Diana Wilkes
Student Number: 18562090
WORD COUNT 1389
ETEC 532 Dr. Alexander de Cosson March 4, 2011
Précis
As an educational advisor of Science, English, ICT and Social Studies; a generalist teaching practitioner in many international contexts; and a former technophobe, I am interested in how Web 2.0 applications can enhance teaching and learning. I have utilized a variety of these technologies (wikis, blogs, podcasts, social networks, social bookmarking etc.) myself as a teacher and a teacher advisor. I am convinced that they do enhance teaching and learning to a great and varied, extent. I want to know if the research validates my perspective.
My final paper (actually a website) entitled “Integrating Web 2.0 into the Classroom” proposes a framework for integrating Web 2.0 tools/applications into the everyday classroom and highlights the benefits and caveats of integrating Web 2.0 into the Arts and Humanities.
Web 2.0 Applications
An examination of current literature reveals that this topic has been gaining more attention. The literature reviewed focuses on Web 2.0 as a tool, the barriers to integrating Web 2.0 and how to overcome those challenges. For the purposes of this paper, Web 2.0 applications / Web 2.0 tools will be referred to as “Web 2.0”. Web 2.0 is “a loosely defined term for applications that go beyond displaying individual pages of static content and allow a community of users to interact with the site and each other by adding or updating the content” (Free On-line Dictionary, 2011). Incorporating social software into classrooms has found that blogs, wikis and podcasts facilitate collaboration, are motivating and can be used in the peer editing process (Bos & Lee, 2010; Herro, 2010; Lee & McLoughlin, 2008).
Some Advantageous Web 2.0 Applications and Tools (all open source = free)
- Wikis- pbwikià allows people to co-construct text and multi-media
- Concept maps- bubb.us à enables learners to create concept maps online
- Blogs – wordpress à for individuals or groups of like-minded people that others can contribute to
- Photo Sharing- Flickr à allows people to share photos in albums
- File Sharing- BitTorrent à a program that enables people to share files
- Podcasts –easypodcast à user-friendly tool to create your own podcast
- Contributing to RSS feeds- Feed Demon à updates when there is new digital content from favourite sites
- Social networking – Facebook à profiles & connects people/friends and provides many applications
- Social Bookmarking – Delicious à enables learners to tag their favourite sites on related topics
- Video Sharing – Youtube à people can publish, store and view personally created videos
- Collaborative documents- googledocs àgroups all around the world can collaborate simultaneously
- Mashups – combining two types of media (often two songs) to make a new meaning
- Mapping- google maps à collaborative mapping tool
- Presentations – Prezi à swish, user-friendly collaborative, interactive presentation tool that enables embedding of pictures/videos
(Millard & Essex, 2007)
This paper examines three areas related to my research interests: identifying the potential for Web 2.0 as an instructional tool, establishing the barriers to it’s’ integration and examining how Web 2.0 fosters autonomous learning in students.
Web 2.0- Instructional Potential for the Teacher
An escalating challenge for teachers in the 21st century is updating their portfolio of teaching tools. Although challenging, blending effective pedagogy and collaborative Web 2.0 has significant potential for enhancing teaching and learning (Bos & Lee, 2010). The user-friendly nature of Web 2.0 minimizes the technological teaching time required to use them effectively in the classroom and some are referring to them as the ‘weapons of mass collaboration’ (Tapscott & William, 2008). In their qualitative-quantitative study, Bos and Lee (2010) highlight the significance for pre-service teachers to learn about Web 2.0 before they enter the classroom so they are able to nurture critical and creative thinking, communication, collaboration, researching and problem solving. The learners in our classrooms are digital natives and often have widespread exposure to social software and I often use the students as mini-teachers for both myself and their classmates. This potential needs to be tapped when pre-service teachers are training. A multi-case study involving grade 8 students who participated in a course that utilized blogs, wikis, podcasts, RSS feeds, YouTube videos and social bookmarks (Herro, 2010) resulted in improved cognitive development and became increasingly autonomous. This enabled the teacher transition from ‘sage on the stage’ to ‘guide on the side’ to happen more naturally.
Barriers to Integration of Web 2.0
Bauer and Kenton (2005) conducted a mixed methods study involving a survey, observations and informal interviews of 30 tech savvy teachers from 4 different schools and discovered that 100% of these teachers faced obstacles in implementing technology. These barriers included equipment availability, hardware quality, technical difficulties, time, varying skill level of students, scheduling, software compatibility/availability and internet connectivity. The researchers also quantify that since 80% of these teachers used computer technology (CT) less than 50% of the time that full integration was not happening (Bauer and Kenton, 2005). A school wide vision is required for complete CT integration and without it, integration of Web 2.0 cannot happen. Bos and Lee (2010) deduced that teachers find great value in integrating technology but lack the skills required to connect Web 2.0 as a daily teaching tool. A multi case-study (Herro, 2010) identifies similar barriers including quality of software/hardware, staff development/training and maintaining pace with the digital age. In my experience, technophobe teachers are reluctant to try anything new if it requires extra planning or student movement. This reiterates the importance of a shared vision for integration of CT among all stakeholders. Also, the school must be designed to encourage use of educational technologies. I know that once I had an IWB in my classroom I used it every day but prior to that I used it once a week in my colleague’s non-contact period. That path of least resistance needs to lead to CT integration!
Web 2.0 and Autonomous Learners
Web 2.0 enables the learner to take centre-stage where they can engage in social negotiation, co-construct knowledge, collaborate, simulate ‘real-life’ situations and solve problems and this encourages “autonomy, initiative, process learning and tools to enhance natural curiosity” (Herro, 2010, p.2737). The affordances of Web 2.0; connectivity and social rapport, collaborative information discovery and sharing, content creation and knowledge and information aggregation and content modification combined with careful planning stimulate the participation of learners (Lee & McGloughlin, 2008). Ultimately, personalized learning environments would incorporate Web 2.0 as well. Social constructivism unfolds organically when Web 2.0 is employed and grade 8 students were observed engaging in peer negotiation and completed their tasks with the help and guidance of each other f2f and online (Herro, 2008). Teachers who believe the students are motivated by Web 2.0 and witness the positive changes in learner behaviour will begin to modify their practices, which will lead to further learner exposure to Web 2.0 (Millard & Essex, 2007). Finally, autonomous learning can only happen when educators willingly relinquish some control and by encouraging students to take risks. How? Self-directed learning is prompted by providing learners with options for choice, scaffolding for support and Web 2.0 for motivation (Lee & McGloughlin, 2008).
Conclusion
Our digital native students live in a flat world (coined by Thomas Friedman) and deserve to be exposed to the tools employed in their reality of the 21st century. This should be complemented by Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) tools like simulations and microworlds, resources containing animated guides or intelligent agents; cognitive tools; practice tools, and scaffolding tools (Dalgarno, 2001) in order to achieve true technology integration. Web 2.0 applications are designed with the user in mind, so they are exceptionally intuitive. An added bonus of Web 2.0 is due to the fact that they are web based and do not require software (this is advantageous assuming there is reliable connectivity!). With any pedagogical shift there are opportunities and limitations, however, the integration of Web 2.0 by tech savvy teachers will increase the potential for achieving social, collaborative and instructional goals of the teaching and learning (Millard & Essex, 2008). There is a clear relationship between teacher’s self-efficacy and the integration of web 2.0 in schools and this will be a challenge for individual schools and teacher training institutions to address in order to saturate the teaching profession with professionals who will endeavour to keep abreast of our ever-changing digital world. Web 2.0 can transform our networked internet ecology in a significant manner and it demands a change in teaching practice (Alexander, 2006) across all subjects but particularly for the Arts and Humanities.
References
Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educause Review, 41(2), 32-44.
Bauer, J. & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward Technology Integration in the Schools: Why It Isn’t Happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519-546. Norfolk, VA: AACE. Retrieved on February 1, 2011 from http://www.editlib.org/p/4728
Bos, B. & Lee, K. (2010). Problem-Based Instruction and Web 2.0, Meeting the Needs of the 21st Century Learner. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 2658-2665). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved February 11, 2011 from http://www.editlib.org/p/33772.
Dalgarno, B. (2001). Technologies Supporting Highly Interactive Learning Resources on the Web: An Analysis. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(2), 153-171. Norfolk, VA: AACE. Retrieved February 1, 2011 from http://www.editlib.org/p/8417.
Halavais, A. (2005). Weblogs and collaborative web publishing as learning spaces. In J. Weiss (Ed.), The international handbook of virtual learning environments. Dordrecht, NE: Springer.
Herro, D. (2010). Web 2.0 in the Classroom: Student Practices, Teacher Perspectives. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 2737-2742). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved February 10, 2011 from http://www.editlib.org/p/33784.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2008). The “twoness” of learn 2.0: Challenges and prospects of a would-be new learning paradigm. Closing keynote presented at the Learning 2.0: From Preschool to Beyond, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ.
Lee, M.J.W. & McLoughlin, C. (2008). Harnessing the affordances of Web 2.0 and social software tools: Can we finally make “student-centered” learning a reality?. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 3825-3834). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved February 11, 2011from http://www.editlib.org/p/28915.
Millard, M. & Essex, C. (2007). Web 2.0 Technologies for Social and Collaborative E-Learning. In T. Bastiaens & S. Carliner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2007 (pp. 1117-1121). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved February 11, 2011 from http://www.editlib.org/p/26487.
Pan, S.C. & Franklin, T. (2010). Teacher’s Self-efficacy and the Integration of Web 2.0 Tool/Applications in K-12 Schools. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 2830-2837). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved February 1, 2011 from http://www.editlib.org/p/33798.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On The Horizon, 9 (5), 1-6.
Tapscott, D., & Williams, A.D. (2008). Wikinomics: How collaboration changes everything. New York: Penguin.
Verenikina, I. (2010). Vygotsky in Twenty-First-Century Research. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2010 (pp. 16-25). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved February 11, 2011 from http://www.editlib.org/p/34614
Web 2.0. (n.d.). The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing. Retrieved March 04, 2011, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Web 2.0
Young, C.A. & Bush, J. (2004). Teaching the English Language Arts With Technology: A Critical Approach and Pedagogical Framework. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4(1), 1-22. AACE. Retrieved February 10, 2011 from http://www.editlib.org/p/21903
Web 2.0 in the Arts and Humanities Classroom: Annotated Bibliography
Diana Wilkes
Student Number: 18562090
WORD COUNT 1319
ETEC 532 Dr. Alexander de Cosson March 4, 2011
1. Bauer, J. & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward Technology Integration in the Schools: Why It Isn’t Happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519-546. Norfolk, VA: AACE. Retrieved on February 1, 2011 from http://www.editlib.org/p/4728.
John Bauer and Jeffrey Kenton, in their mixed methods approach, discover that even highly innovative, proficient ‘tech savvy’ teachers use technology as a teaching and learning tool inconsistently. This is due to two primary factors: lack of time available for students ‘at’ the computers and insufficient time for planning lessons that use computer technology (CT). Other barriers include old hardware/software, technical issues, student ability and the lack of a shared whole school technology integration vision. The study examines the changing role of the teacher and how they utilize CT in their instructional programs through qualitative and quantitative measures. The researchers conclude that there is still a great distinction between CT use and CT integration in schools and providing teachers with appropriate training is a necessary next step to true ET integration. Their findings highlight the key challenges to what my paper is investigating- whether CT enhances teaching/learning in the arts and humanities classroom and many of the teachers who participated instruct these subjects (21 out of 30).
2. Bos, B. & Lee, K. (2010). Problem-Based Instruction and Web 2.0, Meeting the Needs of the 21st Century Learner. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 2658-2665). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved February 11, 2011 from http://www.editlib.org/p/33772.
Beth Bos and Kathryn Lee describe the results of an initial study of pre-service teachers who learn to combine problem-based instruction (PBL) with Web 2.0 applications prior to interaction with students to teach for 21st century skills. The researchers discover that this mixing of pedagogy and technological tools (which included wikis, concept maps, networked calendar and videos) the 27 pre-service teachers felt better prepared for teaching 21st century skills in an engaging manner promoting critical thinking and problem solving. The research employed the use of a survey for the pre-service math, science, English and history teachers and the results were very positive indicating that new teachers recognize the potential of technology to enhance learning especially when combined with PBL. This study supports my paper’s attempt to demonstrate that Web 2.0 applications do enhance learning in the arts and humanities classroom.
3. Herro, D. (2010). Web 2.0 in the Classroom: Student Practices, Teacher Perspectives. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 2737-2742). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved February 10, 2011 from http://www.editlib.org/p/33784.
Danielle Herro discusses the results from a multi-case study in which Web 2.0 technologies were integrated into 8th grade classes. She refers to her own literature review which clearly suggests that students are using technology in their social life, teacher attitude towards technology integration are significant and constructivist learning theories are helpful in the pursuit of true technology integration. Herro concludes that the use of Web 2.0 technologies such as blogs, wikis, podcasts and social bookmarks, leads to social negotiation, high level learning and provides a pedagogical basis to build teaching practices. This study demonstrates that Web 2.0 technologies promote complex knowledge construction on social/global topics (including global warming, the death penalty, going green and war/invasion) which lead to clear understanding and this maintains the key focus of my paper.
4 Lee, M.J.W. & McLoughlin, C. (2008). Harnessing the affordances of Web 2.0 and social software tools: Can we finally make “student-centred” learning a reality?. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 3825-3834). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved February 11, 2011from http://www.editlib.org/p/28915.
Mark Lee and Catherine McLoughlin argue in their paper that Web 2.0 applications have the inherent ability to empower learners to become more autonomous. They highlight the affordances of social software and Web 2.0 as well as discuss student perceptions about how they learn best. The need for a balance between self-directed learning and a scaffolded approach is a key idea that I agree with. The paper identifies the need for learner-centred pedagogies as the vehicle for self-directed learning. The authors conclude that PBL/ inquiry activities, combined with Web 2.0 and social software, empower learners to own their learning experiences and builds their capacity to co-create ideas, communicate and co-construct knowledge. Lee and McLoughlin’s study clearly supports my paper about how Web 2.0 can enhance learning in the arts and humanities classroom.
5. Millard, M. & Essex, C. (2007). Web 2.0 Technologies for Social and Collaborative E-Learning. In T. Bastiaens & S. Carliner (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2007 (pp. 1117-1121). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved February 11, 2011 from http://www.editlib.org/p/26487.
Mark Millard and Chris Essex of Indiana University describe best practices in incorporating Web 2.0 as a result of their study. They explain what web 2.0 means and provide a myriad of examples and differentiate between Web 2.0 tools/software and Web 2.0 concepts/technologies. Driscoll’s constructivist Conditions for Learning are linked to Web 2.0 as an example of how learning theories can envelop web 2.0. A variety of challenges are brought forth including privacy, the pursuit of truth/validity of data, balancing innovation with consistency, (information overload) and authentic assessment practices. The authors postulate that those educators who are intrinsically motivated to integrate technology will gain great opportunities in the affordances of Web 2.0 provided they are used in a pedagogically sound, learner-centred program. The arts and humanities are not mentioned explicitly but Millard and Essex’s conclusions are directly related to the focus question of my paper “Do Web 2.0 technologies enhance teaching/learning in the arts and humanities classroom?”
6. Pan, S.C. & Franklin, T. (2010). Teacher’s Self-efficacy and the Integration of Web 2.0 Tool/Applications in K-12 Schools. In D. Gibson & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 2830-2837). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved February 1, 2011 from http://www.editlib.org/p/33798.
Pan and Franklin explore the relationship between teacher’s self-efficacy and integrating Web 2.0 applications in their literature review and quantitative study. Their hypothesis resonates with my experience as a classroom practitioner and advisor in that they suggest that tech savvy teachers are more likely to employ Web 2.0 technologies. However, their actual findings did not support this. Their sample population was extremely small and with a larger sample group (including participants from a range of socio-economic groups to ensure a presence of digital natives) it is likely that the results would alter significantly to support the initial prediction. It is logical to postulate that teachers who are comfortable with technological tools will be more likely to use it since one of the greatest barriers to integration of ET is lack of teaching training. While the findings of this survey do not support my personal experience they highlight the barriers to integration of ET which is pivotal in my research.
7. Young, C.A. & Bush, J. (2004). Teaching the English Language Arts With Technology: A Critical Approach and Pedagogical Framework. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4(1), 1-22. AACE. Retrieved February 10, 2011 from http://www.editlib.org/p/21903
Carl Young and Jonathan Bush conduct a literature review and case study in effort to demonstrate the need for educators to adopt a critical approach and pedagogical shift to teach English Language Arts with technology. Their research highlights the need for a constructivist approach utilizing a variety of software (ie. StorySpace, Photoshop, iMovie, multi-media, online portfolios, Web 2.0). In order to use technology effectively they provide a list of what technology should (empower, enhance instruction, provide additional resources, expand opportunities for communication, improve literacy…) and should not (replace teachers/pedagogy, complicate the learning goal, replace print text, disrupt classroom routines, diminish ability, stifle creativity…) do. The proposed pedagogical framework considers classroom goals, contextual factors (background, culture), available technology, technological skills of the teacher and the community. The English/literacy case studies exemplify how the pedagogical framework demonstrates how technology can marry curriculum learning objectives.