interactions; blogs and microblogs, wikis, and social networks all offer ample ... but perhaps the most notable is Google Docs and its sister project, Google Apps .... combines eMail, instant messaging, and file sharing in a dynamic environment.
Mapping Web 2.0 Benefits to Known Best Practices in Distance Education Laddie Odom Multimedia Producer Center for Support of Instruction Published: January-February 2010
Introduction The last several years have been filled with enthusiastic discussion regarding Web 2.0 technologies and their positive, dynamic enhancements to a user’s experience on the Internet. This same wave has somewhat belatedly crashed over the realm of online education, and it has been a much-mulled subject ever since. The reason is for this is simple: The potential positive impact of Web 2.0 tools on the online learning experience is believed to be myriad and vast. Recent research has confirmed and identified benefits to the use of Web 2.0 technologies within the online classroom. Such benefits can be mapped to known best practices from the distance education literature to help enhance and optimize their potential positive effects within the online classroom. This article outlines the suspected and documented benefits of Web 2.0 technologies and links them to known best best practices in distance education.
Potential Benefits of Web 2.0 Technologies The benefits of using Web 2.0 tools and technologies in the online classroom reaches far and wide. This section looks at both documented and undocumented advantages. Undocumented/Presumed Potential Benefits Since their inception, Web 2.0 tools have widely been believed to produce several positive impacts: They provide a constructivist-friendly toolkit. Constructivist theory is generally acknowledged and utilized in online education as an effective roadmap towards successful, deep learning outcomes for students. The requirements of a successful constructivist approach include encouraging the student's own role in the continuing process of constructing knowledge and deep learning. Prior to Web 2.0, one of the key assumptions was that online classrooms would serve well as platforms for creating constructivist learning environments, but they actually often proved to simply act as transmission models of education (Allen & Long, 2009) usually due to the high expertise levels required of earlier technologies. More recently, the surge in user-friendly Web 2.0 tools such as wikis, blogs, video sharing services, social networks, and other collaborative tools have lent support to a key component of constructivist practice: the promotion of collaborative learning, capable of helping to create "an entire constructivist learning environment" (Seitzinger, 2006, p.13) within an online class. They create a connection to today's students' (and our own) "real world." Web 2.0 has also already proven valuable in various corporate, government, and institutional settings, and its adoption has been quite rapid compared to other IT technologies (Bughin, 2008). As such, implementing thse tools in the educational arena can help prepare students to use them in real-world venues. 1
They allow for authentic assessment. The effects of Web 2.0 simply cannot be ignored today. It is now a nearly unavoidable aspect within the daily lives of most students and even some instructors these days. Some have argued that it must now be accounted for in creating an authentic assessment of learning objectives, and of the formal and informal learning going on inside and outside the classroom. Allen (2009) goes so far as to note that "developments in assessment using the Internet will only be authentic if they take account of the way the Internet functions outside of higher education, rather than seeing it as an educational technology divorced from its own authenticity" (p. 1). Allen goes even further to state: Since this kind of knowledge work is becoming the norm, without a social media / Web 2.0 approach to assessment, traditional approaches (essays, tests, student-centred discussions and presentations) will begin to appear inauthentic if they do not, to some extent at least, recognize and embrace Internet-enabled knowledge networking. (p. 4) They can be repurposed for multiple stakeholder levels within an organization. The same Google Apps for Education tools used for student collaborations can also be used by an instructor to share documents with a colleague, possibly allowing them to co-author research in a much simpler and efficient manner than ever before. The administration can also benefit from use of such tools for the same reasons. They are cost efficient. An institution making use of Web 2.0 tools will see efficiencies of scale due to savings in cost (usually free) and resources expended to create the tools (virtually none). These are ample savings potentials compared to the usually large fixed costs required to produce similar proprietary materials. Web 2.0 tools are proving beneficial to institutions seeking affordable, scalable solutions for course content. Some institutions are using Web 2.0 technologies for course management (Rienzo & Han, 2009). It would seem such institutions must examine these tools now, when considering the threat of a truly Web 2.0 style service such as Ududtu.com, which offers a free method of not only creating learning objects but also a means of creating a standalone LMS within the confines of Facebook, a popular social networking site. The user can upload interactive content made at Udutu and then track a student's graded progress within the LMS app. Some of the more hyperbolic enthusiasts of Web 2.0 applications such as this have claimed that it brings a "transformation of learning" (Selwyn, 2009, p. 1). While there is ample room for skepticism of such lofty claims—and some of it well deserved—recent research has discerned and noted definitive benefits to using Web 2.0 technologies in the online classroom. Documented Benefits While there seems to be a general paucity of directly measurable data on the benefits of Web 2.0 technology for online education, there is some relatively fresh evidentiary research that can be referenced. A recent research report funded by Becta, a British government agency charged with effective use of innovative technology in learning, recently released a major report on the impact of Web 2.0 technology on secondary schools (Crook, Fisher, Graber, Harrison, & Lewin., 2009). The report is based on evidence gathered from field studies, guided surveys of 2600 students, and interviews and online surveys conducted with instructors, technical staff, administration, and parents. The report contains many fascinating findings regarding usage of Web 2.0 technologies, challenges to implementation, policy, and more. It also explicitly cites four potential benefits of Web 2.0 on teaching and learning: •
It stimulates new modes of inquiry. 2
• • •
It creates new opportunities for collaborative learning. It allows students to engage with new literacies and express themselves in different media. It encourages a proficiency in the publication of content, which creates a sense of ownership, audience engagement, peer assessment, and informal learning.
These documented benefits lend much support to the undocumented benefits being on the right track in terms of how Web 2.0 technologies can positively impact the teaching and learning process. But how do these benefits play out against the most commonly known and agreed-upon best practices in online education?
Mapping Benefits to Best Practices Much has been written in the literature regarding best practices in distance education—from Chickering and Gamson’s seven principles (1987) to Hacker and Niederhauser (2000) to Berge (2002) and many others. Throughout the literature, four common themes are reiterated as being best practices for online/distance education. In short, faculty need to: • • • •
Facilitate learning Foster interaction Use collaborative problem solving Provide prompt feedback
The examples below discuss these four best practices in more detail and examine where Web 2.0 technologies align with them. Facilitate Learning In pursuit of Lewis and Al-Hamid’s (2006) notion of the importance of facilitating learning in online education, the authors note that "[t]he use of learning objects such as video clips and other digital resources was another strategy for some of the exemplary faculty" (p.12). One of the richest Web 2.0 veins to be mined is learning objects. Users of such sites may simply access and utilize the pre-authored content on a site, or may, in the true spirit of Web 2.0, create and share their own content with the community. Additionally, the user may collaborate with others in this creation and sharing of content. If an instructor or student is not interested in authoring his or her own content, thousands of free videos are available from services such as YouTube, Hulu, and dozens of other lesser-known video-sharing sites. Pertinent videos on virtually any imaginable subject can now be found online, and they can be embedded directly within an online classroom via auto-generated HTML code supplied by the services—creating a highly contextualized, engaging experience for the learner. Video services continue to develop additional features, making the content even more beneficial to learning via functions such as Hulu’s ability to select and embed only a segment of a video and YouTube’s new automated closed-captioning service. Other types of learning objects abound, like those found in repositories of pre-authored interactive learning objects such as Merlot, where objects are freely shared. Learning objects themselves may actually be authored and then shared within a Web 2.0 service community such as Flickr for pictures, ZohoShare for presentations, or Google Docs for collaboration on various types of documents. Students themselves may then participate in the selection (or outright creation) and sharing of such learning objects within a class, supporting Anderson and Wark's (2004) vision of a classroom that is populated with student-supplied content and their conclusion that 3
an instructional design based on student construction and sharing of knowledge in a web based portal is perceived to be a valued and worthwhile learning experience. Students report this design provides as much or more learning, challenge and skill acquisition as other courses in the program do. (Conclusion section, paragraph 2) Not only does this sort of model enable constructivist learning to occur, but the content itself, which is located or created by the students, can also save instructors the time investment required to locate or create such materials themselves. Foster Interaction The importance of interaction between the online instructor, students, and peers has been noted numerous times in the literature, due to a sense that isolation can arise in the online learning experience (Lewis & AlHamid, 2006). While attempting to meet online learners' expectations of the instructor’s constant presence, or at least the appearance of a constant presence, the already heavy workload of the instructor can be increased. Various strategies, which are supported by Web 2.0 technologies, are available to the instructor to lessen the strain of maintaining a high degree of interaction, including the use of a synchronous peer tutoring mechanism (Westera, De Bakker, & Wagemans, 2009). Web 2.0 technologies and services are by their very nature about interaction, some more specifically than others. Internet phone services such as Skype and instant messaging services such as AIM enable synchronous interactions; blogs and microblogs, wikis, and social networks all offer ample asynchronous interaction opportunities. Google’s highly anticipated Wave tool promises to take interaction to a whole new level (Devaney, 2009). Use Collaborative Problem Solving Theorists and practitioners alike have often flagged collaborative activities as a best practice for enhancing online learning. Research (Gokhale, 1995) has also shown this to be true. However, the Internet prior to Web 2.0 could not offer a great variety— or very dynamic modes—of collaboration. This situation has been transformed by the possibilities that Web 2.0 technologies can offer. Powerful new tools abound to enable enhanced collaborative learning opportunities. One such class of tools involves Web conferencing environments. At one time, Web conferencing was a technically challenging and expensive resource of the elite. Even a short time ago, a proprietary Web conferencing system would require large sums of money and time to support it. Now, with the availability of Web 2.0 versions of this class of tool, the door has been opened to all. Tools such as Mikogo offer a large array of collaborative features, such as desktop and application sharing, remote keyboard and mouse control, meeting recording and playback, whiteboards, file exchange, and more for free. Other sorts of Web 2.0 tools for collaboration include the document sharing class of tools. Web 2.0 versions of office suites are numerous, but perhaps the most notable is Google Docs and its sister project, Google Apps for Education. Google Docs is free and available to anyone with Internet access. It allows one to use the Internet cloud as a new sort of desktop, with all the functionality of a user’s local computer. The key difference is that the documents created in Google Docs are available to the user from any computer in the world that has an Internet connection—and they also allow for synchronous or asynchronous collaboration. For synchronous usage, a user could overlay the use of Skype to collaboratively examine, review, and discuss a particular phrase in a document, a formula in a spreadsheet cell, or the images included in a PowerPoint 4
presentation. An asynchronous approach could involve a user simply making edits and then inviting the collaborator to visit and review automatically tracked changes at his/her convenience. Other services related to these initiatives include Google Groups, which creates interest groups, and Google Sites, which allows collaborative creation of Web sites and related files. All of these tools are examples of Web 2.0 technology that encourage publishing proficiency. Provide Prompt Feedback There seems to be nearly unanimous agreement in the literature on the need for prompt feedback in the online classroom. This task is also acknowledged as being time-intensive for the instructor. It is possible that the creative use of some Web 2.0 tools could help eliminate this burden. In an earlier age, the notion of using voice-based feedback to reduce the writing load and speed up the feedback process was technically difficult and required ownership of software to create and edit the recordings. The instructor would then be responsible for sending the file to the student. In a Web 2.0 world, the whole process becomes much simpler, with a free service offering the entire process from a single location in the cloud. Services such VoiceThread, for example, can create a sort of voice thread (not surprising then, its choice of name) that goes one step further in that it can "enable asynchronous comments and feedback from students and tutors alike around pieces of media such as video clips, images and presentations" (Burden & Atkinson, 2008, p. 2).
Conclusion While it has been believed for some time that Web 2.0 technologies held strong promise to benefit online classrooms, there is now also corroborating evidence from recent research that testifies to Web 2.0's positive impact on teaching and learning. These benefits can be directly aligned to key existing best practices in online education, which serves to further substantiate the validity of these tools for the educational environment. NOTE: The references to specific tools, technologies, or companies mentioned in this article should not be taken an an endorsement.
References Allen, M., & Long, J. (2009, October). Learning as knowledge networking: Conceptual foundations for revised uses of the Internet in higher education. Paper presented at the World Congress on Engineering & Computer Science 2009, San Francisco. Retrieved November 18, 2009, from http://netcrit.net/content/wcecslearningasknet2009.pdf Allen, M. (2009, October). Authentic assessment and the Internet: Contributions within knowledge networks. Paper presented at the E-Learn 2009 conference of the Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, Vancouver, Canada. Retrieved November 18, 2009, from http://netcrit.net/content/aaceauthenticassessment2009.pdf Anderson, T., & Wark, N. (2004). Why do teachers get to learn the most? E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 7(2). Retrieved November 18, 2009, from http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/ejist/docs/Vol7_no2/FullPapers/WhyDoTeachers.htm
5
Berge, Z. L. (2002). Active, interactive, and reï¬ï¿½ective e-learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3, 181–190. Burden, K., & Atkinson, S. (2008). Evaluating pedagogical affordances of media sharing Web 2.0 technologies: A case study. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008. Retrieved November 18, 2009, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/burden-2.pdf Bughin, J. (2008). The rise of enterprise 2.0. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 9(3), 251– 259. Retrieved November 18, 2009, from https://secure.palgravejournals.com/dddmp/journal/v9/n3/full/4350100a.html Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7. Crook, C., Fisher, T., Graber, R., Harrison, C., & Lewin , C. (2008, September). Implementing Web 2.0 in secondary schools: Impacts, barriers and issues. Retrieved November 18, 2009, from Becta website: http://partners.becta.org.uk/upload-dir/downloads/page_documents/research/web2_benefits_barriers.pdf Devaney, L. (2009, June 8). Google Wave has great potential for education. New online collaborative tool combines eMail, instant messaging, and file sharing in a dynamic environment. Retrieved November 18, 2009, from http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/?i=59086 Gokhale, A., (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 7(1), 22-30. Retrieved November 18, 2009, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.3.6959&rep=rep1&type=pdf Hacker, D. J., & Niederhauser, D. S. (2000). Promoting deep and durable learning in the online classroom. In R. E. Weiss, D. S. Knowlton, & B. W. Speck (Eds.), Principles of effective teaching in the online classroom (pp. 53– 64). San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass. Lewis, C. C., & Abdul-Hamid, H. (2006, May). Implementing effective online teaching practices: Voices of exemplary faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 31(2), 83-98. Retrieved November 18, 2009, from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=5&hid=7&sid=5b9203bc-2b39-4c7d-93ba0ba274a26c67%40sessionmgr11 Rienzo, T., & Han, B. (2009, Summer). Microsoft or Google Web 2.0 tools for course management. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 123-127. Retrieved November 18, 2009, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4041/is_200907/ai_n32128804/?tag=content;col1 Seitzinger, J. (2006, July 31). Be constructive: Blogs, podcasts, and wikis as constructivist learning tools. Learning Solutions e-Magazine. Retrieved November 18, 2009, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.121.4071&rep=rep1&type=pdf Selwyn, N. (2007). Web 2.0 applications as alternative environments for informal learning - A critical review. Paper presented at the OECD-KERIS International Expert Meeting on ICT and Educational Performance, Cheju Island, South Korea. Retrieved November 18, 2009, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.117.9470&rep=rep1&type=pdf 6
Westera, W., De Bakker, G., & Wagemans, L. (2009). Self-arrangement of fleeting student pairs: A Web 2.0 approach for peer tutoring. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(4), 339-347. Retrieved November 18, 2009, from http://dspace.ou.nl/bitstream/1820/2005/1/Preprint%20PAIR.pdf About the Author(s) Laddie Odom began his professional career over two decades ago in Detroit as an animator and special effects artist for regional and national television commercial campaigns. After moving to Chicago in the 1980s, he first found employment in "multimedia," which at the time meant slideshows produced with traditional analog photographic and graphic tools. Shortly afterwards, he was one of the first people in the multimedia industry to be trained to operate large, specialized, ridiculously underpowered (compared to today's machines), graphics computers that created and presented slides digitally. Several years later, after helping pioneer the production of digital imagery and animation in multimedia presentations, he began to produce a new kind of multimedia, which was delivered via CD-ROM, was interactive, and was usually authored in Macromedia Director. In the mid 1990s he was given the opportunity to apply his extensive experience as production manager for several companies and as an independent producer of interactive marketing and educational materials.
Reference: Website: http://deoracle.org/online-pedagogy/emerging-technologies/mapping-newly-identified-web2-benefits.html (retrieved 11/28/11)
7
