Web 2.0: trendy nonsense? Steven Warburton King’s College London steven.warburton@kcl.ac.uk

web 2.0: trendy nonsense?

Steven Warburton

King’s College London

steven.warburton@kcl.ac.uk

where are we now?

identifying trends• social nature of learning

• social-constructivism and situated learning• negotiated meaning through dialogue• collaboration, community and creativity

• socio-technical and cultural changes• ambient technology, ubiquitous computing• fluidity between individual, group, community and

networks• web-natives, digital natives, net generation• web 2.0

» read/write web -> consumer becomes producer» complexity, emergent behaviour and emergent

classifications» the rise of social software

social tools

social bookmarks

IRC

blogs

discussion fora

social networks

instant messaging

wikis

collaboration

social recommendation

& discovery

e-learning: dominant models, developments and drivers

• reusable learning objects• quality frameworks• standards (SCORM, LOM, QTI)• digital repositories (silos)• scripted learning activities (IMS LD)• content delivery and assessment driven (VLE)• a hierarchical industrial model that can respond

to increasing student numbers and pressures on staff time

web 2.0 in education

• what is the problem to which web 2.0 technologies are posited as a solution?

• how does the rhetoric of web 2.0 stand up to close scrutiny?

• what questions are these technologies asking of ‘us’, our values, our teaching and our institutions

problematising web 2.0

consumers becoming producers

• blogs, wikis, YouTube, podcasts, slideshare, del.icio.us and so on inevitably leads to:

• mass amateurisation• information rich but knowledge poor • incoherence• information overload• not what I know but who I know or where to find it?

• open systems = chaos?

collaboration: individual, group, community and networks

• what are our motives for collaboration and cooperation?

• what conditions support strong community formation?

• emergent behaviours (critical mass)• groups vs. networks or groups to communities

– in networks what happens to:• trust• identity (work on the self) • and shared purpose

Stephen Downes whiteboard brain dump on the essence of group vs. network

personalisation

• personal = choice = problematic (how do we know how to make these choices?)

• personal = private = problematic (institutions should respect privacy?)

• there is a distinct lack of clarity between between customisation and personalisation?

next generation - what generation?

• where is the evidence for next generation learners?

• where are the next generation tutors

• the student body is always in a state of change unlike our academics?

formal and informal learning spaces

• in a web 2.0 world of disruption and the blurring of formal and informal how do students:– develop critical self awareness?– judge value and quality (disciplinary

knowledge boundaries, assessment)?– develop intellectual tools?– engage in purposeful activities

(metacognition, competencies)?

what are the ethical issues raised by web 2.0?

• personal - implies freedom from censorship• public domain vs. respect for student privacy• risk - exposing and sharing our thinking• traces - e.g. permanence of blogs posts • student visibility / invisibility (the quiet learner)• tracking as control• identity - adding personal spin, managing

reputation• what are our responsibilities, where are we

accountable?

does a web 2.0 approach work in practice?

evaluating wikis:• introducing new tools does not change practice • wikis conflict with traditional assumptions about authorship and intellectual

property:– why share?: receiving credit for contributions, selfish motive? – consent: contributions being revised or deleted

• content knowledge can be improved, but this takes time• quality can be maintained if versions ready for quality assessment are

identified• students can be reluctant to contribute to wikis • visual and design options are limited - wikis are not presentation software• are wikis easy to use? they require network literacy: writing in a

distributed, collaborative environment

source: a variety of case studies, see http://del.icio.us/stevenw/wiki-workshop-2006-11

• the floodgates are openhow do we respond?

• architecture or ecology?

• do these technologies support our underpinning educational values?

what do institutions say?

we are afraid, very afraid

there seem to be two recurring themes:1. fear of losing control by levelling the

authority structures

2. fear of losing control by levelling authority structures

is web 2.0 is going to put me out of a job?

we have seen it all before

• institutional weariness at having to keep pace with constant technological innovation when pedagogy has barely shifted?

• where is the evidence for the rhetoric of the Internet being applicable to education?

• the bubble will burst, these technologies will be socialised and tamed (but to what?) - a natural evolution

are we looking at a paradigm shift? one that is individual,

institutional, cultural or?

closed and open systems, hierarchies vs. networks, nupedia to wikipedia

Brooks Law (1975)

• As the number of programmers N rises, the work performed also scales as N, but the complexity and vulnerability to mistakes rises as N squared

• “Conceptual integrity in turn dictates that design must proceed from one mind, or a very small number of agreeing resonant minds”

Linus’ Law

• “Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow” (Linus Torvalds)

or

• Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterised quickly and the fix obvious to someone.

what do we see in the future? what questions do we need to

ask?

key ideas

• appropriation: understanding the use of technologies as being a locally situated phenomenon and a process of negotiation of meaning occurs at these sites

• context: a particular technology (wiki) used in an educational activity or context is not the same as the technology (wiki) used to collaborate and document a workshop

learner at centre

context (pedagogical approach)?

collaborative networked e-learning?formal or informal setting?

mixed mode or distance education?

expectations personalised

social software

networked

collaborative

creative

learner

motivation

experience & competencies

time

negotiation of meaning