Constructs for Web 2.0 Learning Environments

7/27/2019 Constructs for Web 2.0 Learning Environments

1/18

Educational Media International

Vol. 45, No. 4, December 2008, 253269

Constructs for Web 2.0 learning environments: a theatricalmetaphor

Chih-Hsiung Tua*, Michael Blochera and Gayle Robertsb

aNorthern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA; bSamaritan Healthcare System, Corvallis,Oregon, USA

TaylorandFrancisREMI_A_359025.sgm

(Received 2 October 2008; final version received 23 October 2008)10.1080/09523980802588576EducationalMedia International0952-3987(p rint)/1469-5790 (online)OriginalArti cle2008Taylor&[email protected]

Web 2.0 technologies empower learners to create personalized and community-basedcollaborative environments. Social networking technology affords learners to weavetheir human networks through active connections to understand what we know and wewant to know. Social acts that bring out identities, awareness, relationships, connections,and interactions among and between learners are necessary for interactive learning.Learning should be grounded from self-presentation to personalized learning space tocollaborative community learning. Participatory Web 2.0 technology accentuates thefeatures of digital multi-modals representations, and syndications to empower the learnerto manage their learning spaces. The constructs of Web 2.0 learning environments arediscussed in four dimensions from a theatrical metaphor cognitive/scripts, social/actors, networking/stages, and integration/acting dimensions to guide further researchand effective practices.

Constructions pour les environnements dapprentissage sur le Web 2.0: unemtaphore dramatiqueLintgration du Web 2.0 dans lapprentissage a ses fondements dans la thorie socio-culturelle de lapprentissage. Lapprentissage a besoin de ces actes sociaux quirenforcent la prise de conscience, les relations, les rapports et les interactions lintrieurde la communaut des apprenants en ligne. Le Web 2.0 vise renforcer la crativit, le

partage de linformation et plus particulirement la collaboration entre utilisateurs. Cesconcepts ont conduit au dveloppement et lvolution de communauts fondes sur leWeb. On propose un cadre thorique pour le Web 2.0: il repose sur lapprentissage socio-culturel, les thories socio-psychologiques ,la thorie de la communication et dautres.On propose quatre dimensions fondes sur une tude des recherches publies: lesdimensions cognitives, sociales, de mise en rseau et dintgration.

Konstrukte fr Web 2.0 Lernumfelder: Eine Theatralische MetapherDie Integration von Web 2,0 in das Lernen ist durch die soziokulturelle Lerntheorie

begrndet: Soziale Handlungen, die Bewusstsein, Beziehungen, Verbindungen undInteraktionen zwischen Online-Lernern akzentuieren, sind fr das Lernen notwendig. Web2.0 hat zum Ziel, Kreativitt, Informationsaustausch und besonders Zusammenarbeitzwischen den Nutzern zu verbessern. Diese Anstze haben zur Entwicklung und Evolutionnetzbasierter Gemeinschaften gefhrt. Es wird vorgeschlagen, einen theoretischen Web2.0 Rahmen auf einer online-soziokulturellen Lerngemeinschaft, sozio-psychologischenTheorien, Kommunikationstheorie und anderen basierend, zu errichten. Vier Dimensionenwerden auf Grundlage von Literaturberprfung vorgeschlagen: Kognitive-, soziale-,Vernetzungs- und Integrationsdimensionen.

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]


2/18

254 C.-H. Tu et al.

Un marco para los entornos de aprendizaje basados en la Web 2.0La integracin de la Web 2.0 en el aprendizaje est basada en la teora socio-cultural delaprendizaje. Los actos sociales que realzan la conciencia, las relaciones, los vnculos ylas interracciones dentro de la comunidad de los estudiantes en lnea son necesarios parael aprendizaje. La Web 2.0 pretende realzar la creatividad, compartir la informacin y deuna manera ms notable, la colaboracin entre los usuarios. Esos conceptos han llevadoal desarrollo y evolucin de comunidades basadas en la web. Presentamos un marcoterico para la Web 2.0 basado en el aprendizaje socio-cultural en lnea, en las teorassocio-psicolgicas, en la teora de la comunicacin y otras. Proponemos cuatrodimensiones basadas en una resea de la literatura: las dimensiones cognitivas, sociales,las actividades en redes y la integracin.

Keywords: Web 2.0; social networking; self presentation; communities of practice;social interaction

Introduction

Web 2.0 technology has evolved modern communication and presentation to a new era.Frequently, Web 2.0 is referred to as a platform, namely a performance area, like the

stage in a theatre. People create personas using the computer to present an avatar andscript this persona to be pleasing to the people that view this creation during computer

communications, very much like a performance in a theatre (Figure 1). William Shakes-

peare (1904) observed: All the worlds a stage: And all the men and women merely

players (As You Like It, Act 2, Scene 7, line 56ff.). Web 2.0 environments afford learn-ers the opportunity to learn by acting in a learning environment; thus to interact to

accomplish their learning goals. Learning begins in classroom where the teachers occu-

pies center stage, while students are audiences to absorb the lessons being presented.

This soliloquy moves to a more interactive level where teachers invite students to sharethe performance space to interact with the teacher or other students through group activi-ties. In Web 2.0 environments, learners and instructors are all actors because roles and

acts are part of the daily drama of life. Everyone who participates in this environment

utilizes their talents through a fairly predictable set of maneuvers: Participants, instructors

and learners alike, are actors (fulfilling a social role), following and/or creating scripts topresent their characters (demonstrating a cognitive perspective), and are performing

(interacting) utilizing a common stage (technical=the Web 2.0 platform). The power of

Web 2.0 environments, a social operating system, is networks that surround people, rather

than simply present content (Educause, 2008). Weaving social networks through the

implicit connections and the clues that are received help us to understand what we know.

Educauses Horizon Report (2008) strengthens this opinion we leave everywhere aswe go about our lives, and use them to organize our work and our thinking around the

people we know (p. 4).Figure1. TheatricalmetaphorforWeb2.0learningenvironments.Web2.0learningenvironmentsare constitutedwithfourdimensions:cognitivedimension(scriptsactorscreate/follow);socialdimension(actorsengageinsocialrelationships);networkingdimension(stageswhereactorsperform);andinteractiondimension(actthatactorsinteract).Eachindividualisan actorandhasself/meand identity/I. On theWeb 2.0 platform/stage, each individual isallowed to craftdifferentidentities(I1,I2, I3,I4) tointeractwithotheridentitiesothershavecrafted.Ona stage,eachindividual/actorjoins/participatesin differentcommunity/communities(communitiesof interest;communitiesofpurpose;communitiesofpassion;communitiesofpractice)basedontheirneedsand intentions.Actorsact/collaboratein differentcommunities.Althoughcommunitiesof practices(CoP)areconsideredtheultimatelearningenvironmentin whichtoengage,learnersmayfollowdifferentagendastojoin/participatein differentcommunitiesandmoveto othercommunities.ToreachCoPlikelyrequirescommunitymembersto possesssimilarinterests,purposes,andpassions.

Web 2.0 environments are a human network. Social acts that bring out identities,awareness, relationships, connections, and interactions among and between learners, are

necessary for interactive learning. In Web 2.0 learning environments, learners and instruc-

tors are connected through mediated cyber-infrastructure and participatory Web technol-

ogy to craft identity, to institute mutual awareness, to develop social interactions, to form

social relationships, and to build collaborative learning communities. The Web 2.0 learn-ing environment is grounded in socio-cultural learning theory. The aim of a socio-cultural

approach is to comprehend the developmental processes involved in rituals (activities), atthe level of individuals (identities), social (interpersonal), and cultural (community)

T bt i h i d t di f W b 2 0 l i i t


3/18

Educational Media International 255

Figure 1. Theatrical metaphor for Web 2.0 learning environments. Web 2.0 learning environmentsare constituted with four dimensions: cognitive dimension (scripts actors create/follow); social di-mension (actors engage in social relationships); networking dimension (stages where actors perform);and interaction dimension (act that actors interact). Each individual is an actor and has self/me andidentity/I. On the Web 2.0 platform/stage, each individual is allowed to craft different identities (I1,I2, I3, I4 ) to interact with other identities others have crafted. On a stage, each individual/actor

joins/participates in different community/communities (communities of interest; communities of pur-pose; communities of passion; communities of practice) based on their needs and intentions. Actorsact/collaborate in different communities. Although communities of practices (CoP) are considered

the ultimate learning environment in which to engage, learners may follow different agendas to join/participate in different communities and move to other communities. To reach CoP likely requirescommunity members to possess similar interests, purposes, and passions.


4/18

256 C.-H. Tu et al.

one should examine a community by evaluating interpersonal actions, and each individual

participant to comprehend how learners craft identities to interact with others. Features ofWeb 2.0 technology, namely multi-modal representations, would allow learners to

advance learning environments to be more open-ended structures that value multiple

learning outcomes.

Time Magazine selected You as the person of the year in 2006 (Grossman, 2006) in

Web 2.0 environments. This accentuates the significance of how individuals present theirselves and their identities when engaging in human interaction. In recent reports, both the

National Science Foundation (2008) and Educause (2008) unanimously identify Web 2.0 as

an emerging learning technology that will critically impact human learning and challenge

researchers and scientists to investigate how Web 2.0 might impact human learning.Web 2.0 technology is shaping human communication and impacting how people

present themselves and interact with one another. If it is agreed that learning is essentially

social in nature, social interaction between selves and identities is an integral condition for

learning. Web 2.0 technology empowers learners with a representational system to craft and

present different identities. By embodying multiple identities in social networking technol-ogy, learners are granted the power to weave their social Webs (context) together. The

social web surrounds us, but how do we weave our new world together? Entwining

mediated social environment becomes a critical issue in human interaction and learning.

This knowledge is critical in understanding and assisting learners to shape mediated socialnetworking environments to advance human communication and learning.

Web 2.0 infrastructure supports learner engagement in a more participatory and person-

ally defined learning environment. Pea and Wallis (2006) observed that human interaction

has moved from face-to-face, to symbol systems (printed media), to AV transmitted, to

networked digital mediated, and finally to cyber-infrastructure and participatory technol-

ogy. Learners concur in creating and sharing content to interact and communicate withothers. Web 2.0 technologies lead learners from Web content consumers to Web content

creators developing more participatory environments. Learners are engaged in contribution-

oriented pedagogy environments. Self-publishing and user-generated content (UGC)enhance multiple forms of interaction (Baird & Fisher, 2005). This participatory environ-

ment requires a deeper level of social interaction that engages learners in experience design

strategies (Baird & Fisher, 2005) that keep learners experiences in mind so they are able to

determine and craft their own learning experiences.

Web 2.0 technology aims to enhance mediated knowledge creation, information sharing,personalized structures, and, most notably, collaboration among users. These concepts have

led to the development and evolution of Web-based communities and hosted services, suchas social networking sites, wikis, blogs, Second Life, and folksonomy. These communities

emphasize a crowd sourcing (collective intelligence) arena for learning where memberscreate a flat-architecture and convergent infrastructures. Web 2.0 technologies eliminate

hierarchical constraints to harvest and aggregate individual intelligence through technolo-

gies that permit people to manage information, mashups, into collective intelligence. This

emphasizes the importance of collective intelligence generated from community and a

socially mediated navigational system.The purposes of this essay are to propose and discuss a construct to comprehend Web

2.0 learning environments upheld by existing research. Practitioners have been integrating

Web 2.0 technology into their instructions to enhance learning; however, research in Web

2.0 learning environments is too scant to provide solid foundations for guidance of furtherresearch and effective practices. It is critical to move from forming and storming stages to


5/18


Constructs for Web 2.0 learning environments

Web 2.0 learning environments are grounded in socio-cultural learning. Online socio-cultural

learning is in a constant flux of cognitive development with the force of dynamic social inter-

action. It is in need of a construct to guide researchers and practitioners to elaborate how

interaction occurs in Web 2.0 learning environments. A Web 2.0 construct is proposed bygrounding online socio-cultural learning (Tu & Yen, 2007), socio-psychological theories,

communication theory, and others. Four dimensions are proposed based a review of the

available literature: cognitive, social, networking, and integration dimensions.

Cognitive dimension

In a theater performance, actors create and/or follow scripts that direct their performance in

their drama. The cognitive dimension serves a similar function in Web 2.0 learning environ-

ments, as it refers to the process and development within socio-cultural learning environ-ments. This dimension focuses on the process of the individual thinking about their

engagement in and the culture within rather than products, performance, and biology. Inother words, they think about what they will contribute, how and with whom they will

contribute, which is then implemented as they generate their content through interactions.Furthermore, they may think strategically about this process, which could be viewed as a

metacognitive element of this dimension. The metacognitive element of this dimension may

impact how learners interact within Web 2.0 learning environments as they may add,

reduce, or modify elements of their self by strategically projecting an identity that may

not be a totally transparent representation of their self. In other words, learners in thisenvironment may create a script that directs their performance.

Psychological phenomena emerge from an interaction of processes (Cole, 1995). This

process is observed as one attempts to understand the mental models of the other partiesthrough mutual explanations by projecting different identities. A more effective explanationrefers to sharing, self-reflecting, negotiating, and self-explanation, called elaborated expla-

nation (Dillenbourg, Baker, Blaye, & OMalley, 1996). Webb (1991) concluded that engaging

learners in elaborated explanation would lead to knowledge improvement because elaborated

explanation ensures learners progressively integrate the process into their knowledge

structures. This can be validated by Vygotskys deliberate semantics (1962): the changerequired from maximally compact inner speech to detailed written speech.

To maximize effective knowledge improvement, negotiating via self-explanation should

be applied to ensure effective mental model exchange. Negotiating refers to the process of

interaction where both sides project different identities to resolve differences, conflicts, ordisagreements in their mental models. This is like actors creating characters and following

scripts to perform. Moeschler (1985, p. 176) states that Without negotiation the dialogue

is transformed into monologue, the function of the interlocutor being reduced to that of a

simple receptor of the message.

Social negotiation process and development in Web 2.0 environments are distilled intodeeper and finer learning processes, such as generating content, reflecting/organizing their

own content, reviewing/reflecting/modifying others content. As learners engage with one

another these mental models processes are captured so learners learning and thinking

processes are made visible. Schmitt, Dayanim, and Matthias (2008) indicated that creationof self-presentation was related to feelings of mastery, expressions of identities, and a

means to socialize. Web 2.0 environments allow learners to make their learning process

(mental models) visible and to view others learning process; furthermore, it empowers


6/18

258 C.-H. Tu et al.

refine their metacognitive strategies. It is the process of negotiating and managing how they

would like to learn through self-reflection and assuming responsibilities.Web 2.0 technologies migrate individual thinking from desktop to Web platform appli-

cations. Cognitive processes are no longer limited to personal computer workstations. Since

the prevalence of computer and Internet networking, learners are afforded the opportunity

to capture their reflections and thinking in almost real time anytime anywhere for future

asynchronous re-reflection and/or exchange with other learners.Wiki technology engages learners in processes of sharing, exchanging, and modifying

their mental models with other learners to craft and obtain their identities. Their shared

thinking processes are unveiled as learners employ each other as resources by providing

information and sharing experiences. More specifically, learners engage in content creating,reviewing, reflecting, editing, re-editing, organizing with their and others mental models.

One elicits learning from another using the other as a resource. Vratulis and Dobson

(2008) concluded learners develop social relationships through social negotiations to obtain

their voices (identities) in Wiki learning environments. Wiki environments empower users

in generating, reviewing, and organizing their own content in news writing (Ma & Yuen,2008); via these processes, they refine their mental models. To participate in wikis, learners

frequently need to craft various identities to confirm with their mental model then exchange

mental models with others. While assimilating and evaluating other mental models, learners

return to self level to internalize.Blog technology allows learners to craft their identities via constant self-expressing and

self-reflecting (Brescia & Miller, 2006), and/or allow other learners to comment their expres-

sion to result in actively exchanging learning processes (Herring, Kouper, Scheidt, & Wright,

2005). This is what Gleaves, Walker, and Grey (2007) called social reflexive criticism.

Ellison and Wu (2008) concluded blogging enhances learners understanding on course

content and exposes learners to more diverse viewpoints from their peers. Reading other learn-ers blogs was believed to be the most helpful for learning. Blogs may enhance learning;

however, Nicol, Littlejohn, and Griersons (2005) analysis revealed no significant differences

in comprehension between blog and paper reflection. In this study, although learners reportedspending less time writing in the blogging environments, this is evidence that blogs afford

learners the opportunity to capture and maximize their reflexive criticism of the learning

process. Blog is full of potential for the growth of reflection, creative writing, critical thinking,

socio-cognitive, and meta-cognitive processes of students learning (Gleaves et al., 2007).

Social dimension

The social dimension refers to actors and their relationships to others. Socio-cultural learn-ing focuses on both the individual and the social contexts, which constitute the relationships

of individual, social, and cultural environments. This relation is explained by the causal

two-way relationship between individual and social properties, including the internalization

processes associated with the development and the externalization processes wherebyindividuals affect social structure (Valsiner, 1998). Social linkage and human networks

become critical in Web 2.0 learning environments. These phenomena can be explained by

communication theories: self-presentation, social relationship, and learners uniqueness.

Self-presentation/identity

Self-presentation is a fundamental process communicated in everyday life and a social act


7/18


expression. Goffman (1959, p. 67) defines self-presentation as: the performance of an

individual that accentuates certain matters and conceals others. Self-presentation in mostsettings is a performance by a person to achieve a particular impression. People normally

use self-presentation to get others to like them, to value them, or to impress them in an

intended way. People construct some images intentionally and demonstrate others inad-

vertently. Self-presentation could be described as clothing people wear to craft their

identities to impress others (see Figure 1). A dramaturgical perspective sees actors engag-ing in manipulative behavior designed to manage impressions (Mead, 1934). Walther and

Boyd (2002) argued that there is a hyper-personal aspect to online communications in

which people can be more selective about how they present themselves.

While engaging in social interaction, one must be able to project an ideal identity. Basedon Meads (1934) social-psychology theory, there are two phases of self: me, and I.

Me reflects the attitudes of generalized others while I responds to the attitudes of

generalized others. Gilligan (1982) argued that identity is socially mediated. Harre (1989)

and Miller and Mather (1998) stated that the mediation is through language/communication.

While identity mediation is supported, people comprehend this process, and selves arestrengthened. One must respond to generalized others by crafting a different I. Individ-

uals may project/craft different identities based on purpose and intentions, social contexts,

and time. Me and I are different. Me may craft/project different identities to interact

with other identities crafted/projected by other learners to engage in social negotiations.Social negotiation provides further contexts and information for learners to accumulate and

assimilate in the Me level. Then Me may alter or maintain their identities to engage in

further social negotiations.

In learning environments, Meads two phases of self correlates well with Vygotskys

two steps of the learning process: Vygotsky (1978) states: Every function in the childs

cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individuallevel; first, between people (inter-psychological) and then inside the child (intra-psycholog-

ical) (p. 57). In other words, the inter-psychological process refers to I while the intra-

psychological process refers to me.Web 2.0 learners create, manage, cultivate, and share their postings and profile(s) to

project their ideal social identities as part of a social networking process. This is called self-

presentation management. Learners engage in blogs, wikis, personal homepages, digital

diaries, and social network sites to enhance self-expression (Ducate & Lomicka, 2008), self-

reflection (Brescia & Miller, 2006), and personal voices by social negotiations (Vratulis &Dobson, 2008).

Blogs empower learners in a more learner-centered interaction, which is more thantraditional forums grounded and contextualized discussions in relation to participant iden-

tities (Herring, Stuckey, Kouper, & de Siqueria, 2007). Although blogs may be perceivedas a monologic expressive environment, by creating, posting, and commenting on blogs,

learners are empowered to support role formation and the construction of online identi-

ties. Nicol et al. (2005) argued from a qualitative study that a need for more guidance

regarding the process of reviewing and critiquing the work of peers in blog learning envi-

ronments. This study concluded that specific comprehension gains were not associatedwith the blogging medium. Learners comments suggest that blogging was associated

with exposure to more diverse viewpoints and increased commitment to writing and

thinking.

Schmidt (2007) described three methods that allow bloggers to manage their self-presentation: information management, by publishing online sources related to ones inter-


8/18

260 C.-H. Tu et al.

contexts; and relationship management, by publishing their remarks on others blogs.

Herring et al. (2005) found men are more likely to create filter blogs to enhance perceivedpopularity and status. Additionally, men are more likely than women or teens to comment

in their own blogs on political issues. Based on Schmidts (2007) arguments, bloggers craft

and mange their identities from readers, author, to networkers to shape information, iden-

tity, and relationship managements respectively.

Social network sites (SNS), such as MySpace or Facebook, function as a locus ofpublicly articulated social networks via sharing their personal profile that allowed learners

to negotiate presentations of self and connect with others (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). Donath

and Boyd (2004) suggest that public displays of connection serve as important social

identity signals that help people navigate the networked social world and provides otherswith a means of getting in touch with ones circle of friends and acquaintances. Commonly,

the high status name-dropping may be a deliberate ploy to impress the listener of the

speakers importance or ability to effect some action (Donath & Boyd, 2004). With oppor-

tunities to create multiple profiles in SNS, the users identity is mutable and unanchored by

the body that is its locus in the real world (Webb, 1991).Besides integrating blogs to enhance self-presentation, researches have also shown that

creating personal homepages, engaging in digital diaries, and participating in wiki writing

would enhance developing personal voices and identities. Vratulis and Dobson (2008)

concluded that in wiki learning environments, learners develop social relationshipsthrough social negotiations to obtain their personal voice. This conclusion is supported by

Schmitt et al.s (2008) creating personal homepages to express and form personal identi-

ties and by Gleaves et al.s (2007) integrating digital diaries to enhance self-expressing

and reflections.

Learners uniqueness

Me and multiple Is make each individual learner unique. Each online learner is a unique

learner because of the cultural and historical milieu encountered in social learning environ-

ments. Uniqueness of learners creates challenges for designing effective instruction to

accommodate the individuality of each learner. Research indicated that learners with moreexperience and autonomy of use are more likely to employ Web 2.0 technologies while

women are more likely to use social network sites than their male counterparts (Hargittai,

2007). Individual learners employ Web 2.0 differently. Research also found that people

often use SNS to connect with those in their existing networks, rather than to seek out new

friends and acquaintances (Ellison & Wu, 2008). Interestingly, how many years a learnerhas been an Internet user is not associated with adoption of SNS (Hargittai, 2007).

Social relationship

Positive social relationships are elements fundamental to social interactions that bond

individuals, cultures, and communities together. Social relationships are not simply limited

to between/among learners, but apply to relationships between/among learners, social tools,

and social environments. Social relationships can promote affection, information, and trustrelationships, and effective relationship management.

Positive or negative social relationships would determine whether interactions are active

(Walther, 1992). Affection and information social relationships are considered positive, andtoward bonding online social interaction (Roberts, 2007). Affection describes social


9/18


Information social relationships occur when online learners exchange and comment on

information lending collaborative engagement.Social relationships could enhance and/or inhibit social interaction in Web 2.0 environ-

ments. Mak and Coniam (2008) found Wiki language writing improves supporting coherence

relationships among learners while blog (LiveJournal) writing improves phatic exchange

among writers (Cherny, 2005). However, different social roles played in different social rela-

tionships and contexts may inhibit social interactions. Herring et al. (2007) found thatcomments written by adults tended to be ignored and/or exterminated the ongoing discussions,

explained by the students perception of adults as intrusive and evidence that the students

felt a sense of ownership of the blog conversations. This is validated by Wagner and

Majchrzaks (2006) different social status and Tu, Blocher, and Ntorurus study (2008) thatconcluded an authority relationship has been considered an obstacle to interaction, since

authority, sense of being offensive, the thought of vandalizing, and social norms are critical.

Trust is critical in establishing a new social relationship (Brown, Collins, & Daguid,

1989; Pea, 1993) and to ensure positive and active social relationship. Trust arises from a

combination of social, cognitive, technical, interface, and systemic features (Dron, 2007).Trust relationship goes beyond other learners and extends to trust with tools and environ-

ments. It imposes negative emotion to learners when learners sense and fear an unknown in

learning environments.

Online learners enter into a new learning environment feeling a profound need for thesafety and security of clear instructional materials, technology, and environments. Dwyer,

Hiltz, and Passerini (2007) argued that trust affects what people are willing to share deeply

in SNS. Tu et al. (2008) observed that in a professional community, when the trust relation-

ship is lacking, scattered interaction and weak social bonds were observed among commu-

nity members. In fact, it indicated community members concluded negative sense, and

authority destruction.Using features of creating, sharing, and managing information in Web 2.0 environments,

learners are afforded management of ideal social relationships in different social contexts to

meet learners different intentions. Schmidt (2007) concluded that bloggers, by publishingthe posting with a link to the original source, connect to other authors and/or to comment

on other blogs to craft their self-presentation and to signify their relationships with other

bloggers. This is clearly the reason that learners take advantage of visualized links and

friendship network (social profiles) within the Web 2.0 community.

Privacy is a challenging issue in Web 2.0 environments, since learners self-disclose,self-reflect to make their social participations in public. Regarding shared identities in

public or private, learners are aware of potential threats to their privacy and are proactiveabout taking steps to manage their online privacy to minimize potential risks, particularly in

the younger generation (Nussbaum, 2007). Web 2.0 technology allows users to managetheir contextual privacy, determine how much to share with whom and when; however, to

manage online privacy requires learners to possess appropriate skills and knowledge in

online privacy management.

Networking dimension

The networking dimension refers to network technology architecture/stage that empowersactors/learners with advanced mechanisms/props/tools to learn/perform. These technology

mechanisms/props allow learners/actors to design their clothing, to weave the fabric, to

tailor their clothing, and/or to select a different wardrobe to present different characters in


10/18

262 C.-H. Tu et al.

visualize, and organize social content in the platforms of flat structured, collaboratively,

and/or socially navigated systems etc. Wiki technology affords participants to be able toweave, design, and tailor clothing; blog allows learners to select different clothing, while

Second Life allows learners to act on a virtual stage.

Although networking technologies are hard technologies, in social learning environ-

ments, they should be perceived as cultural tools. The objects/tools that are associated with

social practices and acts should be considered cultural tools that are perceived, interpreted,and employed differently in different activities, contexts, events, and situations, since

cultural practices are socially embedded. It should be seen as a situated and distributed

learning system.

Web 2.0 technological forces shape to learners networking practices (Boyd & Ellison,2007). Instruments (hardware) and semiotic tools (text/language, UGC; Mashup, RSS, &

folksonomy) are employed to achieve online social interaction supported (Freire, 1994) by

premeditated tools (wiki writing, blog reflection, and social annotation). Wertsch and

Tulviste (1992) observed the relationship between the use of tools and the performance of

actions as individual(s)-operating-with-mediational-means (p. 8). This is the evidencethat social tools and the individual become one.

The ability to capture and visualize communication (Kim, 2008) and mental model trails

is crucial in Web 2.0 learning environments, allowing learners to trace the ramifications of

thought processes and learn by examining their own thinking.Interaction in wiki technology goes beyond information sharing and allows students to

create an interactive space where everybody can edit. This permits fostering the visions of

negotiated meaning, knowledge construction, and learner-to-learner interaction. Lamb

(2004) observed four critical wiki features associated with learning: (1) data storage, able to

be edited by learners; (2) simplified hypertext markup promotes close reading, revision, and

tracking of drafts; (3) empowers users content is ego-less, time-less, and in-flux, orga-nized by context, by links in and links out (flat-structures), and by whatever categories or

concepts that emerge in the authoring process; (4) distributed communities linked by RSS

allow learners to determine the structures of content and knowledge, and therefore, thestructures can be seen as visualizing human mental models. Learners who become engaged

in wiki activities participate in advanced learning through exchanging, sharing, and shaping/

editing each others mental models.

It is critical that learners have the ability to determine their learning structures. In Web

2.0 environments, content is organized by learners via flag-structures and tags, which areconsidered multiple mental notes (Baird & Fisher, 2005). They only make sense to learners

specifically. Wiki architecture and social bookmarking are typical in flat-structured andtagged organizations. In a social bookmarking system, learners work as collaborative teams

of information architects, assigning tags, structuring, and organizing the information in amanner that best reflects their mental models. Learners spontaneously categorize information

in a non-hierarchal manner known as folksonomy. In wiki pages, learners share their resources

and content by utilizing interlinking methods rather than hierarchical structure (directory).

The advantages of these flat-structured methods are that the navigation systems are familiar

to learners and represent/reflect their mental models. Nicol et al. (2005) concluded that havinglearners organize and make explicit their knowledge structures within wiki pages and

through the interlinking of these pages might be a better way of facilitating learners to struc-

ture, analyze and reflect upon their knowledge developing designs. Farabaugh (2007) agreed

that the wiki flat-structure enables learners to structure their knowledge creations on their own.The collaborative filtering (CF) system, engineered by data mashups, is the assumed


11/18


systems. CF system focuses on the process of filtering for information or patterns using tech-

niques involving collaboration among multiple agents, viewpoints, data sources, etc. Thisengineering is the so-called data mashups, which are combinations of data from different

sources that are mashed up into a single tool and offer new ways to look at and interact

with datasets. Social navigation systems assume that information about what another is doing

has guided and informed our decision (Dieberger, Dourish, Hk, Resnick, & Wexelblat,

2000). This is considered a critical learning element in distributed learning systems. Themethod of making automatic predictions (filtering) about the interests of learning is to collect

behavior information from many learners (collaborating). The assumption of the CF system

is that learners who have the same opinion in the past tend to agree again in the future. The

example would be amazon.coms recommendation systems, Frequently bought together,and Customers who bought this item also bought These predictions/recommendations

are based upon users past social behaviors. This is different from a ranking or voting system.

Data mashups join into information generated by collective intelligence to expand our under-

standing of ourselves and the technologically mediated world we inhabit (Educause, 2008).

Additionally, the CF with a social navigation system is a closer reflection of what learnersessentially do rather than the result of what designers think learners should be doing.

Rooted in constructivist theory (Baird & Fisher, 2005), social bookmarking is designed

to act only as a facilitator, providing learners with the tools to chunk, scaffold, and/or

organize information in a format that best suits the learners. Social bookmarking goesbeyond simply sharing. Most traditional digital systems do not help us navigate socially.

The advanced sharing system takes social navigation into account to advance to another

level of collaborative knowledge sharing (Baird & Fisher, 2005). By integrating network

and RSS features, learners work through traces left by other learners, just like the dog-

eared book. Social bookmarking opens a path to learning by drawing on the strengths of

community intelligence, social ties, and shared practices by providing a forum in which theinformation can be exchanged. RSS technology can be strategically integrated into Web 2.0

to enhance distributed learning resource management systems, which will support learners

in managing the distributed learning resource strategically and efficiently.Many advanced networking technologies require that learners learn and manage these

technologies deliberately. It will require learners with a certain correct understanding,

technical skills, and positive experiences to maximize the advantages Web 2.0 provides.

Gleaves et al. (2007) concluded the negative qualities of the digital diaries were linked to

learners technical limitations. Tu et al. (2008) reported that the skills and competence ofWeb 2.0 experts depends upon their knowledge of Web 2.0 technology.

Integration dimension

The integration dimension refers to actors/learners performing/engaging in activities.

Depending on the contexts, sometimes actors/learners have many active and interactive

acts/activities in which to perform/engage while sometimes they may have less. It is criticalthat all interactions should engage learners in collaborative and community-related activi-

ties because acting/learning is a social ritual.

CollaborationCollaboration could range from collaborating with selves to others in meaningful and


12/18

264 C.-H. Tu et al.

instructors collectively to catalyze social interaction into skills and knowledge acquisition.

Learning is conceived as a property of the group (social and cultural) and is built up fromthe individual participants. Online socio-cultural learning that emphasizes collaborative,

meaningful, and authentic learning activities could be effective strategies to improve learn-

ing. Situated cognition theory (Lave, 1988) states that the environment is an integral part of

cognitive activity, and not merely a set of circumstances in which context-independent

cognitive processes/activities are performed. Sometimes each individual collaborates withhimself/herself to manage their multiple identities to engage in more constructive (articu-

late/reflective) acts. Sometimes they collaborate with other learners multiple identities to

engage in more active (manipulative/observant) acts. Ideal meaningful and authentic online

activities should allow learners to acquire ownership in negotiating, planning, and managingprocesses in collaborative and authentic project-based learning activities in a learning

community.

Web 2.0 environments are frequently referred to as a collaboration Web (Educause,

2008). Web learners (Web collaborators) engage in meaningful and authentic Web

activities. Web 2.0 tools for collaborative work are simple, flexible, and free, and offer afamiliar Web interface. Collaborators open their Web browsers and they are able to edit

group documents, hold online meetings, exchange information and data, and collaborate

in any number of ways to use authoring tools, to meet, and to tailor their needs, then

share them with others. Collaborators consistently weave their Web/fabrics to act inlearning activities.

Wiki, an advanced online authoring system, empowers students within collaborative or

co-constructed activities (Farabaugh, 2007). Mak & Coniam (2008) placed authentic writ-

ing, situated within the domains of creativity and task-based learning, in ESL learning by

integrating wiki technology. They concluded that by collaborating within a wiki, learners

produce a greater quantity of coherent and accurate texts in specific audiences (theirparents; peer review), resulting in them being creative and authentic writing. They

concluded collaborative Web is a rewarding experience for language learners.

Community

Online learning community, by accentuating the scaffolding approach could, potentially,

create dynamic social interaction to engender positive social acts with others. Online

learners engaged themselves with online technology in building partnerships with their

learning partners. Online learners are involved in a distributed model of cognition (Pea,1993) that is embedded in culturalhistorical tradition based on Vygotskys theory

(1978).

A learning community goes beyond learners getting together to learn. Four different

types of learning communities (Carotenuto et al., 1999) are identified to obtain a betterunderstanding of how community members process and engage in community activities:

communities of interest, communities of purpose, communities of passion, and communi-

ties of practice (CoP). These four communities provide different sets/stages upon which

learners act based on their contexts (needs, intentions, and purposes) (Figure 1).

In communities of interest, learners share common backgrounds/interests, which are ofa more diffused focus. In communities of purpose, members share a common desire to focus

on specific interests of organizations/groups as a whole and are frequently derived from a

wider range of backgrounds than a CoP; therefore, they are less likely to have a deeply


13/18


interest to the point of becoming passionate advocates. In communities of practice,

members have a tight focus on a common set of activities or practices and share commonor related professional responsibilities or activities. CoP is considered to have specific inten-

tions as a learning community. Gunawardena et al. (in press) proposed a spiral model to

guide and to build an ideal CoP in learning community settings.

Understanding the different functions of communities would assist researchers in

understanding how and why members move from and to different communities. On a theat-rical stage, these four types of communities may be thought of as wings that allow actors to

move around from one stage to another, or community to community. In social learning

environments, learners choose how/where/when they would to act in these communities. It

is inappropriate to assume all members arrive in a community and become a member of aCoP even if it is more learning related. In fact, members arrive in a community and move

to a different community. Sometimes, members may be simultaneously active in more than

one community.

There are two facets that influence a learning community: learning community and

community learning. A learning community is decidedly different from community learn-ing (Schlager, Fusco, & Schank, 2000). A learning community is seen as a community for

participants to learn together where learning is gained horizontally. By comparison, in

community learning, learning is gained both horizontally and vertically. Community

members learn and the community, itself, learns. Evidence that the community learns isinternalized in the messages of the community members. Both types of learning are critical

because community growth and development, and the learning of community members

enhance each other. Therefore, the model that stretches learning from a school learning

community to lifelong learning is a good example of the relationship between

learning community and community learning. One example of focusing on both individual

learning and community learning is the Global Textbook Project that applies wiki-basedtechnology to compose textbooks at the University of Georgia (http://globaltext.org/). This

is evidence of online learning community work that facilitates the generation of collective

knowledge.

Future research

Web 2.0 learning environments have the potential to advance human learning to social and

cultural learning levels. Learners are empowered with social tools to craft, weave, manage,

and manipulate their social learning Webs. Research should reflect on how social tools

empower learners and how learners craft different identities to engage in collaborativecommunity social interactions. Based on the four-dimension construct, the directions for

future research are proposed.

Cognitive dimension

How do learners create, edit, share, organize, and manage their leaning?

Examine integration, benefits, and limitations of Web 2.0 learning environments.

What does it mean when learners prefer not to learn through a self-publishing

mode? How do learners manage their scripts during their engagement in Web 2.0 learning

environments?

What role do metacognitive strategies have when engaging in Web 2.0 learning


14/18

266 C.-H. Tu et al.

Social dimension

How do learners integrate social tools to craft and manage different social identities

to project their self-presentations in Web 2.0 learning environments in different social

contexts?

How do learners manage different social relationships to interact with other learners? How do we enhance learners skills in creative expression/self-presentations?

How do learners perceive digital privacy and mange their trust relationships with

other individuals, tools, and environments? How do learners perceive individual and collective intelligence? How does authority face the challenge of collective intelligence?

How do we determine ownership for collaborative intellectual property?

How do we evaluate collaborative work and certification of authorship?

How will the use of social networking technologies facilitate learning situated in asocial context?

Networking dimension

How do Web2.0 structures impact learning, such as flat-structures, collaborative

filtering systems, social navigation system, open/restrict-structures, RSS, mashups? How do digital multi-modal representations impact learning? How does virtual reality direct and/or indirect impact learning?

How do sophisticated visualization representation tools impact the depths of rich data

sets and add to the body of human knowledge?

Integration dimension

How do we understand, design, and improve pedagogy implications in Web 2.0 envi-

ronments?

How do learners interact socially in different collaborative communities?

How do learners arrive and move to/from different collaborative communities? How do we assessment collaborative knowledge sharing in more constructivist

approach?

How do we perceive issues of plagiarism in collective intelligence?

How do we assess teaching and learning effectiveness and pedagogies?

How do educational institutions integrate social learning technology into learningorganizations?

Conclusions

Life is a drama while learning is a social act. People are consistently looking for the

answer to the question, who am I? Therefore, we diligently interact with others; interact

with the different environments by employing different mediated tools. For example, we

communicate with others, we read, we travel to become inspired by different objectives,

things, and environments. That is the reason why we never stop acting on the world stagebecause we are looking for and trying to understand self. Web 2.0 technologies afford

the capability and capacity to distill self into I (identities) to assist us to better under-

stand who we are. It is important not to forget why we interact. Although knowledge is


15/18


social network surrounds mankind not knowledge. Web 2.0 technology may have been

shaping the ways we communicate and present ourselves. It is the time for us to ask howwe shape and craft our social Webs. I is a synthesis produced by thinking from self.

Through creating multiple Is, we re-create selves constantly in a continuous process of

self-overcoming and self-improving from moment to moment. Dharma Master Cheng-Yen

offers this enlightenment: the real self is identity-less and shape-less because a true self

can be any identity and any shape. With this process, we are able to reach a social life ofexcellence.

References

Baird, D.E., & Fisher, M. (2005). Social media and digital learning styles. Journal of EducationalTechnology Systems,34(1), 532.

Boyd, D.M., & Ellison, N.B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,13(1), article 11. Retrieved May 16, 2008, from

http://www.debaird.net/blendededunet/2005/02/social_media_an.htmlBrescia, W.F., & Miller, M.T. (2006). Whats it worth? The perceived benefits of instructionalblogging. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 5. RetrievedOctober 16, 2008, from http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume5/Brescia.pdf

Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Daguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.Educational Researcher,18(1), 3241.

Carotenuto, L., Etienne, W., Fontaine, M., Friedman, J., Muller, M., Newberg, H., et al. (1999).CommunitySpace: Toward flexible support for voluntary knowledge communities. Paper presented atChanging Places workshop, London.

Cherny, L. (2005). Gakking memes: LiveJournal conversation. Paper presented at the CHI 2005Workshop Beyond Threaded Conversation. Portland, OR.

Cole, M. (1995). The supra-individual envelope of development: Activity and practice, situation andcontext. New Directions for Child Development,67, 105118.

Dieberger, A., Dourish, P., Hk, K., Resnick, P., & Wexelblat, A. (2000). Social navigation:Techniques for building more usable systems. Interactions,7(6), 3645.

Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & OMalley, C. (1996). The evolution of research oncollaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine:Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189211). Oxford: Elsevier.

Donath, J., & Boyd, D.M. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal,22(4), 7182.Dron, J. (2007). The safety of crowds. Journal of Interactive Learning Research,18(1), 2940.Ducate, L., & Lomicka, L. (2008). Adventures in the blogosphere: From blog readers to blog

writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning,21(1), 928.Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S., & Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and privacy concern within social networking

sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. In AMCIS 2007 Proceedings (Paper 339.).Keystone, CO. Retrieved August 28, 2008, from http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2007/339/

Educause. (2008). 2008 Horizon Report. Retrieved September 22, 2008, from http://connect.educause.edu/Library/ELI/2008HorizonReport/45926?time=1224635003

Ellison, N.B., & Wu, Y. (2008). Blogging in the classroom: A preliminary exploration of studentattitudes and impact on comprehension. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,17(1), 99122.

Farabaugh, R. (2007). The isle is full of noises: Using wiki software to establish a discoursecommunity in a Shakespeare classroom. Language Awareness,16(1), 4156.

Freire, M.M. (1994). A socio-cultural/semiotic interpretation of intercommunication mediated bycomputers. Paper presented at the International Conference L.S. Vygotsky and the ContemporaryHuman Sciences, Moscow.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and womens development. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Gleaves, A., Walker, C., & Grey, J. (2007). Using digital and paper diaries for learning and assess-ment purposes in higher education: A comparative study of feasibility and reliability. Assessment& Evaluation in Higher Education,32(6), 631643.


16/18

268 C.-H. Tu et al.

Grossman, L. (2006). Times Person of the Year: You. Retrieved March 27, 2008, from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html

Gunawardena, C.N., Hermans, M.B., Brohley, M., Richmond, C., Sanchez, D., and Tuttle, R.(in press). Spiraling toward socially mediated metacognition: A theoretical framework for Web2.0 social networking sites. Educational Media International.

Hargittai, E. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social network sites.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,13(1), article 14. Retrieved May 22, 2008, fromhttp://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/hargittai.html

Harre, R. (1989). Language games and the texts of identity. In J. Shotter & K.J. Gergen (Eds.). Textsof identity (pp. 2530). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Herring, S.C., Stuckey, B., Kouper, I., & de Siqueria, A. (2007). Blogs as discussion space forchildren: The case of quest Atlantis. Paper presented at the annual conference of AmericanEducational Research Association (AERA), Chicago, IL.

Herring, S.C., Kouper, I., Scheidt, L.A., & Wright, E.L. (2005). Women and children last: Thediscursive construction of weblogs. Retrieved October 22, 2008, from http://blog.lib.umn.edu/

blogosphere/women_and_children.htmlKim, H.N. (2008). The phenomenon of blogs and theoretical model of blog use in educational

contexts. Computers & Education,51(3), 13421352.

Lamb, B. (2004). Wide open spaces: Wikis, ready or not. EDUCAUSE Review,39(5), 3648.Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life (Learning in

doing). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Ma, W.W.K., & Yuen, A.H.K. (2008). News writing using wiki: Impacts on learning experience of

student journalists. Educational Media International,45(4), 295309.Mak, B., & Coniam, D. (2008). Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among secondary

school students in Hong Kong. An International Journal of Educational Technology and AppliedLinguistics,36(3), 437455.

Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self, and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.

Miller, H., & Mather, R. (1998). The presentation of self in WWW home pages. Paper presented at theannual meeting of Internet Research and Information for Social Scientists (IRSS 98). Bristol, UK.

Moeschler, J. (1985). Argumentation et conversation. Elments pour une analyse pragmatique dudiscours. Paris: Crdif-Hatier.

National Science Foundation. (2008). Fostering learning in the networked world: The cyberlearningopportunity and challenge. Arlington, VA: The National Science Foundation.

Nicol, D., Littlejohn, A., & Grierson, H. (2005). The importance of structuring information andresources within shared workspaces during collaborative design learning. Open Learning,20(1),3149.

Nussbaum, E. (2007, February 12). Say everything. New York Magazine. Retrieved October 28,2008, from http://nymag.com/news/features/27341/

Pea, R.D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon(Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 4787).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pea, R., & Wallis, J. (2008). Advances in communication and information resources for humaninteraction. In Fostering Learning in the Networked World: The Cyberlearning Opportunity andChallenge (p. 11). Retrieved October 27, 2008, from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf08204/nsf08204.pdf

Roberts, G. (2007). The impact of online tasks and social relationships on social presence. Interna-tional journal of continuing engineering education and life-long learning,17(23), 226243.

Schlager, M., Fusco, J., & Schank, P. (2000). Evolution of an on-line education community of practice.Paper presented at the Annual Conference of American Educational Research Association, NewOrleans, LA.

Schmidt, J. (2007). Blogging practices: An analytical framework. Journal of Computer-MediatedCommunication,12(4), article 13. Retrieved May 22, 2008, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/schmidt.html

Schmitt, K.L., Dayanim, S., & Matthias, S. (2008). Personal homepage construction as an expres-

sion of social development. Developmental Psychology,44(2), 496506.Shakespeare, W. (1904). As you like it. (J.C. Smith, M.A. Edin & B.A. Oxon, Eds.). Boston: D.C.

Heath


17/18


Tu, C., Blocher, M., & Ntoruru, J. (2008). Integrate social networking technology to facilitate onlineprofessional community. Educational Media International,45(4), 335341.

Tu, C., & Yen, C. (2007). Online socio-cultural learning. International Journal of Continuing Engi-neering Education and Life-Long Learning,17(2/3), 99120.

Valsiner, J. (1998). The guided mind: A sociogenetic approach to personality. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University.

Vratulis, V., & Dobson, T.M. (2008). Social negotiations in a wiki environment: A case study withpre-service teachers. Educational Media International,45(4), 285294.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Wagner, C., & Majchrzak, A. (2006). Enabling customer-centricity using wikis and the wiki way.

Journal of Management Information Systems,23(3), 1743.Walther, J.B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction. Communication

Research,19(1), 5290.Walther, J.B., & Boyd, S. (2002). Attraction to computer-mediated social support. In C.A. Lin & D.

Atkin (Eds.), Communication technology and society: Audience adoption and uses (pp. 153188).Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Webb, N.M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups.

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,22(5), 366389.Wertsch, J.V., & Tulviste, P. (1992). L.S. Vygotsky and contemporary developmental psychology.

Developmental Psychology,28(4), 110.


18/18

Documents

Constructs for Web 2.0 Learning Environments