Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
∂
Outline
• Principles behind Web 2.0• Web 2.0 in institutions• Teaching and Learning using Web 2.0• Students’ learning experience• e-Learning and Web 2.0
∂
Web 2.0 (Web two)
• Where is Web 1.0?– Still under construction...
• Huge amount of disagreements on what really is ‘Web 2.0’
• Web 2.0 Conference 2003– Sponsored by O’Reilly
“Web 2.0 is a set of economic, social, and technology trends that collectively form the basis for the next generation of the Internet —a more mature, distinctive medium characterized
by user participation, openness, and network effects.”
∂
Web 2.0 (cont.)
• Web 2.0 = “the Web as a platform”• Web 2.0 services respond more deeply to users than Web
1.0• User generated content
– YouTube, Flickr, http://teachertube.com/, http://schooltube.com/
• Social computing and Social bookmarking– MySpace, Facebook, Friendster, MSN, Chat rooms.. YASN– http://del.icio.us/
• User rich experience– AJAX http://ajax.asp.net/ajaxtoolkit/
• Participation– Blogs, podcasting, http://www.slideshare.net/faqs/slidecast
∂
Web 2.0 (Cont.) Microformats http://microformats.org/about/ Mashup Web
http://www.popfly.ms/Home.aspx http://www.hipoqih.com/home_pc_en.htm http://www.moonplex.net/, http://www.ufomaps.com/?3d=1
Digg it! Web services Folksonomy
Tagging
Read-write web◦ http://www.readwriteweb.com/◦ http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/e-learning_20.php◦ http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/web_20_backpack_web_apps_for_students.ph
p
Software as services Collective intelligence Web 2.0 browser http://flock.com/
∂
Teaching and Learning using Web 2.0
• Students’ learning experience• Teaching using Web 2.0 principles
– Ideologically– Conceptually– Technologically
• Pedagogic values in higher education
∂
Students
• Students are already Digital natives
From (publishing) To (participation)
Personal Web sites – articles Blogs (google search)
Documentation / APIs Patterns / tutorials
Books Wikis / forums
Encyclopaedia Wikipedia
Directories (meta-data) Tagging, folksonomy, tag clouds
Downloads P2P
• Prensky1 claims that digital natives have:-• Shorter attention spans,• Less reflection,• But greater visual skills, ability to concentrate on different media
simultaneously.
1 Digital Natives Digital Immigrants by Marc Prensky
∂
Learning using Web 2.0Social bookmarking
◦ Collaborative information search and discovery student projects, research, teams
◦ Staff social book-marking http://tags.library.upenn.edu/
◦ Multi-user feeds with related interests◦ http://community.brighton.ac.uk/
Wiki– Collaborative writing
– http://www.jotlive.com/, http://www.writely.com/, http://writeboard.com/, http://www.wikispaces.com/
– Revision control– Asynchronous writing– See peer/students progress– Staff collaboration– Could become textbooks
“Dictatorship of idiots”
∂
Learning using Web 2.0 (Cont.)Blogs
◦ Interaction, personal comments◦ Allow students to see how ideas and topics change overtime http://blogpulse.com/ Links by bloggers also create a network of concepts and interests
Tagging◦ Students can view lecturer’s bookmarks and tags
Feeds and mash-upshttp://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/, http://www.suprglu.com/RSS feeds, PodcastPersonal learning CentersNot limited to information from lecturers and institutions
Students can build a search tag cloud for a research• Collaboration and sharing of content
– Email 75%, VLE and other Web 2.0 methods less than 10%
∂
Social networking and Learning
• Social networking◦ Different views
Socialising (public) vs Education/Learning (private)
◦ A social mess (bringing different social groups into one big space) Less boundaries Less privacy
◦ From MySpace to FaceBook (point of contact)◦ From e-learning to eduspaces http://elgg.net/
• e-Learning 2.0 (e-learning with Web 2.0)◦ "members interact and learn together“ by Etienne Wenger◦ http://www.elearnmag.org/subpage.cfm?section=articles&article=29-1
∂
e-Learning and Web 2.0
Learning Management Systems LMS (or Virtual Learning Environments)◦ Durham University Online (DUO)◦Without Web 2.0, LMS will be limited classes and universities
• With Web 2.0, research led learning is possible– A research led social networks can be formed based on community
of practice, participation, and promotion made by staff, students and external researchers.
∂
Web 2.0 in Institutions
• Harvard University– http://h2obeta.law.harvard.edu/home.do
• University of Leeds– Media Wikis and Elgg– Promoted to staff– Information learning
• University of Warwick– Over 4000 blogs and over 80000 entries (directed to students)– Positive outcomes : Staff students bounding– Challenges : Monitoring, copyright issues, offensive posts
∂
Web 2.0 in Institutions
• University of Edinburgh– Part of the University strategy– The use of blogs, RSS feeds, Google maps, dek.icio.us, podcasts
• University of Brighton– Elgg– Over 13000 posts
• Stanford University• http://itunes.stanford.edu/
∂
Web 2.0 for Teachers and Learners
• Mixing teaching and learning and Social networking– Blogs with screen casts, tutorials, presentations– http://smart.dur.ac.uk/podcast/
Web 2.0 can give the learner control of his/her learning style◦ Laidback or instance feedback◦ Media or textual◦ Collaboration◦ Autonomy to the learner
∂
Web 2.0 for Teachers and Learners (cont.)
• Group learning– Co-operatively producing of deliverables using Wikis– Sharing content and learning materials
• Social constructivism – Social international amongst students and between
students and staff members– Scaffold learning
Student centred learning◦ http://www.aishe.org/readings/2005-1/oneill-mcmahon-
Tues_19th_Oct_SCL.html
∂
Learning using Technology and tools
• Technology must be efficient and reliable• Information must be up to date• Teaching with Advanced technology may cause
innovations to be lost• Mature students and large classes may have mix
technological skills• http://www.c4lpt.co.uk/recommended/
top100.html• Hybrid classes
∂
Emerging◦ No empirical research has been done◦ Difficult to choose an infrastructure◦ External content◦ Integration may be problematic◦ IT support
Very broad◦ Concept maps may not be easily established
Difficult to maintain students/staff intellectual rights
Less privacy
Conclusion
