Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
within a LMS (see Wikipedia for more information
on the Edupunk movement, http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Edupunk), the majority of educators
(or at least administrators) appear to value the
affordances provided (e.g., the ability to keep a
record of everything) by the mainstream trend of
keeping online learning nice and neat behind the
lock and key of the LMS. Using Web 2.0 tech-
nologies also typically requires students to set up
multiple accounts to be able to use different Web
2.0 tools and applications. In our experience, while
the majority of students do not mind (and many
already have accounts), there are sometimes a few
students who resist setting up another account, with
another username and password. Faculty should
also keep in mind that Web 2.0 technologies come
and go; a technology used one semester might
not be available (e.g., because the company went
out of business or changed its pricing model) the
next semester. Finally, the possible “publicness”
and digital foot-print of many of these tools also
needs to be considered (for more on publicness,
see Lowenthal & Thomas, 2010).
http://sites.google.com/a/jiscapt.net/project-plan/
Home for more information). Further, we must
begin experimenting with different ways of using
these tools to meet educational goals with dif-
ferent learning audiences, and formally evaluate
the effectiveness of bringing these tools into our
courses; our use of these technologies has been
with postsecondary students, most of who are
digital immigrants in graduate-level programs,
so inquiry into the use of Web 2.0 technologies
to support the lifelong learning skill and disposi-
tion development of other audiences—including
investigation into the differences between digital
natives and digital immigrants—is needed. Sec-
ondly, postsecondary educators find themselves
in a time where they are expected to do more
with less. Many find it difficult enough to teach
online and to use the standard LMS. Therefore,
educators need targeted faculty development that
helps them not only understand how many of
these new technologies work but how and why
they might use them in their courses to support
specific learning objectives and overall student
engagement. By taking these steps, postsecondary
educators and the university as a whole can more
effectively address the challenges mentioned at
the start of this chapter.
Web 2.0 technologies are making possible
“new kinds of open participatory learning eco-
systems that will support active, passion-based
learning: Learning 2.0” (Brown & Adler, 2008,
p. 32). Brown and Adler go on to predict that
Web 2.0-enriched learning environments may
“encourage students to readily and happily pick
up new knowledge and skills as the world shifts
beneath them” (p. 32), enabling them—as lifelong
learners—to meet the ever-changing needs and
demands of their workplace and profession. In this
chapter we have shared our ideas for using the Web
2.0 technologies associated with blogging, social
networking, document co-creation, and resource
sharing to create intrinsically motivating learning
opportunities—Learning 2.0 opportunities—that
have the potential to help students develop the
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
AND CONCLUSION
Web 2.0 technologies and the participatory culture
they encourage are relatively new. Educators have
only recently begun to experiment with these dif-
ferent tools—specifically, blogs, mirco-sharing,
social networking, document co-creation and
resource sharing. There are two main things educa-
tors and researchers alike must begin to do. First,
while many of us have had positive experiences
using these new Web 2.0 technologies, it is time to
begin researching the efficacy of using these new
tools in our courses. Projects such as APT STAIRS
are starting to attend to this need; APT STAIRS
is a project aimed at helping different audiences
(e.g., academics, students, and researchers) use
collaborative Web 2.0 tools like Google Docs
to enhance collaborative working practices (see
Search WWH ::
Custom Search