Don't Use Web 2.0 Tools As a Really Expensive Encyclopedia!

So, I am keeping Web 2.0 as a topic for the second-half of our class as it is one HUGE topic.  Today I write about the trap that teachers sometimes fall into when they attempt to use Web 2.0 tools and technologies - the trap of using these tools as expensive encyclopedias with focus on lower-level learning...find information then repeat it (read and copy).  I think teachers need extensive training on how to use Web 2.0 tools and technologies in an efficient and useful manner.  They also need some additional planning time in order to prepare lessons that utilize these tools. 

This week I actually did a library journal search (and what fun it was - I didn't even have to GO to the library to find and download most of the journal articles).  I found several great articles - one that speaks to using the web for participatory and collaborative learning activities and also provides specific examples of using Web 2.0 tools. Finally, the author provides a good list of Web 2.0 sites for teachers.

The article - Beyond Google by Jen Curwood - talks about focusing on both the technical stuff and the "new ethos" stuff, which Ms Curwood describes as "the nature of learning and participation that they (new digital tools) make possible. Simply put, new literacies are more participatory and collaborative. Here, students can work with others across time and space to learn more about themselves and the world around them. As schools work to integrate new technical stuff into the curriculum, they need to promote the new ethos stuff, too." (pg 49).  I love the idea of "new ethos" stuff...that's what makes all this technology work as learning tools for students.  That is also what our educators need to think about as they begin the journey of developing learning materials which harness the capabilities of the web.  Technology changes have come fast and furious to our new generation of students.  It'll be fun to see how education (especially K-12) changes as we know it.  It's imperative that teachers are provided with a great deal of training on the tools and potential application for collaborative learning.  Not just one inservice day or an e-mail directive.  Anyway, I think it'll be interesting to see how and when education (K-12) changes. Want to make any predictions?

Now one more highlight from the article:

Web 2.0 Sites for Teachers (many of which we may have already explored via our class)

• Classroom 2.0 (http://www.classroom20.com/)
• EdTechTalk (http://www.edtechtalk.com/)
• TeacherTube (http://www.teachertube.com/)
• School 2.0 (http://www.school20.ning.com/)

Source: 
Curwood, Jen (2010).  Beyond Google.  Instructor, 119 no5 Mr/Ap 2010, 49-53.
 Retrieved from:

http://libezproxy.syr.edu/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1998413271&sid=1&Fmt=6&clientId=3739&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Bloom's Taxonomy Goes High-Tech

Hi, all.  Our team was recently discussing Bloom's Taxonomy and associated instructional activities.  I was surfing the net this weekend (I wonder if people still say "surfing the net" or if that expression is outdated?) and ran into a great article called Bloom's Taxonomy Blooms Digitally.  Check it out if you have a few minutes.  In the article, the author discusses Bloom's Taxonomy of cognitive objectives, developed by Benjamin Bloom in the 1950s.  Think back to the 1950s...hmmm.....many of us cannot because it was before our time.  Now think about the technology back then (or the stories about the technology at least).  From ComputerHope.com:
1950 - the first electronic computer is created in Japan; 1953 - IBM introduces the first IBM computer, the 701; 1954 -  the first commercially-produced transistor radio is announced. 
No computer usage.  No Web 1.0 or Web 2.0....how times have changed.   So back to the article...the author, Andrew Churches, has mapped digital technology to Bloom's Revised Taxonomy.  So next time you are uploading and sharing an article, you may be applying knowledge.  When you are mashing, you are analyzing, and when you are posting to our discussion board, you are most likely evaluating.  Now Bloom's Taxonomy has gone high-tech!

Reference:
Churches, Andrew (2008).  Bloom's Taxonomy Blooms Digitally.
Retrieved on October 19 from:

http://techlearning.com/article/8670

 

Reference:

Computer History 1940 - 1960

Retrieved on October 19 from:

http://www.computerhope.com/history/194060.htm

This Week - Explore Web 2.0 Tools and Processes in Higher Education

As we participate in IDE 611 class activities, we are becoming immersed in Web 2.0 technologies and processes.  We are able to collaborate in a virtual environment in ways I never knew existed.  This week, I wanted to focus my blog discussion on our world - specifically, Web 2.0 applications in higher education.  I found a good article I'd like to share:  Web 2.0 Tools and Processes in Higher Education:  Quality Perspectives.  By the way, per the article, did you realize that the term Web 2.0 was first used in 2004?  That was six short years ago. 

I'd like to touch on several points in the article that really resonated with me.  First, the article talks about the fact that there is great potential for application of Web 2.0 technologies in higher education and the students are ready - and already using it without institutions of higher education promoting it.  Specifically, the authors talk about a study of students in UK higher education institutions:

 In a recent study of students in UK higher education institutions (the JISC LXP Study; Conole, de Laat, Dillon, & Darby, 2006) the conclusions were that students already, on their own initiative, make the Web the “first point of call” for their self-regulated study activities where they, in sophisticated ways, find and synthesize information, integrated across multiple sources of data. Their use of Web 2.0 tools is “pervasive and integrated” and “personalized”. They are members of several Web-based communities of practice, sharing resources and asking one another for help and assistance. They are developing “new forms of evaluation skills and strategies (searching, restructuring, validating) which enable them to critique and make decisions about a variety of sources and content” … “The use of these tools is changing the way they gather, use and create knowledge … shifting from lower to higher regions of Bloom's taxonomy … to make sense of their complex technologically enriched learning environment” (p. 6). Parallel to these sophisticated informal uses of Web 2.0 technology, the students are “frustrated … because of the mis-use or lack of use of the tools” in the technology practices formally supported by their institutions (p. 95)" (Collis, B and Moonen, J, p.95).

Another point of interest for me was the authors' discussion of various barriers to Web 2.0 tools becoming embedded in formal higher education instructional processes - two of which include the technology infrastructure and and the experience and skill gap between students and instructors in regard to Web 2.0 tools and processes. 

Finally, I'd like to point to a portion of the authors' conclusion:
"The rapid uptake of Web 2.0 tools and dynamics in society at large is no predictor of a similar uptake in formal learning practices in higher education. Given the many mismatches in quality perspectives, as well as the difficulties in carrying out new pedagogies in higher education, it can, unfortunately, be predicted that the empowerment offered by Web 2.0 tools and processes will not be able to overcome the inertia in higher education institutions when it comes to the mainstream uptake of new views of learning facilitated by new technologies."...."But there is hope. The suggestions offered related to instructional, institutional, and technical perspectives on quality are based on implementation research and with planning and leadership can be acted upon in the university. But most fundamentally, a mindset change is needed." (Collis, B and Moonen, J, p. 104).

Very interesting article.  And good to see that our IDE curriculum has overcome the "inertia in higher education institutions".  Prior to this class, I did not use all of the various Web 2.0 technologies like my classmates may have, and I'm learning quite a bit about how learning in a Web 2.0 world can be very different from the past.

Resource:

Collis, Betty and Moonen, Jef (2008) “web 2.0 tools and processes in higher education:  quality perspectives”, Educational Media International, 45: 2, 93-106

Retrieved on October 11, 2010 from:

http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/869682_731207594_793858056.pdf

Integrating Web 2.0 Technologies into Workplace Training

Well, it's week five of blogging and this is getting fun!  This week I'd like to look at Web 2.0 technology as it affects my world - and yours, if your employer offers learning and development opportunities.  In my role as organizational development specialist, one of our team's goals is to assess training needs of those employed at SU and then determine, based on our resources, what specific training we provide to the community.  Another key determination is how we provide specific training.  My colleague, Jenn, shared a great article with me that I'd like to discuss today.  The article, Blending Web 2.0 Technologies with Traditional Formal Learning:  A Guide for CLOs and Training Managers, gives a number of specific examples of how companies might blend Web 2.0 with formal learning.  Take a look and let me know your thoughts on the article.  Meanwhile, I'll share my thoughts.

In thinking about this article, it's important to understand the definition of formal learning.  Per the article, "Formal learning is learning that occurs based on a set curriculum and through a well-defined learning event.. (and) generally requires that you stop what you are doing - stop your regular work activities - and dedicate time to the learning experience"(Stone, 2009, p. 3).  Just a few years ago, workplace training meant live, instructor-led training on a specific topic.  That is one example of formal learning.  Then new technologies allowed for more common approaches to formal learning, that include self-paced e-learning and synchronous virtual classroom learning.  Now let's think about informal learning.  Per the article, "you can generally consider  informal learning to be any learning that occurs outside of the planned, and structured formal learning events" (Stone, 2009, p. 3).  Informal learning can be huge - the article notes that "70 -80% of the learning in a corporation is informal" (Stone, 20009, p.3).  A great way for companies to increase informal learning is to promote the use of Web 2.0 technologies, including blogs, discussion forums, wikis, social networking, social bookmarking, and podcasting.  This article not only gives the definitions of these specific activities but also discusses potential uses by corporations.  Imagine a discussion board for managers on how they handle various employee relations issues.  Imagine this as a supplement to formal training on the topic of managing others.  This could be very impactful and very helpful to participants (managers) as well as the people they supervise.  Of course, in this example, it's key that the forum be monitored by a SME to make sure information being provided is correct (or at least aligns with the company's policies).

There is a great chart in the article which lays out a possible matrix for various learning programs.  For example, new employee orientation could incorporate ILT, e-learning self-paced courses, discussion forums, and wikis.  Has any one used all of those learning modalities in your new employee orientation?!  If not, you might just see these in the future.

Anyway, I hope you find the article interesting.  Let me know what you think - and also what you have seen or heard in regard to companies utilizing various Web 2.0 technologies to enhance employee learning.

Resource:
Stone, T (2009).  Blending Web 2.0 Technologies with Traditional Formal Learning:  A Guide for CLOs and Training Managers.  Element K Corporation.
Retrieved from:

http://www.elementk.com/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=e9a061c1-2694-4fda-abfb-56565b07a783&groupId=2814201