Sarah Paterson

Collin Sutherland

John Bunker

Dylan Dyer

Web 2.0 Technologies in Education

Introduction

The situation presented in the cartoon above is, unfortunately, not far from reality. Today, students are
constantly immersed with new technology that has the ability to “enthrall” them in experiences that
they will never forget. Learners of all ages are using different forms of technology outside of the
classroom that has raised their expectations of how information is presented inside the classroom.
However, thousands of teachers across the country are faced with the daunting challenge of effectively
integrating new and innovative technologies into the learning environment in order to engage their
students.

Throughout the last century, the question of whether or not innovative technology contributes
positively to the educational experience has been at the center of the educational world. In
1922, Thomas Edison declared that, "I believe the motion picture is destined to revolutionize our
educational system and that in a few years it will supplant largely, if not entirely, the use of textbooks"
(Monke, 2004). In the 21st century, this doesn't appear to be the case. However, what is certain is that
the 21st century has provided a wide variety of different technologies that possess educational potential
which greatly surpasses the power of motion pictures and the television. Presently, one of the greatest
technologies available for use in the classroom are course management systems (CMS) and Web 2.0
tools.

History and Development

Prior to the 21st Century were a few notable successes in online learning. The rapid evolution of the
World Wide Web and the developments of online learning were to some degree hand in hand, though
the scope and sequence of online learning was far behind the curve of the

World Wide Web (Sclater, 2008). Online learning found its roots in the concept of distance education
(Morabito, 1999). Interestingly, the idea of online learning came about before even the most basic
conception of the World Wide Web. During the 1960's, one of the first notable learning systems, a
computer-based learning program called PLATO, was developed at the University of Illinois. Though
initially developed for single computer access, PLATO eventually allowed multiple user access and in
1976 provided one of the first online messaging communities (Wooley, 1994). From its conception in
1960 to its shut down in 2006, PLATO established key online concepts such as forums, message
boards, online testing, e-mail, chat rooms, picture languages, instant messaging, remote screen sharing,
and multi-player games (Culatta, 2009).

A few other notables in the history of online learning environments and course managment systems are
CALCampus.com, Blackboard, Moodle, and Sakai. Similar to PLATO, CALCampus.com originated
from an offline, co

mputer-based program for individual learners. The computer-based program was further developed
from 1985-1995 for courses on private networks. Then, as the internet became more widely available to
consumers in 1995, CALCampus.com was created and classes were made available to the general
public. What made CALCampus.com unique was its innovation in being the first to develop and
implement the concept of a totally online-based school which incorporated real-time classroom
instruction, all materials, and administration (Morabito, 2009).

While PLATO and CALCampus. com were created specifically for higher education and adult learners,
Blackboard and Moodle stand out because each has heavily emphasized roles in K-12 education as well
as higher education (Blackboard, 2009) (Moodle, 2009). Like CALCampus.com, both Moodle and
Blackboard are course management systems that provides the infrastructure for a totally online-based
school. However, Moodle, unlike Blackboard, is free of any licensing costs and schools have found it
to be significantly less to use than Blackboard even when including hosting fees and the costs of
managing their Moodle sites.

Both Blackboard and Moodle rode the Web 2.0 wave at the turn of the century and were among the
most popular and most well-known course management systems. However, as the shift from Web 1.0
to Web 2.0 created fundamental differences in the way the internet was used (O'Reilly, 2005), course
management systems were not quick to foll

ow suit (Sclater, 2008). As a result, there has been a disconnect between the services provided by
course management systems and the way the internet is used by students (Sclater, 2008).
 "Like the web itself, the early promise of e-learning - that of empowerment - has not been fully
realized. The experience of e-learning for many has been no more than a hand-out published
online, coupled with a simple multiple-choice quiz. Hardly inspiring, let alone empowering. But
by using these new web services, e-learning has the potential to become far more personal,
social and flexible" (O'Hear, 2006).

Most course management systems have been used by teachers to simply provide a "digital facelift" for
their classrooms (Campbell, 2009); being teacher-centered, providing limited student-led interactions,
and suggesting the continued disempowerment of students in the learning (Sclat

er, 2008). Based upon what Web 2.0 tools have to offer to education, the lacking of most course
management systems has sparked many discussions of the future of course management systems.
These conversations have centered around the concept of a "shared learning environment" or a personal
learning environments (PLE) (Sclater, 2008). The three camps situated around the concept of the PLE
promote client software that can mediate between the learner and the resources on the web, initiatives
such as Elgg that do not require client software but enable participation through a web browser, and
lastly the initiative of learners to facilitate and customize personal use of a variety of online services
(Sclater, 2008). Though a conclusion has not been reached, the development of initiatives such as Elgg,
Google Wave, Sakai, Dolphin and others show a trend towards the concept of shared learning
environments that encourage and improve student interactions and making learning environments more
student-centered.
"Shared Learning Environment"
The term "Web 2.0" is used to describe open source applications that facilitate collaboration and
information-sharing. These services provide rapid deployment and can be edited in real time by anyone
with access. Materials can be published and pushed to subscribers in minutes as well as downloaded to
portable players creating learning experiences anytime and anywhere. The “virtual learning
environment” has transformed into a “shared learning environment.” Blogs, wikis, social bookmarking,
podcasts, and RSS feeds have altered the way students receive knowledge, communicate, and
learn allowing for greater student independence, autonomy, and collaboration as well as increased
pedagogic efficiency. Web 2.0 applications enable project-based opportunities for students to share
their ideas and creations with other disciplines, teachers, and the external learning community.
Continuous access to new knowledge and skills promotes a deepen level of engagement in learning
without the requirement of a higher level of technology (Kamel Boulos, 2006).
Web 2.0 Uses in Education

"If access to higher education is a necessary element in expanding economic prosperity and improving
the quality of life, then we need to address the problem of the growing global demand for education
(Seely Brown, 2008).”
Open source applications provides the necessary access to education required to prepare students for
post-secondary education and careers. Wikis enable collaborative content creation and peer
assessments of simple instructional websites providing a deeper understanding of the subject matter
(Franklin, 2007). Wikis create a learning environment that engenders progressive problem-solving and
group authoring. Students can track a group project, review classes and teachers, track progress in your
research topic, work in real time, collect data with ease, provide direct links to authorship, and make
feedback public and potentially durable. Through the use of wikis, work is displayed in real time,
technology becomes text-based, and direct links connect the reader to the original public
document (Kamel Boulos, 2006). Wikis promote negotiation and explain complex issues through
verbose technical writing also known as "digital literacy (Greenhow, 2009)."

Blogs are another form of Web 2.0 tools being used for education purposes (Podcasts, 2009). Blogs
provide an avenue for networking, personal knowledge sharing, instructional tips for students, direct
links to course announcements and readings, annotated links, and knowledge management for
educators. Students have the opportunity to create reflective writing journals, knowledge management,
assignment submission and review in real time, dialogue to group work, e-portfolios, and share course-
related resources (Kamel Boulos, 2006).
The Web 2.0 learning environment is not complete without the mention of podcasts. A podcast is a
series of digital media files (either audio or video) that are released episodically and downloaded
through web syndication. They provide a way for students to create and share powerful media for little
to no cost. Podcasts should be short and to the point. Students do other tasks while listening. Notes are
usually not taken during a podcast. The act of taking notes enables active listening and learning for
many individuals. Podcasts work well for auditory learners (Kamel Boulos, 2006).

Risks

As Web 2.0 learning environments progress, concerns regarding effects on literacy, the accuracy of
web resources, and the synthesizing of definitions evolve. K-12 teachers question if this learning
format allows for memorizing. Wikis require trust of the author, volunteer collaboration, user buy-in,
and may be a challenge for users that lack time and resources. Wikis are not managed by a set of rules
or guidelines and do not ensure critical thinking of a subject matter. Premature judgement due to lack
of verbal discussions can emerge (Franklin, 2007).

Parental knowledge of the technology is generally low, and this leads to less engagement of the parents
in monitoring its use for both personal and educational purposes. It is important to engage these
parents and provide them with the information they need to know. This can help prevent fall out from
arguments and postings which often leads to cyber bullying (Shariff, 2008). The statistics of cyber
bullying show its significance in today's learning. According to iSAFE, 58% of kids admit someone
has said mean or hurtful things to them online, and 40% of these had it happen more than once (i-
SAFE, 2009). This makes teaching the students how to maintain a separation of personal and school
life incredibly important, as well as informing parents about these possible risks. Teachers must also
maintain control of all postings with careful monitoring for these types of behaviors.

With this in mind, planning and structure play a critical role. All students should have Acceptable Use
Policies (AUPs) signed by both themselves and a parent. The AUP should cover the terms and
conditions of school or district computer networks and internet use including online behavior and
access privileges. In order avoid access to undesirable and inappropriate material, site access must be
regulated in same way. While web filters are easily available, student use of proxy-bypass sites and
devices (which allow the user to avoid the network filters and access undesirable material) needs to be
controlled.

Guidelines for online postings must also be implemented and followed. Possible guideline ideas could
include the use of proper capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. In order to maintain privacy,
students should also only use their first names and not include any information such as email accounts ,
school name, addresses, or any other information which could make them personally identifiable.
Students must also obtain permission before using intellectual property (audio, text, video, images,
etc.) of others, unless they can clearly explain and justify fair use under copyright laws. The
importance of consent for recording others for use in online broadcasts must also be considered
(Shamburg, 2009).

In order to provide for effective use of wikis, blogs, and podcasts in the classroom, students must
understand and follow the particular guidelines established for a class wiki. For example, Wikipedia
does not allow for any reporting of original research, but it aims to provide the reader with currently
available knowledge, much like a traditional encyclopedia. Typically, a "StyleGuide" is also provided
within a wiki to clarify the writing customs and culture for the wiki. (Wikipedia, 2009). Having the
students work collaboratively to create a classroom style guide provides a great opportunity to discuss
issues such as use of conventions for co-authoring texts.

Implementing these systems require some training for students on privacy, security, free expression,
and intellectual property rights. They must learn to practice safe, acceptable, and sensible behavior as
online authors and readers. Lessons should also be taught in constructive criticism, reflective, and
descriptive postings as well as starting and continuing conversations using comments. Depending on
the level of students, creating posts, pages, and using dashboards may also be of importance. Teacher
modeling for the students plays a critical role in the process as well. With proper instruction and
guidance (as well as continual monitoring) on these basic principals, however, the risks can be
controlled as students learn to become better 21st century citizens (Franklin & van Harmelen, 2007).

Individual teachers and classes must also develop a system for recording the efforts and
accomplishments of individuals. While different approaches can be taken to achieve this, students can
simply sign their names after their own writing. Another approach to this can be to have students play
particular roles such as editor or be responsible for a particular section of the wiki. With this system,
the teacher is also able to differentiate for strengths and interests of students thus making work more
engaging (Schrum & Solomon, 2007).

Costs

The open source environment fosters content that is freely contributed and distributed with few
restrictions or costs. The low cost bridges the gap in accessibility to learning tools. Web based learning
tools enable support staff groups to share information across campuses and allows educators to reflect
and record progress in their own work. Technical support is hosted by the central web team and
supported by the help desk. This is where higher education tends to see a cost associated with Web 2.0
integration. Universities utilize open course ware in an effort to increase individuals' free access to
cutting-edge research. Incorporating Web 2.0 technologies into education subsystems provides
increased tutoring and learning support services, access to free research materials, access to expert, up-
to-date content, and a hub for social activities at no additional cost to the monthly internet bandwith
(Wiley & Hilton, 2009).

Long Term Effects of Web 2.0

Net neutrality is the principle that says all information flowing across the Internet should be treated
equally. As more people stream data-rich video and play online video games, the Internet faces
congestion concerns. If net neutrality regulations are implemented, Web 2.0 sites that generate massive
traffic like Google and Yahoo will be required to pay extra fees. Net neutrality allows carriers to sell
multi-tiered access to heavy users. The US government is examining net neutrality and its financial,
legal, and social implications. As free, web based educational tools expand into the "shared learning
environment," there is apprehension of the Internet's impending collapse due to the explosive growth
in Internet bandwith. Those opposed to net neutrality provide an argument that the cost will be passed
on to the consumers, regulations will backfire, and that this is a technical issue for engineers. The
organizations fighting for net neutrality regulations believe that without government intervention,
freedom of speech is being impacted, monopolies will take over the market, and innovation of the web
is at stake (Schonfeld, 2008).

Another profound impact of the Internet, is its ability to support and expand the various aspects of
social learning.

"The emphasis on social learning stands in sharp contrast to the traditional Cartesian view of
knowledge and learning - a view that has largely dominated the way education has been structured for
over one hundred years. The Cartesian perspective assumes that knowledge is a kind of substance and
that pedagogy concerns the best way to transfer this substance from teachers to students. By contrast,
instead of starting from the Cartesian premise of "I think, therefore I am," and from the assumption that
knowledge is something that is transferred to the student via various pedagogical strategies, the social
view of learning says, "We participate, therefore we are (Seely Brown, 2008)."

The open source community engenders a social learning infrastructure that promotes planning and
problem solving by providing the framework for real-world practices and examples. The social view of
learning follows the cycle of attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation. Web 2.0 applications
enable a tutorial-based educational system that fosters motivation among cohorts through continuous
editorial support and group critiques (Suresh, 1996).

Conclusion

With the arrival of Web 2.0 tools and course management systems, educators have been provided with
endless opportunities to integrate easy-to-use technology into the classroom. These tools encourage
student achievement by enforcing critical thinking and problem solving skills, allowing students to
collaborate with their fellow classmates or students around the world and offer students a way to take
greater ownership over their learning. The field of educational technology has experienced countless
changes and advancements over the last century and will continue to develop in the future due to the
rapid pace of technological innovation. There will always be new ways to implement technology into
the learning environment in order to provide students with a cutting edge education. However,
determining whether or not technology has clear benefits and positively impacts the learning
environment remains a debatable question. What is apparent is that Web 2.0 tools are a trend in the
educational world that will be around for a long time and will play an increasingly significant role in
the classroom of the future.

References

Alexander, B. (2006, Mar. - Apr.). Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and
Learning?. Educause Review, 33-34

Blackboard What We Do . (n.d.). Blackboard Home . Retrieved December 1, 2009, from

http://www.blackboard.com/Company/What-We-Do.aspx

Campbell, G. (2009). A Personal Cyberinfrastructure.EDUCAUSE Review, 44(5), 58-59. Retrieved

November 24, 2009, from

http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume44/APe
rsonalCyberinfrastructure/178431

Culatta, R. (n.d.). Online Learning Timeline. Innovative Learning. Retrieved November 26, 2009, from
http://www.innovativelearning.com

Greenhow, Christine, Beth Robella, and Joan Hughes. "Learning, Teaching, and Scholarship in a
Digital Age: Web 2.0 and Classroom Research: What Path Should We Take Now? -- Greenhow et al.
38 (4): 246 ." Educational Researcher. Version Vol. 38, No. 4, 246-259. American Educational
Research Organization, n.d. Web. 7 Dec. 2009. <http://edr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/full/38/4/246?
ijkey=V3cfgjmrwwqew&keytype=ref&siteid=spedr>

Franklin, Tom and van Harmelen, Mark. "Web 2.0 for Content for Learning and Teaching in Higher
Education." 28 May 2007. http://staff.blog.ui.ac.id/harrybs/files/2008/10/web-2-for-content-for-
learning-and-teaching-in-higher-education.pdf.

i-SAFE Inc.. (n.d.). i-SAFE Inc.. Retrieved December 9, 2009, from

http://www.isafe.org/channels/sub.php?ch=op⊂_id=media_cyber_bullyin

Kamel Boulos, Maged, Inocencio Maramba, and Steve Wheeler. "BioMed Central | Full text | Wikis,
blogs and podcasts: a new generation of Web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and
education." BioMed Central | The Open Access Publisher. Version doi:10.1186/1472-6920-6-41. BMC
Medical Education, 15 Aug. 2006. Web. 7 Dec. 2009. <http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-
6920/6/41/>.

McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M. J. W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning:

Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. In ICT: Providing choices for

learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007.

http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/mcloughlin.pdf

Moodle.org: About. (n.d.).Moodle.org: open-source community-based tools for learning. Retrieved

November 28, 2009, from

http://moodle.org/about/

Monke, Lowell. (2004). The Human touch. Education Next, Fall 2004. Retrieved from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MJG/is_4_4/ai_n6335687/?tag=content;col1

Morabito, M. G. (n.d.). Origins of CALCampus. Accredited Distance Learning Courses--CALCampus

Online. Retrieved December 1, 2009, from

http://www.calcampus.com/calc

Morabito, M. G. (1999). Online Distance Education: Historical Perspective and Practical Application.
Boca Raton: Dissertation.Com.

O'Hear, S. (2006, August 8). e-learning 2.0 - how Web technologies are shaping
education. ReadWriteWeb. Retrieved December 1, 2009, from

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/e-learning_20.php

O'Reilly, T. (2005, September 30). What Is Web 2.0.Technology Books, Tech Conferences, IT
Courses, News - O'Reilly Media. Retrieved November 24, 2009, from

http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html

Sclater, N. (2008). Web 2.0, personal learning environments, and the future of learning management
systems. Educause Center for Applied Research, 2008(13). Retrieved November 21, 2009, from

http://www.educause.edu/ecar

Schrum, L., & Solomon, G. (2007). Web 2.0: New Tools, New Schools. NY: Intl Society For
Technology In.
Seely Brown, John , and Richard Adler. "Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning
2.0 (EDUCAUSE Review) | EDUCAUSE."EDUCAUSE Review. Version vol. 43. no 1. pg 16-32.
EDUCAUSE, 1 Jan. 2008. Web. 7 Dec. 2009. <http://www.educause.edu/EDU

Schonfeld, Erick. "The Net Neutrality Debate All on One Page." Tech Crunch. Aug. 31, 2008.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/08/31/the-net-neutrality-debate-all-on-one-page/

Suresh Kumar , Vivekanandan. " Why Collaborative Learning?." Department of Computer Science.
University of Saskatchewan , 2 Apr. 1996. Web. 9 Dec. 2009. <http://www.cs.usask.ca/grads/

"Podcast." Wikipedia. 7 Dec. 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podcast

Shamburg, Christopher. Student-Powered Podcasting. Eugene, OR: International Society for

Technology in Education, 2009. Print

Shariff. (2008). Cyber-Bullying: Issues and Solutions for the School, the Classroom and the Home (1
ed.). New York: Routledge.

Style guide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (n.d.). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved
December 9, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_guide

Wiley, David and John Hilton. "Openness, Dynamic Specialization, and the Disaggregated Future of
Higher Education." International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. Vol. 10, no. 5.
Brigham Young University. November, 2009.

Woolley, D. R. (1994). PLATO: The Emergence of Online Community. Thinkofit: Consultants in

Online Communication. Retrieved November 24, 2009, from http://thinkofit.com/plato/dwplato.htm