Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
web20@HEqualityperspect

web20@HEqualityperspect

Ratings: (0)|Views: 21|Likes:
Published by librepensadora5377

More info:

Published by: librepensadora5377 on Nov 10, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/09/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by:
[Universidad de Valencia] 
On:
13 October 2008 
Access details:
Access Details: [subscription number 779262401] 
Publisher
Routledge 
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Educational Media International
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713698864
Web 2.0 tools and processes in higher education: quality perspectives
Betty Collis
a
; Jef Moonen
ba
Faculty of Behaviour Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
b
Moonen & CollisLearning Technology Consultants, BV, Rekken, The NetherlandsOnline Publication Date: 01 June 2008
To cite this Article
Collis, Betty and Moonen, Jef(2008)'Web 2.0 tools and processes in higher education: qualityperspectives',Educational Media International,45:2,93 — 106
To link to this Article: DOI:
10.1080/09523980802107179
URL:
Full terms and conditions of use:http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfThis article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 
 Educational Media International 
Vol. 45, No. 2, June 2008, 93–106
ISSN 0952-3987 print/ISSN 1469-5790 online© 2008 International Council for Educational MediaDOI: 10.1080/09523980802107179http://www.informaworld.com
Web 2.0 tools and processes in higher education: quality perspectives
Betty Collis
a
* and Jef Moonen
 b
a
 Faculty of Behaviour Sciences, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands;
b
 Moonen &Collis Learning Technology Consultants, BV, Rekken, The Netherlands
TaylorandFrancis LtdREMI_A_310883.sgm
(
 Received 27 January 2008; final version received 23 February 2008
)
10.1080/09523980802107179EducationalMediaInternational0952-3987(print)/1469-5790(online)OriginalArticle2008Taylor&Francis4520000002008EmeritiProfessorBettyCollisBetty.Collis@Utwente.nl
A major change has occurred in the way Web technology is being used in society. Thechange is grounded in user empowerment using Web 2.0 tools and processes. Studentsare already sophisticated users of these tools and processes, but outside of themainstream instructional practices in higher education. In this reflection, the educational potential of Web 2.0 tools and processes is discussed, followed by three sets of  perspectives relating to the potential quality of such practices in higher education coursesettings. For each perspective an analysis of key factors affecting the perceived value of Web 2.0 tools and processes is given, followed by suggestions for overcoming predictable barriers to uptake in mainstream instructional practice.
Les outils et les processus d’Internet 2.0 dans l’enseignement supérieur : uneperspective de qualité
Un changement très important s’est produit dans la façon d’utiliser les technologies duWeb dans la société. Ce changement repose sur la capacité qu’ont les utilisateursd’employer les outils et les processus de Web 2.0. Les étudiants sont déjà des utilisateursavertis de ces outils et processus, mais cela, en dehors des pratiques éducativeshabituelles dans l’enseignement supérieur. La réflexion menée ici examine le potentieléducatif des outils et processus d’Internet 2, le tout accompagné de trois ensembles de perspectives liées à la qualité potentielle de ces pratiques dans le cadre de coursuniversitaires. Dans chacune de ces perspectives on offre une analyse des facteurs principaux qui affectent la perception de la valeur des outils et processus du Web 2.0, letout suivi de suggestions pour surmonter les obstacles prévisibles à l’adoption dans la pratique éducative courante.
Web 2.0 Hilfsprogramme und Prozesse in der Hochschulbildung: Qualitäts-Aspekte
Ein bedeutender Wandel ist in der Art erfolgt, wie die Webtechnologie in der Gesellschaft benutzt wird. Dieser Wandel beruht darauf, dass die Nutzer höhere Handlungskompetenzfür Web 2.0 Hilfsprogramme und Prozesse besitzen. Studenten sind schonfortgeschrittene Anwender dieser Werkzeuge und Prozesse, allerdings außerhalb der gängigen Lehrpraktiken im Hochschulbereich. In dieser Betrachtung werden die pädagogischen Möglichkeiten von Web 2.0 Programmen und Prozessen diskutiert,gefolgt von drei Anlagen mit Perspektiven der potentiellen Qualitäten dieser Technikenin Hochschulkursen. Für jede Perspektive wird eine Analyse von Schlüsselfaktoren bezüglich der erwarteten Werte von Web 2.0 Werkzeugen und Prozessen angeboten,gekoppelt mit Vorschlägen zur Überwindung von Denkhindernissen bei der Umsetzungin die durchschnittliche Lehrpraxis.
Las herramientas y los procesos de Internet 2.0 en la enseñanza superior: unaperspectiva de calidad
Un cambio muy importante ha ocurrido en la manera de aprovechar la tecnología de laWeb en la sociedad. Este cambio está basado en la toma de control por parte de los*Corresponding author. Email: Betty.Collis@Utwente.nl
 D o w nl o ad ed  B y : [ U ni v e r sid ad d e  V al e n ci a]  A t : 11 :46 13  O c t ob e r 2008
 
94
B. Collis and J. Moonen
usuarios para el uso de las herramientas y procesos del Web 2.0. Los estudiantes ya sonusuarios expertos de esas herramientas y procesos pero esto ocurre fuera de las prácticaseducativas habituales en la enseñanza superior. La presente reflexión examina el potencial educativo de las herramientas y procesos del Web 2.0 seguido por tresconjuntos de perspectivas relacionadas con la calidad potencial de esas prácticas dentrodel marco de cursos universitarios. En cada una de esas perspectivas se ofrece un análisisde los factores claves que afectan la percepción del valor de las herramientas y procesosdel Web 2.0, esto siendo seguido por sugerencias para superar los obstáculos a unaadopción dentro de la práctica educativa habitual.
Keywords:
Web 2.0; Web 2.0 tools and processes; higher education; quality; pedagogy
Introduction: learning in the Web 2.0 period
Starting in 2004, Web 2.0 became a collective term for a mass movement in society: amovement toward new forms of user engagement supported by Web-based tools, resources,services and environments. Just as the WWW in the first half of the 1990s brought a stepchange in how people communicated, amused themselves, organized themselves, andengaged in business, so also is a next step change seen to be occurring.
Time Magazine
responded to this step change by voting for “You” as the person of the year in 2006,
1
“you” being the users empowered by the tools and systems of Web 2.0 technology to take newforms of control of many traditional processes. Terms being used to describe these newdynamics include the Participatory Web, collective authoring and crowdsourcing. Phrasessuch as Users as Experts, an Army of Davids, and Power to the People appear throughoutthe
Time Magazine
issue as well as in many other forums.
Time
concludes its discussion of the new ways of working, collaborating, doing business, and expressing oneself by callingWeb 2.0 technologies collectively “a tool for bringing together the contributions of millionsof people and making them matter”. It calls the surge of energy and activity in progress in2006 “a massive social experiment with no roadmap”. Just as much as technologies,the term Web 2.0 has come to stand for “a social phenomenon embracing an approach togenerating and distributing Web content itself, characterized by open communication,decentralization of authority, and freedom to share and re-use” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web2.0).What are these Web 2.0 tools and services? The phrase Web 2.0 was first used in 2004,to refer to what is perceived as a second generation of Web-based services emphasizingonline collaboration and sharing. There has not been a technical update to Web standards, but rather a surge of new ways in which the standards are being used.
2
Howe (2006-2007, p. 60) categorizes four general types of processes within Web 2.0 applications that reflectthese ways of interacting:
for sharing user-contributed content (“You make it”)
for evolving community-developed tagging and organizational schemes (folksono-mies) for large sets of user contributed content (“You name it”)
for the development of content collections by the user community (crowdsourcing)
3
(“You work on it”), and
for finding not only objects but trends and overviews of contributions (“Youfind it”).To Howe’s list can be added virtual world environments, in which users create the worldsand artifacts within the worlds that they are simulating and then interact within the virtualworlds with their newly created artifacts. Second Life
4
is a major example in 2006 and 2007
 D o w nl o ad ed  B y : [ U ni v e r sid ad d e  V al e n ci a]  A t : 11 :46 13  O c t ob e r 2008

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->