You are on page 1of 8

World Environmental Education Congress 2011, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

21 July 2011

You are now entering the Twittersphere! Where EE meets social media
Hilary Macleod, University of Queensland Abstract
Humans did not weave web 2.0, they are merely a strand in it. Whatever they do to the interweb, they do to themselves. 1 Is social media just a diversionary gimmick? A passing phase? The latest craze? Or can social media be socially transformative media with an integral place in EE pedagogies? In this paper I will examine the affordances of Web 2.0 (and 3.0) technologies, such as social media, in the light of differences in perceptions of what technology represents underpinned by comparative theories of technology. An instrumental theory (or neutralist approach) of technology is one which views technology as a tool without any inherent value whereas a critical theory of technology views technology as a site of struggle, of power relationships and of social transformation. From a critical perspective Web 2.0 (and 3.0) technologies have the capacity to democratise the knowledge economy by turning knowledge consumers into prod-users (Bruns, 2008); to promote ubiquitous learning; and to facilitate collaboration through online Communities of Practice. However, applying a critical technology perspective means that we also need to consider that web technologies are not a panacea: misappropriation and indiscriminate use of technology; substitution for valid EE experiences; environmental impacts; and exacerbating the digital divide are the flip side of the coin (W. J. Rohwedder, 1999).

Introduction: From WWW to Web


Until the term Web 2.0 gained currency in 20042 there was only the World Wide Web. Kidd and Chen refer to Web 1.0 as a retronym used to define the features of Internet use between 1994 2004 (Kidd & Chen, 2009, p. 4). Whereas Web 1.0 is seen as the static, asynchronous and passive consumption of information (the read-only web), Web 2.0 is the second generation, read-write web characterised by being more dynamic, synchronous, collaborative, social and interactive. Whilst the use of the term Web 2.0 implies a new version, it is really the functionality and affordances that have evolved (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, p. 61). Social media is the term used for one of the applications of Web 2.0 technologies that allows the creation and exchange of User Generated Content (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, p. 61) . It includes Internet forums, weblogs, social blogs, microblogging, wikis, podcasts, photographs or pictures, video, rating and social bookmarking (Wikimedia Foundation Inc., 2011a). Web 3.0 is the most recent development in the web story although its parameters are at best fuzzily defined and widely debated (Kidd & Chen, 2009, p. 17). Web 3.0 has also been referred to as the read/ write/ execute web since one of its central concepts, cloud computing, allows users to manipulate website code using offsite (in the cloud) applications. Another key concept of Web 3.0 the semantic web - allows for user-tailored data and
1

With apologies to Chief Seattle, whose alleged quotes have been romanticized and translated many times anyway! http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Chief_Seattle 2 Popularised by Tim OReilly at the OReilly Media Conference in 2004 (Wikimedia Foundation Inc., 2011b)

World Environmental Education Congress 2011, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 21 July 2011

searching functionality. Such functionality could ultimately lead to the development of Artificial Intelligence on the web. Others have speculated about a 3D web resulting in virtual reality interactions (Crosslin, 2011, p. 383). As for subsequent web iterations - we can only guess at what Web will be like!

Social media: A passing phase? The latest craze?


There can be no doubt that engagement with social media is the latest craze. The social media lexicon is blossoming and the latest usage statistics show phenomenal growth with 320+ new Twitter accounts created and 98,000+ tweets sent every minute (Cowling, 2011a). A popular YouTube upload features a plethora of statistics about social media including the astonishing claim that If Facebook were a country it would be the worlds third largest behind China and India (Qualman, 2011). According to the SocialMediaNews Blog (Cowling, 2011c), Australia has some of the highest per capita social media use in the world with almost 50% of the population on Facebook and significant numbers engaging with other social media applications (see Fig. 1). Australia3 10.4 million (users) 9.9 million (UAV/month 5.6 million (UAV/ month) 2 million (UAV/month) 1.9 million (UAV/month) 1.5 million (UAV/ month) 160,000 (UAV month) 63,000 (UAV/ month) Worldwide4 700 million (users)5 800 million (UAV/month) 410 million (UAV/month) 74 million (UAV/month) 160 million (UAV/month) 81 million (UAV/month) N/A 10 million (UAV/month)

Facebook (Social Network) YouTube (Video Sharing) Blogspot (Blogging) LinkedIn (Professional Networking) Twitter (Microblog) Flickr (Photo sharing) Digg (Social news website) Foursquare (Location based social network)

Figure 1: Social Media Usage Australia/ Worldwide July 2011

Despite recent claims that the traffic on some social networking sites has been dropping lately6 there is little doubt that engagement in social media is more than a passing phase. Web 2.0 technologies such as social media tools have certain qualities or properties (affordances) that influence how they are used and enable them to transform the way people do things. It has often been said that social media represents a turning point in communications theory and practice with much the same (and potentially greater?) impact as the invention of the Gutenberg printing press:
"The move toward social media is as big a change as Gutenberg and the printing press," said Karl Long, a product manager at Nokia. "Social media is the ability for anyone to publish anything without any cost." (Nation, 2008)

McClintock (2002) in his paper Power and pedagogy: transforming education through information technology explores the potential of information technology to fundamentally change the basic tenets of the print constrained education systems of the Western world. The basic principle of his argument is that:
In order to have substantial effect improving education, the digitisation of our culture will need to elicit a full systemic innovation in education, one that changes not only the medium of cultural exchange, substituting digital code for print, but the entire educational context for working with that medium (McClintock, 2002, p. 7).

3 4

June 2011 (Cowling, 2011b) April 2011 (Google DoubleClick Ad Planner) 5 July 2011 (Gonzalez, 2011) 6 http://www.insidefacebook.com/2011/06/12/facebook-sees-big-traffic-drops-in-us-and-canada-as-itnears-700-million-users-worldwide/

World Environmental Education Congress 2011, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 21 July 2011

There is a growing movement of educators who are realising the implications of Web 2.0 technologies such as social media for teaching and learning and who are harnessing this power to transform their pedagogical approaches in the classroom.

Comparative theories of technology


How we view technology, its affordances and its ability to transform our behaviour is largely derived from theoretical underpinnings of technology. According to Feenberg an instrumental theory (also known as a neutralist approach) of technology is probably the most commonly held belief and is one which views technology as a tool without any inherent value (Feenberg, 1991, p. 5). Substantive theory (also known as a determinist or autonomous approach), on the other hand argues that technology is not neutral and in itself it has a positive or negative impact (Feenberg, 1991, p. 6). However Feenbergs Critical Theory states that:
technology is not a destiny but a scene of struggle. It is a social battlefield, or perhaps a better metaphor would be a parliament of things on which civilizational alternatives are debated and decided (Feenberg, 1991, p. 12).

In relation to Information Communication Technologies (ICTs), Warschauer agrees and criticises instrumental and substantive theories on the basis that they underestimate the interrelationship of ICTs with social, political, economic, and cultural factors. He views technology as:
a site of struggle, and investigations of technology implementation seek to uncover underlying power relations that shape how technology is used (Warschauer, 2004, p. 2).

A critical theory of technology emphasises its transformative power:


We can only understand technology by viewing technology as fully enmeshed within its social use and development context. This means looking at everyday uses and transformations of technology (Feenberg, 2010, p. 176)

From a critical perspective the affordances of Web 2.0 technologies such as social media have the capacity to democratise the knowledge economy by turning knowledge consumers into prod-users (Bruns, 2008); to promote ubiquitous learning; and to facilitate collaboration through online Communities of Practice.

Socially transformative mEEdia?


From my perspective, Web 2.0/ technologies and social media can add value to the underpinning values of Environmental Education (EE) and harnessing the affordances of Web 2.0 and social media can extend engagement in EE pedagogies. For example, Produsage as defined by Bruns and Schmidt (2011, p. 2) facilitates the learner centred education models favoured by environmental educators. If we examine the historical discussions on EE (Environment Australia, 2000; Hesselink, van Kempen, & Wals, 2000; Macleod, 1992; New South Wales Department of Education and Training, 2001; New South Wales Government, 2002; Tilbury, Stevenson, Fien, & Schreuder, 2002; UNCED, 1992; UNESCO/ UNEP, 1986) we can see that EE evolved from a knowledge transmission to a socially transformative education model:
Theory and practice in EE has evolved over some 30 years from a rural studies and science base to a complex of emphases that have increasingly stressed aspects of participative, holistic and political education.... Meanwhile, discussion of EfS has emphasized the meaning and development of education for the environment - corresponding with a reconstructionist and transformative educational paradigm. (Sterling, 1996, p. 28).

Social media was science fiction when the Tbilisi declaration was formulated and there was no consideration of the role that it could play in a socially transformative pedagogy of EE. However if we examine the use of emerging technologies in education we can see that there

World Environmental Education Congress 2011, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 21 July 2011

have been parallel developments. In the same way that the EE has evolved from a knowledge transmission and dominant social paradigm to a socially transformative new environmental paradigm (Sterling, 1996), educational theories in educational technology have evolved from an instructivist approach to designing learning environments in the midsixties to a dominant constructivist paradigm in the last 20 years (Issroff & Scanlon, 2002).This is especially evident when Jonassen utilises the same language as environmental educators in discussing an historical timeline since the early 1980s i.e.:
Learning from computers (including transmission of information through computer aided instruction, drill and practice routines, acquisition of knowledge from the Internet and software, online tutorials); through Learning about computers (focusing on developing computer literacy in students); to Learning with computers (a constructivist approach involving the use of ICTs as cognitive tools) (Jonassen, 2000, pp. 4 - 9).

Jonassen and Reeves (1996) argue that when a constructivist framework is applied to educational technology the goal is to support meaningful learning through using technologies to engage students in active, constructive, intentional, authentic, and cooperative learning (1996, p. 6). The power of social media vis a vis EE is particularly seen in relation to social learning a concept that has been reinvigorated in the EE arena and has been gaining currency since 2005 (Arjen E. J Wals, van der Hoeven, & Blanken, 2009, p. 9). Wals defines social learning as learning by mirroring ones own ideas, views, values, and perspectives with those of others (Arjen E. J. Wals, 2010, p. 385). Wals considers social learning as essential to the challenge of sustainable development and ipso facto of EE. Social learning facilitates a new perspective on teaching and learning processes and pedagogy that enables us to break from entrenched, unsustainable patterns(Arjen E. J. Wals, 2007). With increasingly complex and globalised environmental issues at stake the collaborative and social learning affordances of social media come into their own: social learning leverages online communities, media sharing, microsharing, content
collaboration, and immersive environments to introduce people to ideas in quick burstsTo triumph today, we must now understand new information and complex conceptswhat hasnt been known before and is often more complicated than one person can figure out alone (Bingham, Conner, & Pink, 2010, p. 11).

In as far as it translates to pedagogy and learning experiences, social learning through blended learning is also considered to be highly valued by the net generation:
Characteristically, Digital Natives value experiential learning, working in teams and leveraging social technology. They want to gain knowledge by doing, rather than being told what to do. Moving seamlessly between online and real world, these kids crave "virtual meets virtuous" activities that reinforce social interactions (Fox, 2010).

However, adopting a critical perspective on technology means that we must consider the limitations and drawbacks alongside of the possibilities. In the late 1990s, Rohwedder (1994; 1999) for example identified four potential problems of the use of educational technologies in EE. The first is the potential misapplication of, or indiscriminate use of technology. It is very tempting, when faced with the novelty of new technologies to overuse them or to not use them to their potential. Thus as Rohwedder says the most critical decisions are whether to use, how to use and when to use. Secondly is the issue of inequity of access. The digital divide - the inability of a large proportion of the world's population to access and effectively use ICTs and the potential

World Environmental Education Congress 2011, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 21 July 2011

benefits they enable is a very real problem. We have a duty as educators to ensure that expectations to use ICTs within EE does not widen this gap, since to do so would be contrary to the spirit of EE. Thirdly is the problem of environmental substitution. Whilst the first two problems could apply right cross the educational spectrum, this issue is particularly relevant to EE. The possibilities of exposing rural and remote students to environments that they would not otherwise experience via virtual field trips can be seen to be a positive virtue. However, replacing valid and real environmental education experiences with virtual reality is not desirable. Finally we need to consider environmental impact. Some argue that the introduction of computer technology has the potential to reduce the global environmental decline (Unruh, 2001). However Rohwedder points to the need to address cradle-to the-grave impacts in the assessment. Are these caveats as valid for Web 2.0 technologies? This remains an interesting area for exploration.

Social media and WEEC2011


Whilst my earlier premise has been that Web 2.0 technologies such as social media and EE are mutually supportive, the question remains - is the EE community ready to take advantage of the affordances of social media? With a particular aim of exploiting the collaborative power of social media in developing online communities of practice, the WEEC2011 local organising committee decided to integrate social media into the congress planning to engage stakeholders before, during and after the event. The committee set up a linked Twitter account (www.twitter.com/weec2011) and Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/pages/WEEC2011-World-EnvironmentalEducation-Congress/122270651132308) and established a more tailored social media networking space using the Ning platform (www.weec2011.ning.com). Whilst all three social media tools were considered to facilitate marketing and promotion on a basic level, the intention was also to engage delegates and the wider EE community on a deeper level through discussion and sharing of wisdom online and to contribute to a more extended congress experience. An additional social media strategy considered for the congress was the use of backchanneling - a line of communication by a live audience with others inside and outside the event facilitated by web technologies (Atkinson, 2010, p. 17). With this in place the intention was to gain more immediate feedback and dialogue on the congress presentations and experiences. However, this strategy almost immediately struck problems with the uncertainty over the venues capacity to provide guaranteed Wi-Fi coverage. Although slow to start, the online community for WEEC2011 began to grow despite the fact that the social media strategy was not fully integrated into the official congress planners brief. As of 23 July the social media statistics were as follows: Twitter = 81 followers Facebook = 460 likes Ning = 38 members

World Environmental Education Congress 2011, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 21 July 2011

For Facebook additional metrics are easily obtained through the inbuilt insights page and reveal some interesting demographics on the WEEC2011 community (see Fig.2):

Figure 2: WEEC2011 Facebook Demographics 24 July 2011

Following the congress it will be interesting to compare the demographics with WEEC2011 delegates. For example it is not surprising that 30% of WEEC2011 Facebook followers (Likes) were from Australia, however the percentage of followers from countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia far exceeds the number of delegates attending the Congress from those countries. Can we consider the WEEC2011 organising committees foray into social media a success? In short, despite ongoing attempts to engage the WEEC2011 social media followers by posting updates, sharing links, posting discussion topics and setting up NING groups to facilitate WEEC2011 activities such as billeting, our experiences show some reluctance to engage even amongst WEEC2011 committee members. Even if we anecdotally analyse the data we can clearly see that most of the WEEC2011 social media community were lurkers who did not actively contribute to the sites. The next step is to delve deeper into the issue can this reluctance be attributed to Rohwedders four key barriers or are there other factors at play? Answers in 140 characters please!

World Environmental Education Congress 2011, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 21 July 2011

References
Atkinson, C. (2010). The Backchannel: How audiences are using Twitter and social media and changing presentations for ever. Berkeley, CA: New Riders. Bingham, T., Conner, M., & Pink, D. H. (2010). The new social learning: A guide to transforming organizations through social media: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and beyond: From production to produsage: Peter Lang Pub Inc. Bruns, A., & Schmidt, J. H. (2011). Produsage: a closer look at continuing developments. The New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 17(1), 3-7. Cowling, D. (2011a, 1 July). 60 seconds on the web. Retrieved from http://www.socialmedianews.com.au/60-seconds-on-the-web/ Cowling, D. (2011b, 30 June). Social Media Statistics Australia June 2011. Retrieved from http://www.socialmedianews.com.au/social-media-statistics-australia-june-2011/ Cowling, D. (2011c, 11 June). Social Media Stats in Australia. Retrieved from http://www.socialmedianews.com.au/social-media-stats-in-australia-facebookblogger-myspace/ Crosslin, M. (2011). When the future finally comes: Web 2.0 becomes Web 3.0. In M. J. W. Lee & C. McLoughlin (Eds.), Web 2.0-based E-Learning: Applying social informatics for tertiary teaching. Hershey, New York: Information Science Reference. Environment Australia. (2000). Environmental education for a sustainable future: national action plan. Canberra, ACT. Feenberg, A. (1991). Critical theory of technology. Feenberg, A. (2010). The Critical Theory of Technology. In C. Hanks (Ed.), Technology and Values: Essential Readings (pp. 176). Retrieved from http://books.google.com.au/books?id=BgYc9_ldWFYC&lpg=PA176&ots=wuIBJ4T Gy4&dq=%22critical%20theory%20of%20technology%22&lr&pg=PA176#v=onepa ge&q=%22critical%20theory%20of%20technology%22&f=false. Fox, L. (2010, 2 July). Empower Kids with Service To Their Community. Retrieved from http://www.good.is/post/empower-kids-with-service-to-their-community/ Gonzalez, N. (2011). CheckFacebook. Facebook marketing statistics, demographics, reports and news, from http://www.checkfacebook.com/ Hesselink, F., van Kempen, P. P., & Wals, A. (Eds.). (2000). International debate on education for sustainable development. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. Issroff, K., & Scanlon, E. (2002). Educational technology: The influence of theory. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 6. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N. J.: Merrill. Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. R. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 693 - 719). New York: Macmillan. Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68. Kidd, T. T., & Chen, I. L. (Eds.). (2009). An Educator's Guide to Web 2.0. Charlotte, NC.: IAP. Macleod, H. (1992). Teaching for ecologically sustainable development: Guidelines for Years 11 - 12 geography. . Queensland.

World Environmental Education Congress 2011, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 21 July 2011

McClintock, R. (2002). Power and pedagogy: transforming education though information technology Retrieved from http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/mcclintock.html. Nation, N. I. (2008, 24 April). Marin panel tells how to exploit 'social media', Marin Independent Journal. Retrieved from http://www.marinij.com/business/ci_9048130 New South Wales Department of Education and Training. (2001). Environmental education policy for schools: NSW Department of Education and Training. New South Wales Government. (2002). Learning for sustainability: NSW environmental education plan 2002 - 05. Sydney South: NSW Council on Environmental Education. Qualman, E. (Producer). (2011). Social media revolution 2011. Social Media Revolution. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/3SuNx0UrnEo Rohwedder, W., & Alm, A. (1994). Using computers in environmental education: Interactive multimedia and on-line learning: Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co. Rohwedder, W. J. (1999). Environmental education goes high-tech. Human Nature, 4(1), 1 2. Sterling, S. (1996). Education in change. In J. Huckle & S. Sterling (Eds.), Education for sustainability (pp. 18 - 39). London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. Tilbury, D., Stevenson, R. B., Fien, J., & Schreuder, D. (Eds.). (2002). Education and sustainability: Responding to the global challenge. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: Commission on Education and Communication, IUCN. UNCED. (1992). Agenda 21: the earth summit's agenda for change. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/Documents/Default.asp?DocumentID=52&ArticleID=86. UNESCO/ UNEP. (1986). Education on environmental values. Connect, XI(3), 2. Unruh, G. C. (2001). Can the Internet help slow global environmental decline? First Monday [online], 6(11). Wals, A. E. J. (2007). Social learning towards a sustainable world: principles, perspectives, and praxis. [Wageningen], The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers. Wals, A. E. J. (2010). Mirroring, Gestaltswitching and transformative social learning. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 11(4), 380-390. Wals, A. E. J., van der Hoeven, N., & Blanken, H. (2009). The Acoustics of Social Learning: Designing learning processes that contribute to a more sustainable world. The Netherlands. Warschauer, M. (2004). The rhetoric and reality of aid: Promoting educational technology in Egypt. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 2(3), 377 - 390. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. (2011a). Social Media Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation Inc. (2011b). Web 2.0 Wikipedia.