Strengths and Limitations of Web 2.0This is a featured page


Web 2.0 Roadmap

When determining which Web 2.0 tool is appropriate to use in a learning environment, one must weigh the many advantages and disadvantages that are inherent in using these technological tools. In fact, Web 2.0 should be viewed as just that, a “tool” to assist teachers and learners find new ways that promote learning. There are valid points both for and against using a tool. In this section, the most common points are: 1) learner expectations, 2) cost, 3) privacy, 4) learning curve, and 5) collaboration.

LEARNER EXPECTATIONS
K-12 learners expect technology, adult learners are adapting to technology but may not expect it. Let’s first examine learner expectation for technology. This chart shows the results of a 2004 survey of 4374 students from 13 institutions in 5 different states:
Student Preference for Use of IT in Classes by Gender © Robert B. Kvavik


LEARNER EXPECTATIONS
Strengths
Limitations
More than one half of all American teens and 57 percent of teens worldwide who use the internet can be considered to be media creators. (Jenkins, Clinton, Purushotma, Robinson, and Weigel, 2006) Students get frustrated because of the misuse or lack of use of tools (Trinder, Guiller, Margaryan, Littlejohn, and Nicol, 2008)
Students are becoming contributors to as well as recipients, making them stakeholders in their own learning experience. (Dede, 2005) Technology used in the classroom focuses on having students “expressing themselves in writing, improving their computer skills, doing research using the internet, using computers as a free-time or reward activity, and doing practice drills. (Ertmer, 2005)
Web 2.0 tools increase positive attitudes toward school. (Drexler, Dawson, and Ferdig, 2007)
There have been instances of aggressive student behavior attributed to the anonymity of online learning environments and shallow, repetitive responses in online discussions. (Novotny and Davis, 2006)




COST
Cost can be defined a number of ways. While the monetary definition is the most common and perhaps primary thought and it is a legitimate consideration, there is also the consideration of educational cost gained or lost by choosing to use or avoid use respectively.

Strengths
Limitations
Web 2.0 applications are free and therefore help to narrow the digital divide (Tsekhman, 2008).

Web 2.0 for Educators by D'Souza is a free e-book with ideas and examples for getting started on using free Web 2.0 tools.
("Creative Commons: Attribuition-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Canada", as specifed by D'Souza.)
The cost of Web 2.0 infrastructure, personnel, training, and ongoing access are estimated to exceed billions of dollars every year (Willingham, 2008).
Low cost production is possible for the consumer/producer (Hargadon, n.d.). K-12 schools are challenged by shrinking budgets as they face inadequate infrastructures, student hackers who compromise networks, and the inability to accurately classify content in real time (“Securing Web 2.0 for K-12 & Higher Education.” n.d.).



PRIVACY
One of the main concerns of any web based tool has to do with privacy, protecting personal information, and intellectual property. The concerns over protecting privacy and information are extremely important but by no means a reason to dismiss the use of Web 2.0 altogether.

Strengths
Limitations
The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requires districts to monitor student use of the Internet and to implement technology protection measures (Willard, 2002). A lack of an effective Web 2.0 Internet safety curriculum is a concern since much of the current available material is Web 1.0 based. A coordinated approach to provide that (curriculum) is necessary (Willard, 2007).
A Creative Commons license is a free way to protect intellectual property free of charge, while also allowing others to use and build upon it (Creative Commons). Testing and sanctioning Web 2.0 apps is a drain on company or school IT departments, but allowing unsanctioned use is a major concern (MacManus, 2007).

Unsanctioned Use of Web 2.0

LEARNING CURVE
The concern over the learning curve of learners adapting to a given Web 2.0 tool mirrors closely with the first topic in this discussion on expectations of the learner and is also largely generational.


Strengths
Limitations
The collaborative creation of podcasts produced evidence that student-producers developed increased knowledge and skills in the areas of idea generation, collective problem solving and reciprocal dialogue, as well as in the exchange and revision of ideas." (Lee, McLughfin, and Chan, n.d).
Example: Podcast
Students who participated in digital learning did not perform any better on NAEP tests than students who did limited or no access to digital learning (Bauerlein, 2008).
Learners learn to discern credible information by sifting through the multitude of online sources (Dede, 2005).
Example: Research Tool
"With virtually anybody able to alter, edit or otherwise contribute to the collaborative Web pages, it can be problematic to gauge the reliability and accuracy of such resources." (refering to wikis and blogs.) (Maged, Boulos, Maramba, & Wheeler, 2006)
Example: Wiki



COLLABORATION
The interactive nature of the Web 2.0 platform provides a unique environment for collaborative learning activities and for developing collaborative tools. It also engenders unique questions and situations regarding ownership, motivation, and quality when working collaboratively.

Strengths
Limitations
"Social constructivism has as a central precept that knowledge is created by learners in the context of and as a result of social interaction. Social constructivist approaches are particularly aided by Web 2.0 tools as mediating mechanisms between collaborating students and between students and teachers, particularly between students who might be sometimes be working in different places and at different times. " (Franklin and van Harmelen , 2007) “minimally guided instruction is less effective and less efficient than instructional approaches that place a strong emphasis on guidance of the student learning process.” (Kirschner, Sweller, Clark 2006)
"Because of the required relationship between teacher and student and vice versa, if one fails to participate or contribute to the relationship, the tool fails.... Students and teachers must work together in order for these tools to be used effectively and accurately.” (Riley and Slater-Stern, 2001)
"Web 2.0 enables social networking and collaborative knowledge construction through easy, extensive, in-depth access to a vast range of networked communities of practice" (Freedman, 2006)
"Web 2.0 tools, on the other hand, have been more malleable and collaborative, allowing users to own, create, share, hide, control, and massage both content and process" (Carmean and McGee, 2009)
"There is significant research on how computers and networks facilitate collaboration...but little has been written about how the practices associated with these technologies transform the presentation, assimilation and dissemination of knowledge within large educational spaces." (Gordon and Bogen, 2009)
"In particular the conversational, collaborative and communal qualities of Facebook are seen to 'mirror much of what we know to be good models of learning, in that they are collaborative and encourage active participatory role for users.'” (Maloney, 2007) (Selwyn, 2007)

Example: BJ Fogg's Facebook course - "The Psychology of Facebook"
"The weakness, however, is that if it's overwhelmingly social there may not be a lot of intellectual sharing happening. "Sites like MySpace and Facebook," he (Dede) said, represent the more social end of the spectrum, with platforms such as Ning providing a more focused, goal-oriented option." (Riedel, 2009)




Web 2.0 Roadmap

This page was constructed by: Chris Beckwith, Jennifer Coker, Theresa De Hoyos, Jeanette Howe, Veronica Rodriguez, and Dayton Turner.




REFERENCES
Bogen, David and Eric Gordon (2009). Designing Choreographies for the "New Economy of Attention". Retrieved fromhttp://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/3/2/000049.html

Boulos, Maged, Maramba, Inocencio, and Wheeler, Steve (2006). Wikis, blogs and podcasts: a new generation of Web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and education. Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/6/41/

Bauerlein, Mark (2008). Turned On, Plugged In, Online, & Dumb: Student Failure Despite the Techno Revolution. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/10/turned-on-plugged-in-online-dumb-student-failure-despite-the-techno-revolution/

Carmean, Colleen and Patricia McGee (2009). e-learning 2.0: Examining the Affordances of Social Media. Draft.

Creative Commons (2009).
http://creativecommons.org/about/

Fogg, BJ (2009) The Psychology of Facebook course, Stanford University. Retrieved from http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dcqn4jpj_156gr5kp9c8

Dede,Chris (2005). Planning for Neomillennial Learning Styles. Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/PlanningforNeomillennialLearni/157325

Drexler, Dawsom, and Ferdig (2007). Collaborative Blogging as a Means to Develop Elementary Expository Writing Skills. Retrieved from http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume6/Drexler.pdf

D'Souza, Q. (n.d.). Web 2.0 Ideas for Educators, A Guide to RSS and More Available from
http://www.commun-it.org/community/leadandlearn/files/22/81/100ideasWeb2educators.pdf

Ertmer, Peggy (2005). Teacher Pedagogical Beliefs and Classroom Technology Use: A Critical Link. Retrieved from http://www.edci.purdue.edu/ertmer/docs/AERA06_TchrBeliefs.pdf

Franklin, Tom and Mark van Harmelen Web 2.0 for Content for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 2007 Retrieved from
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/documents/web2andpolicyreport.aspx

Freedman, T. (2006). “Coming of age: an introduction to the new worldwide web”, Retrieved from http://fullmeasure.co.uk/Coming_of_age_v1-2.pdf

Hargadon, S. (Producer). (n.d., July 27, 2009) Web 2.0 is the Future of Education. Podcast retrieved from
http://www.slideshare.net/SteveHargadon/web-20is-the-future-of-education

Jenkins, Clinton, Purushotma, Robison, and Weigel (2006). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Retrieved from http://www.digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF

Kirschner, Paul A., John Sweller and Richard E. Clark (2006). Why Minimal Guidance during Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Retrieved from http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf

Lee, Mark, McLoughlin,CatherineandChan,Anthony (Aug 2007). Talk the Talk: Learner-generated podcasts as catalysts for knowledge creation. British Journal of Educational Technology. Vol. 39 Issue 3 P. 501-521
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120083673/abstract

MacManus, R. (2007). Fear of Web 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/fear_of_web_20.php

Maloney, Edward J. (2007). What Web 2.0 Can Teach Us About Learning. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/What-Web-20-Can-Teach-Us/8332

Novotny and Davis (2006). Distance Education in Nursing. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=n-ebHXkvcfAC&dq=nursing+distance+education+johnson+2006&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=X5ZvStCvD5LgtgOPip3HCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Riedel, Chris (2009). The Evolution of Education: Empowering Learners To Think, Create, Share, and Do. Retrieved from
http://thejournal.com/articles/2009/01/30/the-evolution-of-education-empowering-learners-to-think-create-share-and-do.aspx

Riley, Karen L. and Barbara Slater-Stern (2001). Problems and Possibilities of Web-Based Instruction: Transforming Social Studies Methods and Practice. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1a/1f/f8.pdf

Schrock, Kathy (May-June 2005).Spotting bogus, biased, and bad Web sites: teach kids how to discern what's real—and what isn't—on the Web. Retrieved from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0STR/is_8_114/ai_n13783979/

Securing Web 2.0 for K-12 & Higher Education. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.websense.com/site/Docs/whitepapers/en/Web20forK-12_WebFNL.pdf

Selwyn, Neil (2007). Web 2.0 applications as alternative environments for informal learning - a critical review. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/3/39458556.pdf

Trinder, Guiller, Margaryan, Littlejohn, and Nicol (2008). Learning from digital natives: bridging formal and informal learning.
Retrieved from http://www.academy.gcal.ac.uk/ldn/LDNFinalReport.pdf

Tsekhman, I (2008). Web 2.0 and Development. Digital Divide Network Retrieved from
http://www.digitaldivide.net/articles/view.php?ArticleID=1000

Willard, N (2007). (Accessed on 26 July 2009). A Web 2.0 Approach to Internet Safety. Education World. Retrieved from
http://www.education-world.com/a_tech/columnists/willard/willard008.shtml

Willard, N (2002). (Accessed on 26 July 2009). Ensuring Student Privacy on the Internet. Education World.
Retrieved from http://www.education-world.com/a_tech/tech120.shtml

Willingham, D. (2008). Why Web 2.0 Will Not be an Integral Part of K-12 Education: A Reply to Steve Hargadon. Retrieved .from http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/10/web-20-will-not-be-the-future-of-k-12-education-a-reply-to-steve-hargadon







Posted Anonymously Latest page update: made by Anonymous , Aug 3 2009, 10:26 AM EDT (about this update About This Update Posted Anonymously Edited anonymously


view changes

- complete history)
More Info: links to this page

Anonymous  (Get credit for your thread)


There are no threads for this page.  Be the first to start a new thread.

Related Content

  (what's this?Related ContentThanks to keyword tags, links to related pages and threads are added to the bottom of your pages. Up to 15 links are shown, determined by matching tags and by how recently the content was updated; keeping the most current at the top. Share your feedback on WikiFoundry Central.)