This document discusses the concepts of Web 2.0 and its relevance to education. It acknowledges that while Web 2.0 tools show educational potential, their use has been limited in schools. Popular explanations for this include schools' rigid structures, curricula, and policies not aligning well with collaborative Web 2.0 practices. Some argue for replacing schools altogether with self-directed online learning, while others propose reinventing schools around Web 2.0-inspired curricula and learner-centered models. However, the document cautions that debates often overlook the ideological and sociocultural contexts of education, and that there are no simple solutions to integrating technology.

1. Web 2.0 and the school of the
future, today
Neil Selwyn
London Knowledge Lab, Institute of
Education, University of London, United
Kingdom
Presented by Thanongsack Duangdala

2. The key points of this presentation
• What is Web 2.0 and why is it of educational importance?
• Acknowledging the realities of Web 2.0 use in the school of
today
• Popular solutions for overcoming the “problem” of schools
in a Web 2.0 world
• Replacing the school with Web 2.0 technologies
• Reinventing the school through Web 2.0 technology
• Towards a more reasoned response to Web 2.0 and the
school of the future
• Conclusion: Towards a more critical understanding of Web
2.0, schools and schooling

3. What is Web 2.0?
• “In a technical sense, Web 2.0 can be argued to
refer to an increased socialisation of internet
tools, applications and services” (p.24)
• As Allen (2008) describes, the notion of Web 2.0
reflects “approaches to the design and
functionality of Web sites and the services they
offer, emerging in recent years, and essentially
describing technological implementations that
prioritise the manipulation and presentation of
data through the interaction of both human and
computer agents”.

4. Why is Web 2.0 of educational
importance?
• “The current prominence of “Web 2.0” within
popular and academic discussion of the Internet
reflects the growing importance that is being
placed on interaction between and within groups
of Internet users” (p. 24)
• “Web 2.0” label reflects the changing nature of
contemporary online activity-not least what is
described as a “mass” Internet connectivity based
around the collective actions of online user
communities rather than individual users
(O’Reillyy, 2005; Shirky, 2008; Brusilovsky, 2008)

5. • “Web 2.0 can be seen as conveying a new
sense of economy of Internet use (based
around notions such as the “attention
economy” and the provision of ostensibly
“free” services in return for greater audiences
share” (p.24)
• “Web 2.0 can also be seen as conveying a new
sense of Internet user-one “who is more
engaged, active and a participant in the key
business of the Internet:
creating, maintaining, and expanding the
‘content’ which is the basis for using the
Internet in the first place” (Allen, 2008).

6. • “Web 2.0 can also be seen as conveying a new
sense of the politics of the Internet-based …
emphasising freedom of choice and
empowerment of individuals through the
‘architecture of participation”’ (Allen, 2008)
• “Learning best takes place within technology-
supported networks of learners involved in
the creation as well as consumption of
content” (p. 25)

7. Acknowledging the realities of Web
2.0 use in the school of today
• “While much hope and excitement surrounds the
educational potentials of Web 2.0 tools and
applications, many education technologists
remain profoundly frustrated by the apparent
lack of effective Web 2.0 use in Schools” (p.26)
• “Concerns are therefore beginning to be raised
that Web 2.0 technologies do not appear to be
used to their full potential even in relatively well-
resourced, “high-technology” classrooms” (p.26)

8. A case study (Luckin et al., 2009):
• “While the study was able to identify some examples
of engaging and educationally worthwhile Web 2.0
approaches, a range of impediments to effective use
were identified” (p. 26)
• “teachers were generally cautions in adopting
collaborative and communal Web 2.0 practices that
many felt could challenge traditional school
structures” (P. 26)
• “a number of practical barriers relating to
technological access, infrastructure and bandwidth
continued to impede Wed 2.0 use even in the more
well-resourced schools” (p. 26)

9. • “the educational use of Web 2.0 tools largely
depended on the rigidity or flexibility of the
school curriculum” (p.26,27)
• “Teacher fears related to Internet safety and
school policy constraints, such as school
Internet restrictions and firewalls, were
reported to often impose barriers for the
adoption of Web 2.0 practices” (p.27)

10. • “Learners spend, on average, more time
working on school work on a computer
outside school than at school itself” (p.28)
• “A growing number of in-depth observational
studies also suggest that the compulsion for
convivial creation that is seen to lie at the
heart of many Web 2.0 practices does not
translate easily into many classroom contexts”
(p. 27).

11. Popular solutions for overcoming the
“problem” of schools in a Web 2.0
world
• “some aspects of Web 2.0 use “fit” better
than others with the realities of contemporary
schools and schooling” (p. 28)
• “educationalists have therefore started to
search for reasons that may underpin the
apparent “failure” of Web 2.0 technologies in
schools”

12. Dale et al., 2004
• School buildings are criticised as being
architecturally unsuitable for widespread
networked and wireless technology use” (p. 29)
• “teachers are criticised as being too
old, incompetent or disinterested to integrate
Web 2.0 application into their teaching” (p. 29)
• Students are said to lack the skills or application
to make the most of educational (rather than
leisure) application of Web 2.0 applications and
tools” (p. 29)

13. • “School leaders and administrators are felt to
lack the required direction or foresight to
adopt collective and communal approaches
into their school organisation and
management” (p. 29)
• “School curricula are criticised as remaining to
rigid and entrenched in top-down paradigms
of information transfer” (p. 29)

14. Replacing the school with Web 2.0
technologies
• “The education technology academic literature, at least, is
increasingly featuring the promotion of reasoned
arguments that all of the structural impediments and
challenges to technology (i.e. the school) must be removed
in order to facilitate the realisation of the digital
transformation of education” (p. 29)
• “powerful arguments have long been advanced that
children are better of learning amongst themselves through
Web 2.0 and other internet technologies-gaining an
education through the “hard fun” of creating and playing
online….” (p. 29)
• “Yet rather than being cursory additions to traditional
schooling, these examples and others like them are seen to
mark the first steps in a radical rethinking and
reorganisation fo existing structures and organisation of
education provision” (p. 31)

15. Reinventing the school through Web
2.0 technology
• “ As such, any re-conceptualisation of school
and classroom is deliberately learner-centred-
focused on “learner participation and
creativity and online identity formation, and
how these intersect with, support, or suggest
desired competencies, teaching practices, and
policies” (Greenhow et al., 2009, p. 225)

16. • “questions are now being asked in relation to
how best to develop Web 2.0-inspired
curricula that can be negotiated rather than
prescribed that are driven by learner
needs, and based on providing learners with
skill in managing and accessing knowledge
and being in control of their own learning
pathways and choices (Facer and
Green, 2007).
• “All of these arguments reflect a growing
belief that technology-based practices of
collaboration, publication and inquiry should
be foregrounded within schools’ approaches
to teaching and learning” (p. 32)

17. • “Calls continue to be made for the rebuilding
of schools to fit with the needs and demands
of modern technology” (p.32)
• Marc Prensky (2008) argues for a “new
pedagogy of kids teaching themselves with
the teachers’ guidance” (p. 32)

18. Towards a more reasoned response to Web
2.0 and the school of the future
• “At fist glance, many of these responses and
arguments appear perfectly well-reasoned and
sensible” (p. 33)
• “There is an undoubted need to reconcile
schooling with the challenges of digital
technologies, and it makes sense to sketch out
ideas for how systems of schooling that have not
fundamental changed since the beginning of the
twentieth century can be brought up to date with
twenty-first century life” (p.33)

19. • “Yet while compelling, there are a number of
inconsistencies to these current debates
surrounding schools and Web 2.0 …it should
be observed that current discussions of Web
2.0 and schools repeat a long-standing
tendency in education for exaggerated and
extreme reaction to technology that are
centred around matter of learning and
teaching rather than the wider
social, political, economic and cultural
contexts of education” (p. 33)

20. • “As such it is important to recognise the
ideological underpinnings of the current Web
2. 0 drive in education. Indeed, it should be
clear from the brief example in this article that
current discussions over Web 2.0 and schools
reflect a number of ongoing debates about
education and society that are highly
ideological in nature” (p. 33)
• “The ideological underpinnings of the
replacement arguments surrounding Web 2.0
are even more diverse and hidden” (p. 34)

21. Conclusion: Towards a more critical
understanding f Web 2.0, schools and
schooling
• “Debates about schools and Web 2.0 are not
simply about matters of Internet bandwidth or
the pedagogic affordances of wikis” (p.35)
• “it is crucial to recognise that Web 2.0 is a
contradictory, inconsistent and polemic
notion-there is no neat, unproblematic “Web
2.0” solution to the deficiencies of twenty-first
century education” (p.35)

22. • For technologists, “Web 2.0 offer a second
chance too get the Internet “right””… (p.35)
• Business “Web 2.0 represents a new struggle
for harnessing technology in the pursuit of
profit…” (p.36)
• Education, “Web 2.0 represents the “killer-
app” for bring more desirable forms of socio-
constructivist learning to the masses” (p. 36)

23. Discussion
• Are there any debates going on over
Technology application in your
school/orgnisation? What are they?.
• Disregarding financial issue, what is the key
barrier in adopting technology in your
school/organisation?
• What is your opinion about technology and
education?