Student learning and Web 2.0

681 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
681
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Student learning and Web 2.0

  1. 1. And how it affects their learning. November, 2010By Mamoona Brace 1
  2. 2.  According to Prensky (2005):  5-10,000 hours of video games  250, 000 emails and instant messagings (IMs)  Read books for less than 5000 hours 2
  3. 3.  Students move at “Twitch” speed  Those, who grew up without the access to Internet all of the time: They go at conventional speed (Prensky, 2005) 3
  4. 4.  Kids love to be social.  They will connect with others through Facebook, Twitter, Myspace and other social networking sites multiple times throughout the day (Lenhart, Madden, MacGill, & Smith, 2007) 4
  5. 5.  The 20th century pedagogy was based on the fact that teachers, knowledge, and materials were hard to access.  This meant that the TEACHER was seen as the authority whereas the student was simply taught how to transmit the knowledge back to the teacher. 5
  6. 6.  Students are communicating, socializing, and learning in a variety of settings.  Clark, Logan, Luckin, Mee, & Oliver (2009): There is a digital dissonance – it is the conflict between the student desire to use their technologies (mobile phones, social networking sites) and the educational institutions which ban them. 6
  7. 7.  Prensky (2001) :  Those who have grown up without the Internet and web 2.0 technologies being an integral part of their everyday lives.  Many teachers are digital immigrants and therefore teach with an “accent”. This means that the way they are teaching is not adapted to suit the needs of the students. 01/29/15www.brainybetty.com 7
  8. 8.  Prensky (2001):  Those who have grown up with the Internet and web 2.0 tools as part of their daily lives.  They want to create, share, and collaborate.  Input from others is key to their success. 01/29/15www.brainybetty.com 8
  9. 9. Prensky (2001) Prensky (2001)  Digital immigrants  Will access the Internet as a secondary source  Choose text over graphics  Step-by-step  Digital Natives  Will access the Internet as a primary source  Choose graphics over text  Instant gratification 9
  10. 10. 10
  11. 11.  Students come from a multi-dimensional world where collaboration is key (Prensky, 2001)  Teachers come from a linear world where collaboration, although important, is thought to come AFTER individual thought.  In order to engage the student, teachers must use technology in ways that promote higher level thinking. 11
  12. 12.  Blogging –  Teachers can ask students to post papers so that peers can give constructive feedback before the final deadline (Lenhart, Madden, Macgill, & Smith, 2007)  Murphy and Lebans (2008): ESL students were more careful about posts on blogs and learned more about the nuances – real life application. 12
  13. 13.  Lamb (2004): Wikis created a sense of ownership. Students were careful with the edits and contributed more.  Collaboration and sharing of ideas is encouraged through group edits.  Gaming – since students spend so much time gaming, why not incorporate it into the curriculum. It allows students to experience different scenarios in a real-life way (Foreman, 2004) 13
  14. 14.  Students are not going back to the “old ways”.  Collaboration and socialization are part of the student’s outside life and therefore need to become part of their school life.  Knowledge creation allows for individual and collaborative thought. Even when a disagreement arises, it can be discussed using multiple points of view. 14
  15. 15.  Web 2.0 tools by their nature promote collaboration and socialization.  They can create authentic experiences and teach students strategies .  They are an opportunity for teachers to show students how to use these tools in a deeper way. 15
  16. 16.  Clark, W., Logan, K., Luckin, R., Mee, A. and Oliver, M. (2009), Beyond Web 2.0: Mapping thetechnology landscapes of young learners. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25,  56–69. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00305.x  Lamb, B. (2004). Wide open spaces: Wikis, ready or not. Educause Review, 39(5), 36–48. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/pub/er/erm04/erm0452.asp  Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Macgill, A. R., & Smith, A. (2007). Teens and social media. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts. Retrieved October 21, 2010 from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2007/PIP_Teens_Social_Media_Final.pdf.p df  Murphy, J., & Lebans, R. (2008). Unexpected outcomes: Web 2.0 in the secondary school classroom. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 134-147.Retrieved from http://ijttl.sicet.org/issue0802/4_2_5_Murphy_Lebans.pdf  Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants [Electronic Version]. On Horizon.Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf  Prensky, M. (2005a). Engage me or enrage me [Electronic Version]. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/LibraryDetailPage/666?ID=ELI0606 01/29/15www.brainybetty.com 16

×