Museums must adapt to Web 2.0 to remain relevant and visible, as they risk becoming overlooked without active online engagement. Effective online communities can enhance learning by promoting collaboration and communication, mirroring the principles of constructivist learning theories. Key considerations for museums include understanding their audience, fostering visitor participation, and balancing traditional and modern educational approaches.

1. Why we need to be involved. educational approaches and Web 2.0 educational approaches and Web 2.0 Kevin Von Appen Jim Spadaccini

2. Why we need to be involved.educational approaches and Web 2.0 Museums need to catch up to where our visitors are. Museums are expanding their mission to be more responsive and more relevant to users. Museums and other organizations run the risk of being “invisible” in the Web 2.0.

3. Why we need to be involved.educational approaches and Web 2.0 A positive tie between visits to museum Web spaces and in-person visits to the museum. If we don’t define ourselves in this new medium, others will define us in our absence. If we don’t our websites might become quaint “steam engines.”

7. Why we need to be involved.educational approaches and Web 2.0

10. Why we need to be involved.educational approaches and Web 2.0 Many museums and other educational organizations are expanding or refocusing their mission... ...to be more inclusive. ...to more responsive to the needs/wants of visitors. ...to be more relevant by connecting with current events. ...to connect with new audiences.

11. Why we need to be involved.educational approaches and Web 2.0 The next generation of museum experiences, there are advantages to being a “first mover” (and disadvantages in being left behind) Museums understand that communication and collaboration play important roles in learning In the major learning theories that museums have adopted, communication and collaboration are emphasized

12. Why we need to be involved.educational approaches and Web 2.0 Effective online communities incorporate aspects of constructivist learning theory (Piaget). “ Learners construct their own knowledge, learning is an active process.” “Constructivist learning more likely to occur when peers collaborate, since as equals neither person can dominate the social interaction.” Well-constructed, open social sites champion this type of interaction.

13. Why we need to be involved.educational approaches and Web 2.0 Effective online communities incorporate aspects of social constructivism (Vygotsky) and other forms of "active learning." “Dialogue provides learners with an opportunity to construct and organize knowledge.” “ The learner benefits from repeated exposure to a community of practice. The community provides the place for social interaction, but also the content and tools to allow users to explore and create.”

14. Why we need to be involved.educational approaches and Web 2.0 The formal education world way ahead of us. “ Learners must be active knowledge generators who assume responsibility for constructing and managing their own learning experience” (“Engaging the Online Learner” Conrad and Donaldson, 2004) “ The most important role of the instructor in on-line classes is to ensure a high degree of interactivity and participation” (“Online Education: Learning and Teaching in Cyberspace” Kearsely, 2000) “ Collaboration is vital to learning so that students understand questions, develop arguments, and share meaning and conclusions among a community of learners.” (“Discussion Based Online Learning” Bender, 2003)

15. Why we need to be involved.educational approaches and Web 2.0 Big questions. Are community-based sites reaching only “alpha bloggers”? What is the experience like for non-contributors? How can museum sites encourage participation? Will today’s lurkers become tomorrows alpha-bloggers? What’s the “quality” of the discussions and information available on the social sites? Is it the "cult of the amateur"

16. Why we need to be involved.educational approaches and Web 2.0 Web 2.0 “the cult of the amateur” Nicholas Carr “ And so all the things that Web 2.0 represents - participation, collectivism, virtual communities, amateurism - become unarguably good things, things to be nurtured and applauded, emblems of progress toward a more enlightened state. But is it really so?” On Wikipedia… “ Certainly, it's useful - I regularly consult it to get a quick gloss on a subject. But at a factual level it's unreliable, and the writing is often appalling. I wouldn't depend on it as a source, and I certainly wouldn't recommend it to a student writing a research paper.”

17. Why we need to be involved.educational approaches and Web 2.0 More big questions. What does it mean when museum visitors become content producers, editor, or curators? What approaches do we take as museum educators and multimedia developers? When do we try to use social software or other Web 2.0 features? When do we do build “Web 1.0” experiences? Is there room for more traditional approaches?

18. Why we need to be involved.educational approaches and Web 2.0 More big questions. Who do we see as the audience and how do we expect visitors to use this resource? As a reference? Primary source materials? For homework? Is it designed for exploration? By whom? In what type of setting? Home, classroom, home schooler? Do we have user contributed content? If so, how is that moderated? How do we respond to inaccuracies or worse? What is our "social networking strategy"?

19. Why we need to be involved.educational approaches and Web 2.0 More big questions. Are we connecting with new users or strengthening the experience of existing ones? Can we connect visitors with each other? Are there ways this technology can connect the museum floor with Web visitors? Web visitors with the museum floor?