The document discusses the integration of Web 2.0 technologies in educational practices, emphasizing collaborative knowledge production and addressing myths surrounding digital learning. It presents various activities and experiments to explore the application of these technologies in classroom settings while highlighting the paradoxes involved in digital education. Additionally, it advocates for a shift in school roles towards fostering critical understanding and lifelong learning among students within a rapidly evolving digital landscape.

1. Researching ICLT 'Best' Practice
Opening activity
Introduction
Weaving
Web 2.0 laboratory
Scrapheap challenge
Paradoxes around digital learning
Knowledge producing schools
Knowledge producing classes
Knowledge producing teachers
Debrief
All Hallows' School Michael Ryan
Faculty of Education, QUT
April 23, 2010 m.ryan@qut.edu.au

3. Mindmeister Activity
In groups:
• Who could use this in class, and out of
class? For what purposes?
• How might it promote learning?
• Come up with at least one speculative
classroom application.

4. Mindmeister Wrap-up
•! an appliance with low-barriers to entry but long scope
•! reappropriation (Feenberg, 1999)
•! informed opportunism
•! sharing risks
•! spill-over
•! learning fractals
•! reflection *
•! collaboration *

5. Introduction

6. Introduction
objectives:
weaving new pedagogy, for blended learning
focusing on collaborative knowledge production

7. Introduction
objectives:
weaving new pedagogy, for blended learning
focusing on collaborative knowledge production
clearing myths:
digital immigrants; significance of CMS; latest moral
panic; primacy of static paper-based textbooks; best
practice; transformative potential of IWBs, laptops, ....;
bureaucratic innovation; education revolutions

8. Introduction
objectives:
weaving new pedagogy, for blended learning
focusing on collaborative knowledge production
clearing myths:
digital immigrants; significance of CMS; latest moral
panic; primacy of static paper-based textbooks; best
practice; transformative potential of IWBs, laptops, ....;
bureaucratic innovation; education revolutions
the plan:
experimentation around Web 2.0 appliances
paradoxes around digital learning
research around knowledge production

9. Weaving
curriculum resources
(Learning Federation, Wikipedia, etc...)
knowledge work
appliances
(word-processor,
Mindmeister, etc...)

10. Web 2.0 Appliances
features:
very simple UIs
invitation to contribute
identity syndication
clouds without files
tools for audience & contribution settings
pedagogic leverage points:
mobility
low barriers to entry
identity play
collaboration
reification
genre appropriation

11. Web 2.0 Laboratory
In groups:
• Experiment with Quizlet and slinkset
• Who could use them in class, and out of
class? For what purposes?
• How might they promote learning?
• Come up with at least one speculative
classroom application for each.

12. Scrapheap Challenge
In groups:
• Experiment with listphile, survs,
springnote
• Who could use them in class,
and out of class? For what
purposes?
• How might they promote
learning?
• Rate them at:
http://bestapps.slinkset.com

13. Paradoxes around digital learning
late age of print ←→ a post-typographic society

14. Paradoxes around digital learning
late age of print ←→ a post-typographic society
Warshauer's (2007) paradoxes:
the what paradox: ... what do students need to learn
in the new digital classroom? what is replaced? ...
but traditional literacies can provide gateways to the
new, and are more valuable than ever.
the how paradox: ... the ability to learn
autonomously will indeed be critical in the digital
future. However, paradoxically, strong mentorship is
required for students to achieve this autonomy, while
an overemphasis on student independence can
leave students floundering.!
the where paradox: ... at the same time that new
opportunities increase for powerful out-of-school
learning, formal education is actually rising rather
than falling in its impact on peopleʼs lives.

15. Paradoxes around digital learning
late age of print ←→ a post-typographic society
Warshauer's (2007) paradoxes:
the what paradox: ... what do students need to learn
in the new digital classroom? what is replaced? ...
but traditional literacies can provide gateways to the
new, and are more valuable than ever.
Warshauer's (2007):
the how paradox: ... the ability to learn
rejects determinist and
autonomously will indeed be critical in the digital
instrumentalist positions
future. However, paradoxically, strong mentorship is
required for students to achieve this autonomy, while
advocates a critical, interventionist
an overemphasis on student independence can
position involving stronger roles for
leave students floundering.!
teachers.
the where paradox: ... at the same time that new
opportunities increase for powerful out-of-school
learning, formal education is actually rising rather
than falling in its impact on peopleʼs lives.

16. Knowledge Producing Schools

17. Knowledge Producing Schools
Bigum's & Rowan (2009) see:
schooling is no longer the job of
providing a set of skills to equip
students for a stable, non interrupted
career
the focus shifting to dispositions:
critical understandings, strong sense of
self, harmonious living in diverse
cultures, life-long & life-wide learning,
potential to contribute.
the schoolʼs role as future proofing:
all students to have the potential as
skilled, active, productive members of
(overlapping) communities

18. Knowledge Producing Schools
Bigum's & Rowan (2009) see:
schooling is no longer the job of
providing a set of skills to equip
students for a stable, non interrupted
Bigum's & Rowan (2009) envisage KPS with:
career
authentic tasks, with authentic products, associated with
the focus shifting to dispositions:
the production of knowledge supported by experts and/or
critical understandings, strong sense of
specialist communities
self, harmonious living in diverse
cultures, life-long & life-wide learning,
exposure to, and feedback from a real audience (beyond
potential to contribute.
the school)
the schoolʼs role as future proofing:
meaningful use of contemporary technologies in
all students to have the potential as
achieving goals, rather than a focus on technological
skilled, active, productive members of
mastery for its own sake
(overlapping) communities
fundamental and substantial interdisciplinary
connections
multiple forms of student contributions allowing
identification with the category 'good student' by diverse
children."

19. Web Inquiry Projects
From the work of Molebash
& Dodge (2003),
Webquests are a model for
inquiry involving,
structured, role-based
collaboration, construction
of productions for authentic
audiences and reflection
on processes.
Web Inquiry Projects are a
more open-ended form,
suitable for more
sophisticated productions
in middle, upper and
tertiary sectors.

24. Knowledge Producing Teachers

25. Knowledge Producing Teachers
Breuleux (2001) advocates communities of
interpretation that:
represent and share emergent good practice
share risk and innovation load
tackle reforms across-curriculum, across-time

26. Knowledge Producing Teachers
Breuleux (2001) advocates communities of In groups:
interpretation that:
• Sketch out a professional learning project that
involves designing around a cross-curriculum
represent and share emergent good practice and/or cross-time issue.
share risk and innovation load • It should involve authentic, purposeful
knowledge production by students.! !
tackle reforms across-curriculum, across-time
• Who would need to get involved? How? What
evidence would you gather? How long would it
take?

27. Debrief
Why do Web 2.0 appliances need to be “interpreted” or
“reappropriated”?
What are some of the down-sides of using Web 2.0
appliances for classroom work?
If we donʼt completely replace traditional literacies while
accommodating more (visual, information, interaction,
collaborative, etc), wonʼt it make our jobs harder?
Getting students to work with real world issues and
audiences is risky, messy and hard to assess. Why should
we bother?
Canʼt we just buy a book on best practice?

28. References
Allen, M. (2010). Using Web 2.0 in your teaching: ideas, applications and affordances for enhanced educational outcomes.
Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://netcrit.net/content/2010handoutallenweb2presentation.pdf
Breuleux, A. (2001). Imagining the present, interpreting the possible, cultivating the future: Technology and the renewal of teaching
and learning. Education Canada, 41 (3). Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://www.education.mcgill.ca/profs/breuleux/onlinepubs/
BreuleuxEdCanFall2001.html
de Brun Design (2007). listphile [Computer software]. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://www.listphile.com/
Education Services Australia (2010). The Learning Federation. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from
http://www.thelearningfederation.edu.au
Enough Pepper (2010). Survs [Computer software]. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://www.survs.com/
Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning Technology. London: Routledge.
MeisterLabs (2010). Mindmeister [Computer software]. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://www.mindmeister.com/
Molebash, P. and Dodge, B. (2003). Kickstarting inquiry with Webquests and Web Inquiry Projects. Social Education, 67(3),
158-162.
Openmaru Studio (2010). Springnote [Computer software]. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://www.springnote.com/
Posterous.com (2010). Slinkset [Computer software]. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://slinkset.com/
Sutherland, A. (2010) Quizlet [Computer software]. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://quizlet.com/
Warschauer, M. (2007). The paradoxical future of digital learning. Learning Inquiry, 1(1), 41-49. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://
www.gse.uci.edu/person/warschauer_m/docs/paradox.pdf
Wikipedia Foundation (2010). Wikipedia. Retrieved April 22, 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org