This document discusses the implications of Web 2.0 technologies for higher education. It describes how Web 2.0 encourages user-generated content and social interaction online, in contrast to earlier versions of the web. While these technologies fit with how "digital native" students interact digitally, higher education norms focus more on hierarchy and formality. The document suggests Web 2.0 aligns well with 21st century skills but notes challenges integrating it, and proposes blended learning, social spaces, and inquiry-based teaching to better engage today's students.

1. Web2.0 in educationStephen Bostock

2. Aims Participants will be able to describe the characteristics of Web2.0 internet servicesuse some public Web2.0 servicesidentify possible uses for their practicetake precautions to avoid the main risks of using such services

3. A planThe Web and HEWeb2.0 and HEThe ubiquitous webA disjuncture between HE and studentsFour implications

4. The first phaseThe World Wide Web is 20 years oldThe 1990s - global multimedia publishing; web authors and web readersFits the traditional University culture of knowledge generators/owners and consumers (students, the public)E.g. Keele University web site or keele.org.uk

5. Implications for HEImproved access to course information: flexibility, personalizationDigital alternatives to textbooks & librariesAccess to global resources: real-world and academicButComputer and network access (~solved)IT skills for students and staff (in part)Information literacy skills (not solved)

6. The 2000s - ‘Web2.0’ ‘The social web’Software that supports group interaction, collaboration, feedbackEncourages the generation, sharing, and consumption of contentRemixing and integration (mash-up)It aggregates and learns from user actions; the logic of the crowdUsers contribute to service design

7. Examples of Web2.0Blogging: free public diaries, journalse.g. Blogger, Wordpress, twitterShared authoring, wikis, e.g. wikipedia, PBwikiChat: text/voice/video to one or few; e.g. MSN, SMS txtMedia sharing: free online stores, shareable files; Flickr, Youtube, Screenr, Napster, Googledocs, Prezi, iTunesUSyndication, newsfeeds, RSS, podcastsSocial bookmarking e.g. delicious.comSocial networking e.g. Facebook, Friendsreunited RatemyprofessorTrading, reviewing: Amazon, eBay, Travelrepublic Virtual worlds e.g. Secondlife, worldofwarcraftPosition-aware: iPhones, GoogleEarth

8. Youtube…The Machine is Us/ing Us (Final Version)Dr. M Wesch, Digital Ethnographer, Kansas State Univ.11 million viewings (v.1), rated 4.5/5

9. The ubiquitous WebMobile web, m-learningInternet phones, handhelds, netbooks, iPods…the default is global but position-responsiveNetwork accessMobile broadband, wifi, 3G phones and netbooksOur ‘digital natives’, born after the Webdigitally-social, digitally-learningNetworked in class - use or abuse?

10. HE and a Web2.0 World(D.Melville 2009)Using the Social Web affects the behaviour of young people, ‘whose metier and medium it is’: communities of interest, participation, peer support, sharing, but also quick answers, information in bitesHE has a ‘wholly different set of norms’: hierarchical, introvert, guarded, careful, precise, measured‘Students are managing the disjuncture’ for now

11. Disjuncture - the gapA Vision of Students TodayDr Wesch’s students at Kansas State U.1997 3.5 million views, rated 4.5/5

12. Implications: how we teach ‘The critical question seems to us to be the selection and practice of the pedagogy appropriate to the learning outcomes being pursued and also … the communal, participative and creative spirit of the Web2.0 age’ (Melville 2009 p38)

13. Implications …Web2.0 is in tune with higher order learning outcomes: discussion and shared creation of knowledge, not transmission and absorption of knowledge from authority(post)graduate attributes for the 21st CInformation skills, IT skills

14. Able to digitally communicate, participate, network, share

15. Able and eager to learn in a ubiquitous digital network of information and peopleImplications: onlineVLE/ KLE is web-based butclosed, formal, controlled, official, assessable; for studyWeb2.0 services are global, open, not assessed, commercial, sharing content; for lifeSome overlap/hybrid area: eg Facebook for support; KLE for discussions and portfoliosQ. Should we use Web2 services for training and education? When? When not?

16. Implications: learning spaces 21stC. students in 19thC. classrooms?We need spaces to be moreSocialTechnology-integrated

18. Some new learning spaces