The document discusses how Web 2.0 technologies can support learning through social and collaborative dimensions, highlighting features like affordances for participation and information sharing, and examining learning theories of social learning, constructivism, and connectivism that relate to Web 2.0. It also provides examples of how social networking, social reading, collaboration and other Web 2.0 tools can be applied in educational contexts.

1. Learning Through
Web 2.0 Social Technologies
March 2012
University of Northern Colorado
Kangdon Lee
Thursday, March 1, 12

2. Contents
I. Trends of Web
II. Definition of Web 2.0
III. Educational Dimensions of Web 2.0
IV. Features of Web 2.0
V. Learning theories of Web 2.0
VI. Contextual examples of Web 2.0
VII. Conclusion and Prospects
Thursday, March 1, 12

3. I. Trends of Web
• Everything Can Be Done on the Web
Thursday, March 1, 12

4. I. Trends of Web
• Webs Can Communicate Themselves
Image of Semantic Web (Web 3.0)
Thursday, March 1, 12

5. II. Definition of Web 2.0
• A web platform where;
• applications are built on the web
• opens for everyone as a creator and a consumer
Tim O’Reilly (2005)
• A web system that;
• pursues the decentralized web concept
• empowers the web users to participate in as a creator
(Anderson, 2007)
Thursday, March 1, 12

6. III. Dimensions of Web 2.0
• Learning
• Supporting and facilitating tools and environments
• Teaching
• Providing authentic and instantaneous resources
• Evaluating (Feedback)
• Tracking, monitoring, backchannel communicating, and feedback
Thursday, March 1, 12

7. IV. Features of Web 2.0
• Advantages
• Great affordances
• Easy to use with little technical training
• Information collector and sharing repository
• Participatory and collaborative
• The nature of continuity
Thursday, March 1, 12

8. IV. Features of Web 2.0
• Challenges
• Longevity of Web 2.0 services
• Difficulties in being up-to-date of applications
• Overloads in teaching and learning capacities
• Distractions unnecessary for educational purposes
Thursday, March 1, 12

9. Refresh your brain
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDmdmqzZKBI
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epzMouA365E
Thursday, March 1, 12

10. V. Learning Theories of Web 2.0
• Social Learning Theory
• Reciprocal Determinism
• Behavior Environment Motivational beliefs,
Perceptions, Values,
Emotions, Meanings
• Observational Learning Theory
• Attention Reciprocal
Determinism
• Retention
• Reproduction Environmental
Behavior
factors
• Motivation
• Self-regulation
Thursday, March 1, 12

11. V. Learning Theories of Web 2.0
• Constructivism
• Learners’ own concept constructing based on previous skills and
knowledge
• Individual: Individuals construct
meaning out of what they already
know and via interactions with
environment (Piaget, 1970).
• Social: Groups or cultures construct
meaning together out of what group
or culture already knows and experiences
(Vygotsky, 1978).
Thursday, March 1, 12

12. V. Learning Theories of Web 2.0
• Active (Experiential) Learning Theory
• Ask questions by participating and collaborating
• Control educational resources by analyzing and creating
• Receive responses by considering and reconstructing
Thursday, March 1, 12

13. V. Learning Theories of Web 2.0
• Connectivism
• Learning theory that reflects learning needs, principles, and
processes in this knowledge- and network-based era.
• Creating connections
• Interacting with other entities
• Expanding more connections with open participations
Thursday, March 1, 12

14. VI. Contextual examples of Web 2.0
1. Social Networking
• Group Communication
• Class project
• Peer connection
• Professional Development
• Professional communication
• Pursuit of personal interest
Thursday, March 1, 12

15. VI. Contextual examples of Web 2.0
2. Social Reading
• Group Discourse
• Class reading
• Group discussion
• Personal cloud library
• Virtual bookshelf
• Reading anywhere anytime
Thursday, March 1, 12

16. VI. Contextual examples of Web 2.0
3. Social Bookmarking
• Searching web knowledge & Sharing new experiences
Thursday, March 1, 12

17. VI. Contextual examples of Web 2.0
4. Idea Building
• Concept mapping
• Organizing ideas
• Visual representation
• Note-taking/Memo
• Taking notes every moment
• Co-editing & sharing
• Idea visualization
• Idea sketching
• Collaborative visualization
Thursday, March 1, 12

18. VI. Contextual examples of Web 2.0
5. Social Collaboration
• Documentation
• Real time collaboration
• Co-creating & co-editing
• Visual collaboration
• Video conferencing
• Screen sharing & co-editing
• Collaboration management
• Project management
• GTD (Get Things Done)
Thursday, March 1, 12

19. VI. Contextual examples of Web 2.0
6. Outcome Representation
• Creating Online Presentation
• Producing presentation online
• Uploading existing presentation
• Presenting Online
• Presenting and demonstration
• Inserting audio explanation
• Sharing with others
• Sharing through SNSs & emails
• Viewable or downloadable
Thursday, March 1, 12

20. VI. Contextual examples of Web 2.0
7. Media sharing
• Transferring media & Sharing files (folders)
Thursday, March 1, 12

21. VI. Contextual examples of Web 2.0
8. Useful Web 2.0 tools in education
• Search & Find
• Academic search engine
• Specialized search engine
• Audio & Video Recording
• Audio (Voice) recording
• Web cam video recording
• Screen Capture & Recording
• Computer screen capture
• Computer screen recording
Thursday, March 1, 12

22. VI. Contextual examples of Web 2.0
9. Useful Web 2.0 tools in education
• Media Converter
• Converting media
• Audio, video, documents, etc.
• Web Page Creation
• One click web page creating
• No need to know html, etc.
• Self-Publishing
• Creating your own book
• Publishing online & other forms
Thursday, March 1, 12

23. VII. Conclusion
• New learners in the era of social technologies
• More self-directed
• Better equipped to obtain information
• More reliant on interactions with others
• More inclined to collaborate with peers
• More oriented to be critical creators Education Trends | Featured News
John K. Waters—13 December 2011
• Two ways to be New Learner
• Make the best use of Web 2.0 social technologies
• Improve media literacies in digital knowledge age
Thursday, March 1, 12

24. References
•Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies, and implications for education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/
media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf.
•Armstrong, J., & Franklin, T. (2008). A review of current and developing international practice in the use of social networking (Web 2.0) in higher education. A report
commissioned by the Committee of enquiry into the Changing Learner Experience. Retrieved from http://www.franklin-consulting.co.uk/.
•Bandura, A. (1977a). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
•Bandura, A. (1977b). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
•Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
•Bartolome, A. (2008). Web 2.0 and New Learning Paradigms. eLearning Papers No. 8. Retrieved from http://www.elearningeuropa.info/files/media/media15529.pdf.
•Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. (D. M. Boyd & N. B. Ellison, Eds.) Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 13(1), 210-230. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Retrieved from http://www.danah.org/papers/JCMCIntro.pdf.
•Brown, J. S. (2008). How to connect technology and content in the service of learning. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(8).
•Bruner, J. (1973). Going Beyond the Information Given. New York: Norton. In Culatta, R. (2011). Constructivist theory (Jerome Bruner). In Instructional Design. Retrieved
from http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/constructivist.html.
•Conole, G., & Alevizou, P. (2010). A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in Higher Education. A report commissioned by The Higher Education Academy.
•Culatta, R. (2011). Social learning theory (A. Bandura). In Instructional Design. Retrieved from http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/social-learning.html.
•Dede, C. (2011). Reshaping the role of technology in education breakthrough teaching and learning. In Gray, T. and Silver-Pacuilla, H., editors, Breakthrough Teaching
and Learning, chapter 1, 1-3. Springer New York, New York, NY.
•Farrell, J. B. (2009). Active learning: theories and research, Jewish educational leadership ‘Activating Learning Through Activating Students’, 2009, 7(3). Retrieved from
http://www.lookstein.org/online_journal.php?id=260.
•Gilbert, S.W. (2002, February). The beauty of low threshold applications. Campus Technology. Retrieved from http://campustechnology.com/articles/2002/02/the-
beauty-of-low-threshold-applications.aspx.
•Griffith, S, & Liyanage, L. (2008). An introduction to the potential of social networking sites in education. In I. Olney, G. Lefoe, J. Mantei, & J. Herrington (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Second Emerging Technologies Conference 2008, 76-81. Wollongong: University of Wollongong.
•Grusec, J. E. (1992). Social learning theory and developmental psychology: The legacies of Robert Sears and Albert Bandura. Developmental Psychology, 28(5),
776-786. American Psychological Association.
•Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012). The NMC Horizon Report Short List: 2012 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
•Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking Technology: toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, April, 34-37.
•Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research in educational
communications and technology, 693-719. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
•Lemke, C., & Coughlin, E. (2009). The change agents. Educational Leadership, 67(1), 54-59.
•McLoughlin, C. & Lee, M.W. (2008). Future Learning Landscapes: Transforming Pedagogy through Social Software. Innovate. The Journal of Online Education. 4(5).
Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=539.
•Murray, C. (2008). Schools and Social Networking: Fear or Education? Synergy Perspectives: Local, 6(1), 8-12.
•O’Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0. Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. O'Reilly Media, Inc. Retrieved from http://
www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html.
•Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved from
http://itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm.
•Silva, J. M., Rahman, A. S., & El Saddik, A. (2008). Web 3.0: a vision for bridging the gap between real and virtual. Paper presented at the 1st ACM international
workshop on Communicability design and evaluation in cultural and ecological multimedia system, Vancouver British Columbia, Canada.
•Shin, W., & Lowes, S. (2008). Analyzing Web 2.0 Users in an Online Discussion Forum. Paper presented at the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia
and Telecommunications (EDMEDIA) 2008, Chesapeake, VA.
•U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). National education technology plan 2010: Transforming American education: Learning
powered by technology. Washington, D.C.
Thursday, March 1, 12

25. Kangdon%Lee%iglassbox@gmail.com%%
University%of%Northern%Colorado%
This%work%is%licensed%under%the%Crea3ve%Commons%
A7ribu3on9Non9Commercial9No%Deriva3ve%Works%2.0%US:%
Interna3onal%Licence.%
Thursday, March 1, 12