Everything 2.0: social software, emergent learning spaces and the ethics of web 2.0

3,105 views

Published on

Presentation at Educa Online 2006, Berlin, 1st December 2006

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

Everything 2.0: social software, emergent learning spaces and the ethics of web 2.0

  1. 1. everything 2.0? social software, emergent learning spaces and the ethics of web 2.0  Dr Steven Warburton King’s College London Fellow: Centre for Distance Education [email_address] http: //warburton . typepad .com
  2. 2. where are we now? <ul><li>social nature of learning </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>social-constructivism and situated learning </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>negotiated meaning through dialogue </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>collaboration, community and creativity </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>socio-technical and cultural changes </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ambient technology, ubiquitous computing </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>fluidity between individual, group, community and network </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>digital immigrants, digital natives, net generation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>web 2.0 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>read/write web -> consumer becomes producer </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>complexity, emergent behaviour and emergent classifications </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>the rise of social software </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  3. 3. <ul><li>VLE – institutional space </li></ul><ul><li>bounded </li></ul><ul><li>content based </li></ul><ul><li>assessment driven </li></ul><ul><li>discussion (structured) </li></ul><ul><li>critical discourse -> critical thinking </li></ul><ul><li>blogs – personal space </li></ul><ul><li>open </li></ul><ul><li>dialogue driven </li></ul><ul><li>autonomous and reflective </li></ul><ul><li>aggregation -> community </li></ul><ul><li>journal metaphor -> learner identity </li></ul>the hybrid online learning environment
  4. 4. <ul><li>Questions? </li></ul><ul><li>will students blog? </li></ul><ul><li>how often will they blog? </li></ul><ul><li>how does this compare to internet or free-form blogging ( style and voice )? </li></ul><ul><li>can blogs facilitate community formation (by augmenting social presence ) ? </li></ul><ul><li>Framework: </li></ul>Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2000) research instruments: content analysis [blogs], questionnaires and semi-structured interviews.
  5. 5. results: an overview <ul><li>a range of bloggers from enthusiastic (20%) to occasional (30%) to non existent (50%) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>similar to other reported studies: Walker 2003; Brooks, Nichols and Pribe 2005; Kruger 2005; Ramsden 2006. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>blog posts contained indicators of social presence yet they were often marked by formal (and lengthy) commentaries on the course materials </li></ul><ul><li>a marked resistant by students to blogging in contrast to prolific blogging by the course tutors </li></ul>
  6. 6. disrupted spaces VLE/institution: formal internet and social software: informal educational blogs (social software): an emergent learning space blurring the boundaries between formal and informal traditional student (resistant) negotiation of meaning net generation?
  7. 7. tensions <ul><li>e-learning: dominant models, developments and drivers: </li></ul><ul><li>reusable learning objects </li></ul><ul><li>quality frameworks </li></ul><ul><li>standards (SCORM, LOM, QTI) </li></ul><ul><li>digital repositories (silos) </li></ul><ul><li>scripted learning activities (IMS LD) </li></ul><ul><li>content delivery and assessment via VLEs </li></ul><ul><li>self centred knowledge acquisition </li></ul><ul><li>a hierarchical industrial model that can respond to increasing student numbers and pressures on staff time </li></ul><ul><li>the rhetoric of web 2.0 and social software </li></ul><ul><li>architecture of participation </li></ul><ul><li>democratisation </li></ul><ul><li>collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>always beta </li></ul><ul><li>autonomy and ownership </li></ul><ul><li>personalisation </li></ul><ul><li>emergent classifications </li></ul><ul><li>critical mass, complexity </li></ul><ul><li>freedom and empowerment </li></ul><ul><li>an open distributed model with flattened structures and community-based knowing </li></ul>
  8. 8. problematizing web 2.0
  9. 9. understanding blogs as a situated practice <ul><li>interpretative flexibility </li></ul><ul><ul><li>the utility of blogs (like the internet cf. Hine 2000) is created through a process of negotiation and interpretation in specific contexts of use </li></ul></ul><ul><li>technology as text </li></ul><ul><ul><li>technology is read differently by relevant social groups and can be said to be different for each </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. when is a blog not a blog? <ul><li>let us mark a clear differentiation between: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>internet blogging as “a contemporary contribution to the art of the self” ( Miller 2004 ) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>blogging as social action made possible by a shared set of understandings </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>and </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>educational blogs as specifically situated and contextually negotiated use of technology </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>as opposed to blog as genre </li></ul></ul></ul>
  11. 11. formal and informal spaces <ul><li>if we blur formal and informal learning spaces how do students build certain competencies: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>develop critical self awareness? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>judge value and quality (disciplinary knowledge)? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>develop intellectual tools? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>engage in purposeful activities (metacognition, understanding their own learning processes)? </li></ul></ul></ul>
  12. 12. ethical issues and web 2.0
  13. 13. open systems <ul><li>consumers becoming producers </li></ul><ul><li>blogs, wikis, youtube, podcasts, slideshare, del.icio.us: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>what happens to authenticity and trust? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>[in]coherence </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>[dis]orientation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>information overload </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>quality? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>quality (of education) becomes an ethical issue </li></ul>
  14. 14. consent <ul><li>personal, autonomous, owned </li></ul><ul><ul><li>how do we reconcile personal freedoms and institutional responsibilities (e.g. censorship) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>public and private domains </li></ul><ul><ul><li>respect for and protection of student privacy (comfort in an online life?) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>student visibility/invisibility </li></ul><ul><ul><li>do we disturb the quiet learner </li></ul></ul><ul><li>identity performance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>adding personal spin, managing reputation, transparency </li></ul></ul><ul><li>tracks and traces </li></ul><ul><ul><li>the permanence of blog posts </li></ul></ul><ul><li>what are our responsibilities, where are we accountable? </li></ul>
  15. 15. some conclusions <ul><li>avoid creating the binary of (e)learning 1.0 and (e)learning 2.0? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>it is a metaphor that ignores process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>remove the baggage of ‘2.0’ and address fundamental questions about our ethics and how we support our underlying educational values and beliefs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>sensitivity to the context into which we introduce new technologies: interpreting and negotiating meaning with our students and each other </li></ul><ul><li>understand students as a much more diverse social group with differing perspectives </li></ul><ul><li>embrace complexity </li></ul>
  16. 16. thank you <ul><ul><ul><li>Steven Warburton </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>King’s College London </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>http://warburton.typepad.com </li></ul></ul></ul>

×