Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
web 2.0: trendy nonsense? <ul><ul><li>Steven Warburton </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>King’s College London </li></ul></ul><ul...
where are we now?
identifying trends <ul><li>social nature of learning </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>social-constructivism and situated learning...
social tools social bookmarks IRC blogs discussion fora social networks instant messaging wikis collaboration social  reco...
e-learning: dominant models, developments and drivers <ul><li>reusable learning objects </li></ul><ul><li>quality framewor...
web 2.0 in education <ul><li>what is the problem to which web 2.0 technologies are posited as a solution? </li></ul><ul><l...
problematising web 2.0
consumers  becoming producers <ul><li>blogs, wikis, YouTube, podcasts, slideshare, del.icio.us and so on inevitably leads ...
collaboration: individual, group, community and networks <ul><li>what are our motives for collaboration and cooperation? <...
Stephen Downes whiteboard brain dump on the essence of group vs. network
personalisation <ul><li>personal = choice = problematic (how do we know how to make these choices?) </li></ul><ul><li>pers...
next generation - what generation? <ul><li>where is the evidence for next generation learners? </li></ul><ul><li>where are...
formal and informal learning spaces  <ul><li>in a web 2.0 world of disruption and the blurring of formal and informal how ...
what are the ethical issues raised by web 2.0? <ul><li>personal - implies freedom from censorship </li></ul><ul><li>public...
does a web 2.0 approach work in practice?  <ul><li>evaluating wikis: </li></ul><ul><li>introducing new tools does not chan...
<ul><li>the floodgates are open how do we respond?  </li></ul><ul><li>architecture or ecology? </li></ul><ul><li>do these ...
what do institutions say?
we are afraid, very afraid <ul><li>there seem to be two recurring themes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>fear of losing  control  b...
we have seen it all before <ul><li>institutional weariness at having to keep pace with constant technological innovation w...
are we looking at a paradigm shift? one that is individual, institutional, cultural or?
closed and open systems, hierarchies vs. networks, nupedia to wikipedia <ul><li>Brooks Law (1975) </li></ul><ul><li>As the...
what do we see in the future? what questions do we need to ask?
key ideas <ul><li>appropriation: understanding the use of technologies as being a locally situated phenomenon and a proces...
learner at centre context ( pedagogical approach )? collaborative networked e-learning? formal or informal setting? mixed ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Web 2.0: trendy nonsense?

11,901 views

Published on

Presentation for the JISC-CETIS conference 14-15th November 2006 in Manchester. Session title "Thinking the unthinkable".

Published in: Technology, Education

Web 2.0: trendy nonsense?

  1. 1. web 2.0: trendy nonsense? <ul><ul><li>Steven Warburton </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>King’s College London </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul>
  2. 2. where are we now?
  3. 3. identifying trends <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 networks </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>web-natives, 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>
  4. 4. social tools social bookmarks IRC blogs discussion fora social networks instant messaging wikis collaboration social recommendation & discovery
  5. 5. e-learning: dominant models, developments and drivers <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 driven (VLE) </li></ul><ul><li>a hierarchical industrial model that can respond to increasing student numbers and pressures on staff time </li></ul>
  6. 6. web 2.0 in education <ul><li>what is the problem to which web 2.0 technologies are posited as a solution? </li></ul><ul><li>how does the rhetoric of web 2.0 stand up to close scrutiny? </li></ul><ul><li>what questions are these technologies asking of ‘us’, our values, our teaching and our institutions </li></ul>
  7. 7. problematising web 2.0
  8. 8. consumers becoming producers <ul><li>blogs, wikis, YouTube, podcasts, slideshare, del.icio.us and so on inevitably leads to: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>mass amateurisation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>information rich but knowledge poor </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>incoherence </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>information overload </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>not what I know but who I know or where to find it? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>open systems = chaos? </li></ul>
  9. 9. collaboration: individual, group, community and networks <ul><li>what are our motives for collaboration and cooperation? </li></ul><ul><li>what conditions support strong community formation? </li></ul><ul><li>emergent behaviours (critical mass) </li></ul><ul><li>groups vs. networks or groups to communities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>in networks what happens to: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>trust </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>identity (work on the self) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>and shared purpose </li></ul></ul></ul>
  10. 10. Stephen Downes whiteboard brain dump on the essence of group vs. network
  11. 11. personalisation <ul><li>personal = choice = problematic (how do we know how to make these choices?) </li></ul><ul><li>personal = private = problematic (institutions should respect privacy?) </li></ul><ul><li>there is a distinct lack of clarity between between customisation and personalisation? </li></ul>
  12. 12. next generation - what generation? <ul><li>where is the evidence for next generation learners? </li></ul><ul><li>where are the next generation tutors </li></ul><ul><li>the student body is always in a state of change unlike our academics? </li></ul>
  13. 13. formal and informal learning spaces <ul><li>in a web 2.0 world of disruption and the blurring of formal and informal how do students: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>develop critical self awareness? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>judge value and quality (disciplinary knowledge boundaries, assessment)? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>develop intellectual tools? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>engage in purposeful activities (metacognition, competencies)? </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. what are the ethical issues raised by web 2.0? <ul><li>personal - implies freedom from censorship </li></ul><ul><li>public domain vs. respect for student privacy </li></ul><ul><li>risk - exposing and sharing our thinking </li></ul><ul><li>traces - e.g. permanence of blogs posts </li></ul><ul><li>student visibility / invisibility (the quiet learner) </li></ul><ul><li>tracking as control </li></ul><ul><li>identity - adding personal spin, managing reputation </li></ul><ul><li>what are our responsibilities, where are we accountable? </li></ul>
  15. 15. does a web 2.0 approach work in practice? <ul><li>evaluating wikis: </li></ul><ul><li>introducing new tools does not change practice </li></ul><ul><li>wikis conflict with traditional assumptions about authorship and intellectual property: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>why share?: receiving credit for contributions, selfish motive? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>consent: contributions being revised or deleted </li></ul></ul><ul><li>content knowledge can be improved, but this takes time </li></ul><ul><li>quality can be maintained if versions ready for quality assessment are identified </li></ul><ul><li>students can be reluctant to contribute to wikis </li></ul><ul><li>visual and design options are limited - wikis are not presentation software </li></ul><ul><li>are wikis easy to use? they require network literacy: writing in a distributed, collaborative environment </li></ul>source: a variety of case studies, see http://del.icio.us/stevenw/wiki-workshop-2006-11
  16. 16. <ul><li>the floodgates are open how do we respond? </li></ul><ul><li>architecture or ecology? </li></ul><ul><li>do these technologies support our underpinning educational values? </li></ul>
  17. 17. what do institutions say?
  18. 18. we are afraid, very afraid <ul><li>there seem to be two recurring themes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>fear of losing control by levelling the authority structures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>fear of losing control by levelling authority structures </li></ul></ul>is web 2.0 is going to put me out of a job?
  19. 19. we have seen it all before <ul><li>institutional weariness at having to keep pace with constant technological innovation when pedagogy has barely shifted? </li></ul><ul><li>where is the evidence for the rhetoric of the Internet being applicable to education? </li></ul><ul><li>the bubble will burst, these technologies will be socialised and tamed (but to what?) - a natural evolution </li></ul>
  20. 20. are we looking at a paradigm shift? one that is individual, institutional, cultural or?
  21. 21. closed and open systems, hierarchies vs. networks, nupedia to wikipedia <ul><li>Brooks Law (1975) </li></ul><ul><li>As the number of programmers N rises, the work performed also scales as N , but the complexity and vulnerability to mistakes rises as N squared </li></ul><ul><li>“ Conceptual integrity in turn dictates that design must proceed from one mind, or a very small number of agreeing resonant minds” </li></ul><ul><li>Linus’ Law </li></ul><ul><li>“ Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow” (Linus Torvalds) </li></ul><ul><li>or </li></ul><ul><li>Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterised quickly and the fix obvious to someone. </li></ul>
  22. 22. what do we see in the future? what questions do we need to ask?
  23. 23. key ideas <ul><li>appropriation: understanding the use of technologies as being a locally situated phenomenon and a process of negotiation of meaning occurs at these sites </li></ul><ul><li>context: a particular technology (wiki) used in an educational activity or context is not the same as the technology (wiki) used to collaborate and document a workshop </li></ul>
  24. 24. learner at centre context ( pedagogical approach )? collaborative networked e-learning? formal or informal setting? mixed mode or distance education? expectations personalised social software networked collaborative creative learner motivation experience & competencies time negotiation of meaning

×