A Typology for Web 2.0

Annotation

This paper, which Google Scholar says is cited over 300 times, develops a typology that categorizes Web 2.0 technologies as supporting four fundamental use contexts: dialoging (collaboration), networking and awareness-making, creating, and sharing in two primary learning functions: 1) organizing communication and 2) organizing resources.

Organizing Communication:
1) Dialoging
a. Text forums
b. Chat
c. Video phone
2) Networking & awareness-making
a. Person-centered SNSs
b. Networked weblogs
c. Micro-blogging

Organizing Resources:
1) Creating
a. Weblogs
b. Podcasts
c. Wikis
d. Application sharing services
2) Sharing
a. Object/topic-centered SNSs
b. Social bookmarking

The common reoccurring theme in this piece is that in order for constructivist learning to be possible the locus of control over the communication process, (i.e., what tools are to be used) must reside with the students. Students must feel empowered to create, construct, manage and share content themselves. It is the teacher’s role to facilitate these actions.

While the scope of this paper is helpful in understanding the typology of the space, the subsequent examination of individual web functionality was cursory. I would have liked to see more discussion and justification for the categorizations.

Dalsgaard, C., & Sorensen, E. K. (2008). A Typology for Web 2.0. In 7th European Conference on e-Learning (p. 272). Academic Conferences Limited. Retrieved July 9, 2009, from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=pC_WmUCwUtAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA272&dq=%22A+Typology+for+Web+2.0%22&ots=jHUAWdoZO5&sig=1hJFy71yIK4p9X2-bmfhwbsVxuU.

Teens and Social Media: An Overview

Annotation

This nationally representative sample of 935 teens age 12 to 17 years old and parents was conducted as a telephone survey in late 2006. It found that 93% of teens use the Internet and frequently for social interaction with 64% of them creating some online content, up from 57% two years previous. (That is not as high of growth as I would have expected.) Additionally, 55% have created a profile on a social networking site such as Facebook or MySpace. Interestingly, teens tend to be slightly more protective of their privacy by restricting access to online content more frequently than adults but are much more likely to communicate using online tools other than email.

Other research indicates that online social sites hold great potential for moving teaching/learning in a more constructivist direction. This research confirms the notion that teens are cognitively ready for such a move.

Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). Teens and Social Media: An Overview. Washington, D.C.: Pew Interent & American Life Project. Retrieved June 26, 2009, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/Teens-and-Social-Media.aspx.

Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems

Annotation

In this article, Chrisitan Dalsgaard of the University of Aarhus, describes the potentially constructivist use of social software beyond the more objectivist approach of learning-management systems (LMS) seen today in many University settings. He grounds his discussion in the question of whether the socializing features of such software should be integrated (as they tend to be in an LMS) or kept separate of the central system. He claims that this question can only be rightfully answered in the context of pedagogy because “the usefulness of different tools in support of learning depends on which learning activities the tools [are supporting.]”

He points out the difficultly in defining “educational social software” by settles on one given by Terry Anderson that includes the idea that uses must retain control in order to be counted as such. He lists weblogs, wikis, RSS feeds, and social bookmarking as candidates but claims the list is not exhaustive. One already sees a contrast with the type of functionality generally included in an LMS, including assignment management, lesson plans, and syllabi.

In conclusion, he offers a “student-centered” model of e-learning which allows for a LMS for administrative issues, personal tools for construction, presentation, reflection, and collaboration, and social networks for facilitating communication between students in the same course and others working in the field.

The shortcoming for this article is Dalsgaard’s overly optimistic assumption regarding the intrinsic motivation of students. For this type of strict-constructivistic pedagogy to work, students must be highly motivated.

This paper was incredibly elucidating for me when it comes to understanding the possible categories of functionality associated with educational social networking software, which could include those stated above.

Dalsgaard, C. (2006). Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems. E-Learning. Retrieved July 12, 2009, from http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?p=archives&year=2006&halfyear=2&article=228.

Elements (Functions) of learning in an Social Network Site

*** This is a working post. It's not complete.***

This is an attempt to list the elements/functions/factors found in an SNS and relate it to some known principal of learning. (Perhaps I should just settle with either NETS-S or the 21st Framework and evaluate each tool/SNS against it? Operationalizing a rubric is proving to be too multidimensional.)

Maybe this is the way to think about it...

Dalsgaard, C., & Sorensen, E. K. (2008). A Typology for Web 2.0. In 7th European Conference on e-Learning (p. 272). Academic Conferences Limited. Retrieved July 9, 2009, from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=pC_WmUCwUtAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA272&dq=%22A+Typology+for+Web+2.0%22&ots=jHUAWdoZO5&sig=1hJFy71yIK4p9X2-bmfhwbsVxuU.

Function/Element	Category (construction, presentation, reflection, collaboration)	Notes
Profile page	several	profiles may contain many elements and may be too large of a category for useful inclusion here
Blogging	collaboration	blogs may not be inherently collaborative but if comments and RSS following are included, they foster communication
Micro-blogging	x	x
Social bookmarking	collaboration	x
Wikis	collaboration	x
ePortfolios	x	x
Media gallery	x	x
Message Boards	x	x
Podcasting	construction	x
Tagging	x	x
Real-time collaboration (Skype)	x	x
RSS Reader	x	x

Framework for 21st Century Learning

Annotation

Like NETS-S, the Framework for 21st Century Learning seeks to define those skills that all learners will need moving forward in today’s society and are broken up into several categories. Unlike NETS-S, this framework is built upon what the Partnership calls “Core Subjects and 21st Century Themes.” They are the usual English, World Languages, Arts, Mathematics, Economics, Science, Geography, History, Government, but also include Global Awareness, Financial/Economic Literacy, Civic Literacy, and Healthy Literacy.

The categories of specific 21st century skills include Learning and Innovation (creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem solving, and communication and collaboration), Information/Media/Technology (information literacy, media literacy, ICT literacy), and Life and Career (flexibility, initiative, social, productivity, and leadership).

In the near future, I will be going through aligning the 2 frameworks to determine the common themes. I expect many.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009, May 27). P21 Framework Definitions Document. Retrieved July 12, 2009, from http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/p21_framework_definitions_052909.pdf.

NETS-S

Annotation

The National Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS-S) was first developed by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) in 1998 and updated in 2007. They are an attempt to enumerate the necessary foundational skills and expertise that every student will need for living and working in the digital age and are broken up into six broad categories including; Creativity and Innovation, Communication and Collaboration, Research and Information Fluency, Critical Thinking/Problem Solving/Decision Making, Digital Citizenship, and Technology Operations/Concepts.

These standards, coupled with the framework developed by The Partnership for 21st Century Skills, represent the foundation of what will become my rubric for evaluating the educational value of social networking sites.

ISTE. (2007). NETS-S. ISTE. Retrieved July 12, 2009, from http://www.iste.org/content/navigationmenu/nets/for_students/nets_s.htm.

Leadership for Web2.0 in Education: Promise and Reality

Annotation

The Consortium for School Networking commissioned a report conducted by the Metiri Group and funded my the MacCarthur Foundation to ask the question, “To what extent are American K-12 schools redesigning schools to tap into the learning potential of Web 2.0?” This large-scale research surveyed 1,200 district superintendents, curriculum directors, and technology directors to determine and found generally that the speed of innovation and change in society regarding Web 2.0 technologies is outpacing K-12 education’s capacity for innovation.

Specifically, the report finds that district leaders believe the Web 2. 0 represents an enormous opportunity to improve students’ communication skills, quality of schoolwork, interests in school, among other important metrics. In fact, 77% of respondents agreed with the statement “Web 2.0 has value for teaching and learning.” Additionally, 61% believed that participation on approved educational sites should be allowed and 24% believe all use should be allowed provided it is supervised.

Despite great support for the potential of Web 2.0 tools in general, over 70% of these same leaders banned social networking in their schools and near 40% ban the sharing of media files and playing of interactive games. The most common stated concern was the potential “wasting of time/distractions to learning.” Over half reported using filtering systems that are more restrictive than required by federal policy. Many district leaders reported that Web 2.0 functionality the most easily fits into traditional instructional practices get used the most. This suggests that Web 2.0 tools are not sparking a pedagogical switch towards constructivism and, according to Wenglinsky in “Using Technology Wisely,” this will inhibit the value of such usage. Unfortunately, it also suggests that schools, and their curriculum, are not being redesigned to tap into the expressed value of Web 2.0 tools.

CoSN. (2009). Leadership for Web2.0 in Education: Promise and Reality. Retrieved June 18, 2009, from http://www.cosn.org/Default.aspx?TabId=4198.