Web+2.0+&+Classroom&Traditional+Learning

 (Final Version)

**Introduction ** Technology influences on education can be dated back to as early as 1900s where films and motion picture projectors were used to enhance teaching and learning experiences in the United States. In those days, films were used as visual aids for teaching and learning concepts and ideas presented in books. The visual aids were enhanced with audio aids when radio broadcasting and sound recording were made common in the 1920s. Over the past few decades, multiple terminologies were adopted for the instructional and/or educational fields and the names themselves showed the importance of technology in instructions and educations. //Audiovisual// instruction in the 1920s to 40s, instructional //television// in the 1950s to 60s, educational //technology// and instructional //technology// in the 1970s to 80s, and //computer//**-**assisted instruction in the 1980s to late 90s. In recent years, rapid advances in computer and other digital technology, including the internet, have led to a rapidly interest in, and use of, these media for instructional purposes (Reiser, 2007). //Web-//based learning and //Web 2.0// for education are two popular terminologies used in the 21st century instructional and/or educational fields. As Gouseti (2010) mentioned in her analysis on Web 2.0 and education, ... Digital technologies have long been promoted as ready means to enhance in-school teaching and learning practices, increase student motivation and engagement and generally transform formal education. Over the past five years, the so-called ‘Web 2.0’ applications and tools such as social networking, wiki tools, blogging and content-sharing applications have become the prevailing focus of such predictions and promises (p. 1). Web 2.0 and its impact to education are clearly noticeable with the establishment of tools such as [|YouTube EDU], [|EduBlogs] and [|Facebook in Education]. YouTube, Blogs and Facebook were not designed for education but the impact they created on learners’ lifestyle had spurred researchers, designers and instructors to adapt them into the educational field; changing the learning environment of traditional classroom learning. A quick search for “Web 2.0 and education” yields 536,000[1] results in [|Google Scholar] (in less than 1 second). Researches on Web 2.0 and its impact on education span across various levels and domains of education. Blog (example: [|blogger], [|blog.com], and [|class blogmeister]), Wikis (example: Wikispaces, and [|PBWorks]), and [|Facebook] are the most common Web 2.0 tools that had been mentioned in the researches. Web 2.0 interesting, interactive and informative features were said to enhance learning experiences, improve learning outcomes and develop skills that are necessary to perform in the 21st century knowledge-based economy. The impetus to use Web 2.0 in classroom learning, the pedagogical affordances for using Web 2.0 in classroom learning, and the challenges and concerns to use Web 2.0 in classroom learning would be discussed in this chapter.

**Impetus for Web 2.0 in Classroom Learning **


 * To enhance learning experiences **

 YouTube Edu features lectures and other learning materials from hundreds of colleges and universities, including Yale University, Harvard University, University of Cambridge, and University of Oxford. More than 970,000 Edublogs had been created, and its users include reputable universities such as Stanford University, National University of Singapore and Cornell University. Well, Harvard and Oxford students’ academic standings would not be affected even if YouTube Edu videos were nonexistent. So, to whom the YouTube videos and Edublogs were created for? How do blog, which was originally created for journaling, enhances learning experiences? Heafner and Friedman (2008) conducted a research on two groups of 11th grade social studies students in their learning for War World II events. One group used traditional classroom learning while another group used Wikis with images to learn about World War II. It was reported that the group of students who used Wikis had better knowledge retention 8 months after the subject was taught. Hramiak, Boulton and Irwin (2009) reported that blog was useful in helping Sheffield Hallam University and Nottingham Trent University, UK teacher trainees to keep track of their professional developments. What is the science behind the use of Web 2.0 tools to enhance learning experiences? Do students feel more motivated to learn with Web 2.0 tools than traditional classroom resources? Perhaps, tracing back to what motivate learners would be the ideal way to describe how and why Web 2.0 tools would enhance learners’ learning experiences. ARCS model developed by John Keller (1984), stressed the importance of (a) gaining and sustaining attention, (b) enhancing relevance, (c) building confidence, and (d) generating satisfaction in order to motivate learners in their learning processes. Images, sounds, interactive interfaces, participatory activities, simulations, and role playing are some characteristics of Web 2.0 tools which could be used to fulfill either one or all of the 4 conditions described in ARCS model. [|Flickr] images can be used to capture learners’ attention and relate to topics of interests such as culture and medical diseases. [|Google Earth] allows users to have a bird’s-eye view or worm’s eye view, 2-D or 3-D view of the earth, which is a very useful way to learn about Earth and Space, Geography or terrain analysis. YouTube and [|Second Life] provide rich user experiences with the use of images and sounds. Sense of identity, role playing and simulations in Second Life sustain learners’ attention, enhance relevancy, build confidence and generate satisfaction. The vast amount of information available readily on the internet widens the learning resource bank (as compared to traditional classroom learning) and increases the knowledge that learners can gain within a short span of time.
 * To develop 21st Century Skills **

 In the 21st century knowledge based economy, technology plays a key role in the capture, use, and dissemination of knowledge (Rothwell, Hohne and King, 2007). Individual finds himself (or herself) having to get upgraded more often as information and technology gets updated or outdated quickly. With the vast amount of information available on or offline, workers need to know how to get the most relevant and reliable information in order to perform in their workplaces. In the 21st century workplace, Anderson (2008) highlighted that an individual needs to be proficient in (a) constructing knowledge, (b) finding, organizing, retrieving information, (c) adapting to changes, (d) managing information, (e) critical thinking, and (f) working as a team. Classroom instructors traditionally focus on disseminating information while learners try their best to absorb and apply the information learned. Traditional learning activities happened synchronously, in a face to face guided learning environment, where learners are given a fix set of resources to complete assignments. There is no or minimal need to find, organize, retrieve and manage information since a fix set of resources are provided. Changes and critical thinking are limited to the amount of information and ideas that learners can hold on to, can think of, during the face to face sessions. How well traditional classroom learning activities help to develop the 21st century skills identified by Anderson (2008), for workers to excel in the 21st century workplace? How do Web 2.0 tools help learners in developing these 21st century skills? Shelly and Frydenberg (2010) described that Web 2.0 is characterized by its interactive tools that allow users to participate in contributing, organizing and creating the content. Blogs and Wikis are examples of how learners can input data that are deemed relevant to the learning activities and be shared with peers easily. Feedbacks receive from peers and instructors prompt the learners to think, defend and/or improve their own ideas. The need to sense make information helps to develop learners’ critical thinking skills. Data input, management, edition and sharing require learners to (a) think, find, organize, retrieve, manage information, and (b) adopt both leader’s and follower’s role in content development. Tapping on Web 2.0 characteristics to develop 21st century skills is probable and plausible. For the 536,000 articles found for “Web 2.0 and education” (as mentioned in the introduction), reading just 1% of the articles found is almost impossible given that the chapter was to be completed within a month. Reasoning “what fit” and “what don’t fit”, filtering the relevant information from the “what fit”, and managing the “what fit” were all examples for the 21st century skills identified by Anderson, for performance in the 21st century workplace. **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">To stay competitive ** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">In the corporate world, companies leverage on technology to stay competitive in the business world. Military forces tap on technology to develop and build forbidden weapons that determine their mission success, their survival. Likewise for academic institutes, the use of technology is needed for schools to competitive and relevant. On May 25, 2011, FOX POINT, Wisconsin published that St Eugene School was the first school (in United States) to introduce [|IPad] into the classroom. The article itself is an example of how school gains attention and stay competitive by using the technology that is popular and has great potential to develop in the educational field. As mentioned previously, technology has a strong influence on the instructional or educational field and this relationship will continue to grow as technology shapes the economy and human behavior.

**<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Pedagogical Affordances for Web 2.0 ** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Impetus such as (a) enhancing teaching and learning experience, (b) preparing students for 21st century skills, and (3) staying relevant and competitive were elaborated for why Web 2.0 is used/to be used in classroom learning. Technological advancement in web access devices and internet access had reduced the technological barriers for computer based or web based learning. The affordance of Web 2.0 in classroom learning revolves mainly around technology related costs such the computer-to-student ratio, internet accessibility, network infrastructure and maintenance for web based learning. But, not all schools and instructors had jumped onto the bandwagon even though the advantages and benefits were widely studied and published. Having asynchronous, 24/7 accessible learning in Web 2.0 tools such as Blog might be useful but having to prepare for lessons, mark assignments, write exam papers and attend any other school matters might leave the educators with little time to commit to “out-of-classroom” activities. In addition, with some sites such as FaceBook and MySpace being blocked at school districts, what do educators need to do to bypass the restrictions? Or should they switch to use a “not so suitable but accessible” tool? Should learning activities be changed for the incorporation of Web 2.0 in classroom learning? If the answer is yes, then what are the changes and how should educators embrace the changes? In this case, the pedagogical affordances, the challenges and concerns of Web 2.0 in classroom learning should not be neglected as they determine the overall effectiveness of the new instructional methodology and learning conditions. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">“Many earlier e-learning efforts simply replicated traditional models of learning and teaching in online environments; by contrast, Web 2.0 tools and technologies offer rich opportunities to move away from the highly centralized industrial model of learning of the past decade, towards achieving individual empowerment of learners through designs that focus on collaborative, networked communication and interaction.” (Rogers, Liddle, Chan, Doxey & Isom, 2007 from Sim, 2006, from McLoughin & Lee, 2007) <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Empowering learners by harnessing Web 2.0 tools in classroom learning requires a change in designers and instructors’ mental models and behaviors. Pedagogy 2.0, a term coiled by McLoughlin & Lee (2007), highlighted the 7 key dimensions that instructors or designers should adopt so as to align the instructional methodology with Web 2.0. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">(1) //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Content //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">: Micro units instead of chunky units so as to stimulate learners’ thinking and cognition. Learners participate in content development. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">(2) //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Curriculum //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">: Flexible and dynamic curriculum instead of a fixed curriculum. Design and development focus in blended learning (formal and informal). <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">(3) //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Communications //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">: Allow open and multi communication channels among peers and between educators and learners. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">(4) //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Process //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">: Learning process to be situated, reflective, iterative, dynamic and inquiry based. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">(5) //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Resources //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">: Use multiple media rich (informal or formal) resources. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">(6) //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Scaffolds //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">: Provide a network of support from educators, peers, and community of practices. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">(7) //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Learning tasks //<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">: Relevant and authentic tasks (learners driven) that offer multiple perspectives for learners to engage in. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">There is almost no limitation on the number of Web 2.0 of tools, advices, ideas and methodology that educators can adopt for incorporating Web 2.0 in classroom learning. But, the level of empowerment, magnitude of positive learning experiences and effect on learning outcomes, fall back into the instructors’ readiness and willingness for using Web 2.0 in classroom learning. If instructors are being “forced to” and are not proficient with Web 2.0, adverse effects may be resulted even with the best intention at heart. **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Challenges and Concerns **

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Amphitheater Public School provided a [|list of top 100 Web 2.0 tools] for learning, in which instructors could refer to and learn from the others what to do and what not to do with the list of tools for educational purposes. Web 2.0 Guru and [|PBWork] also provided lists of Web 2.0 tools that could be used in classroom learning or to develop 21st century skills. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Imagine going through the list of 100 Web 2.0 tools recommended by Amphitheater public school just for choosing one tool that suits the class best. Which tool will learners be excited with? Which tool will be most interactive and engaging? Which tool is accessible from the school? Sometimes, choosing the tool itself might be a challenge to get started with. Having a strong support network from educational or technological experts, peers or community of practices could help to reduce or eliminate the dilemma for “where to start from” or “how to start”. Schools principals, school districts policy makers, or any relevant personnel or department whom impose the accessibility restrictions should review the extent of the restrictions. **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Privacy and Security ** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> Information shared on the Web 2.0 tools is shared with the public users. Compare to traditional classroom learning where sharing is bounded by walls and time (class duration), there is no boundary or time limit for the information sharing in Web 2.0 tools. Learners, especially young learners need to know the implication and replication for information put on the web. Individual responsibility and mutual respect for the others need to be practiced for overall cyber wellness. These, need to be made known to the learners and as with all security and safety messages, constant reminders are necessary as human beings get complacent when things operate sound and smooth. **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Authorship, Plagiarism and Copyrights ** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;"> Authorship, plagiarism and copyrights issues are inextricably link to the “openness” nature of Web 2.0 and thus, learners need to be educated on the “rights” and “wrongs” to protect themselves from the “not really free for all” situations. Learners need to be aware that a certain level of responsibilities and social etiquette are needed for positive collaboration and learning in the Web 2.0 arena. **<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Community support ** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">While researchers “raved” about the benefits of using Web 2.0 in classroom learning and designers or educators harness the benefits of Web 2.0 to enhance classroom learning, engaging the public would be an ideal way to sustain the development and implementation of Web 2.0 in classroom learning. Too much emphasis has been placed on the “individual” and there is a need to open up a dialogue about Web 2.0 and education beyond the educational and academic communities to start a bigger, critically informed conversation that will engage parents, policy-makers, employers, the IT industry and other stakeholders (Grouseti, 2010).
 * <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Choosing “The One” **

**<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Conclusion ** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">In summary, Web 2.0 tools unique characteristics provided strong impetus and reasons for its adoption in classroom learning. Developing 21st century skills, staying competitive and relevant, are some knowledge and skills that cannot be developed effectively if educators stay “stagnant”. Pedagogy 2.0 derived by McLoughlin & Lee (2007) reflected the need to shift the pedagogical approach from traditional methodology to non-traditional methodology for effective implementation and learning outcomes with Web 2.0. Web 2.0 encourages collaboration learning as learners interact and share through the Web 2.0 tools. With the increase in interaction and sharing, concerns for issues such as personal privacy, security, plagiarism, and copyrights heighten. Individual responsibilities, mutual respect, and social etiquette need to be promoted and inculcated. Web 2.0, has a strong presence in, and influence on the lifestyle of the 21st century population. Dovetailing Web 2.0 tools to classroom learning enhance learners’ development in knowledge, skills and attitudes that they can relate to, and apply in the real world.

**<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">References **

<span style="color: #0d0d0d; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Anderson, R. (2008). Implications of the information and knowledge society for education. [|//Springer International Handbooks of Education//]<span style="color: #0d0d0d; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">, 2008, Volume 20, 1, <span class="pagination" style="color: #0d0d0d; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">5-22 <span class="doi" style="color: #0d0d0d; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Driscoll., M.P. (2000) Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Gary B. Shelly, Mark Frydenberg (2010). Web 2.0: Concepts and applications. Massachusetts: Course Technology PTR.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Gouseti, A. (2010). Web 2.0 and education: Not just another case of hype, hope and disappointment? //Learning, Media & Technology, 35//(3), 351-356.

<span style="color: #0d0d0d; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Heafner, T. L., & Friedman, A. M. (2008). Wikis and constructivism in secondary social studies: Fostering a deeper understanding. Computers in the Schools, 25(3-4), 288-302.

<span style="color: #0d0d0d; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Hramiak, A., Boulton, H., & Irwin, B. (2009). Trainee instructors' use of blogs as private reflections for professional development. //Learning, Media and Technology//, 34(3), 259-269.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">McLoughin, C. & Lee, M. (2007) Social software and participatory learning: Pedagogical choices with technology affordances in the Web 2.0 era. //Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007.//

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Reiser, R.A. (2007). A history of instructional design and technology. In R.A. Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 17 – 34). New Jersey: Pearson Merrill/Prentice Hall.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 16px;">Rothwell, W. J., Hohne, C. K., & King, S.B. (2007). Human Performance Improvement (2nd ed.). Massachusetts: Butterworth-Heinemann.

<span style="font-family: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; font-size: 13.3333px;">[1] 536,000 articles on “Web 2.0 and education” were shown on Google scholar on: 25th August 2011.