Page 1

Learning Through Web 2.0 Social Technologies

March 2012 University of Northern Colorado Kangdon Lee Thursday, March 1, 12


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


I. Trends of Web • Everything Can Be Done on the Web

Thursday, March 1, 12


I. Trends of Web • Webs Can Communicate Themselves

Image of Semantic Web (Web 3.0) Thursday, March 1, 12


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


III. Dimensions of Web 2.0 • Learning •

Supporting and facilitating tools and environments

• Teaching •

Providing authentic and instantaneous resources

• Evaluating (Feedback) •

Thursday, March 1, 12

Tracking, monitoring, backchannel communicating, and feedback


IV. Features of Web 2.0 • Advantages

Thursday, March 1, 12

Great affordances

Easy to use with little technical training

Information collector and sharing repository

Participatory and collaborative

The nature of continuity


IV. Features of Web 2.0 • Challenges

Thursday, March 1, 12

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


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


V. Learning Theories of Web 2.0 • Social Learning Theory •

Reciprocal Determinism •

Thursday, March 1, 12

Behavior

Environment

Motivational beliefs, Perceptions, Values, Emotions, Meanings

Observational Learning Theory •

Attention

Retention

Reproduction

Motivation

Self-regulation

Reciprocal Determinism Environmental factors

Behavior


V. Learning Theories of Web 2.0 • Constructivism

Thursday, March 1, 12

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).


V. Learning Theories of Web 2.0 • Active (Experiential) Learning Theory

Thursday, March 1, 12

Ask questions by participating and collaborating

Control educational resources by analyzing and creating

Receive responses by considering and reconstructing


V. Learning Theories of Web 2.0 • Connectivism •

Thursday, March 1, 12

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


VI. Contextual examples of Web 2.0 1. Social Networking •

Thursday, March 1, 12

Group Communication •

Class project

Peer connection

Professional Development •

Professional communication

Pursuit of personal interest


VI. Contextual examples of Web 2.0 2. Social Reading •

Thursday, March 1, 12

Group Discourse •

Class reading

Group discussion

Personal cloud library •

Virtual bookshelf

Reading anywhere anytime


VI. Contextual examples of Web 2.0 3. Social Bookmarking •

Thursday, March 1, 12

Searching web knowledge & Sharing new experiences


VI. Contextual examples of Web 2.0 4. Idea Building •

Thursday, March 1, 12

Concept mapping •

Organizing ideas

Visual representation

Note-taking/Memo •

Taking notes every moment

Co-editing & sharing

Idea visualization •

Idea sketching

Collaborative visualization


VI. Contextual examples of Web 2.0 5. Social Collaboration •

Thursday, March 1, 12

Documentation •

Real time collaboration

Co-creating & co-editing

Visual collaboration •

Video conferencing

Screen sharing & co-editing

Collaboration management •

Project management

GTD (Get Things Done)


VI. Contextual examples of Web 2.0 6. Outcome Representation •

Thursday, March 1, 12

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


VI. Contextual examples of Web 2.0 7. Media sharing •

Thursday, March 1, 12

Transferring media & Sharing files (folders)


VI. Contextual examples of Web 2.0 8. Useful Web 2.0 tools in education •

Thursday, March 1, 12

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


VI. Contextual examples of Web 2.0 9. Useful Web 2.0 tools in education •

Thursday, March 1, 12

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


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

Thursday, March 1, 12

Make the best use of Web 2.0 social technologies

Improve media literacies in digital knowledge age


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/thebeauty-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


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

Learning Through Web 2.0 Social Technologies  

My presentation today is about learning through Web 2 point 0 social technologies. And I have 7 plans to present you about Web 2 point 0 too...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you