Post on 05-Apr-2018
8/2/2019 Synthesis Paper: Education via the Read/Write Web
1/13
1
Education via the Read/Write Web: Web 2.0 Technologies and Theories Supporting their
Inclusion in Effective Learning Design.
Fiona Springer
Edtech 504
Spring 2012
8/2/2019 Synthesis Paper: Education via the Read/Write Web
2/13
2
Education via the Read/Write Web: Web 2.0 Technologies and Theories
Supporting their Inclusion in Effective Learning Design.
Abstract
This paper considers the inclusion of Web 2.0 technologies in learning design and examines
theoretical bases that support their inclusion. The supportive theories identified are primarily
situated cognition, with less focus on distributed cognition, social constructivism, and social
networking theories. The nature of Web 2.0 tools is briefly discussed and four examples are
presented showing how Web 2.0 technologies can be successfully used in learning design. The
paper finally sounds some cautions regarding identity, collaborative settings and community
building arising from Web 2.0 technology use.
Given the exponential growth in Web 2.0 technologies and their ubiquity across many
demographics and platforms, many people clamor for them to be included in learning design.
Some of their significant features are that they are collaborative, open sourced, networked, and
participatory. Sometimes called the Read/Write Web, it refers to enabling persons to move
beyond simply reading or seeing content to being able to write or create content. The call for
inclusion of Web 2.0 technologies is further strengthened by the way these features seem to align
with contemporary learning theories of socially constructed, situated, and distributed learning,
that is authentic to the context where it occurs. Therefore, education practitioners ought to
examine research into this alignment to ensure the pedagogy is sound, learning design is
8/2/2019 Synthesis Paper: Education via the Read/Write Web
3/13
3
effective, and a valid assessment is made of Web 2.0 tools. By examining learning design
questions, theories, Web 2.0 technologies, and examples of how they can be all brought together,
educators can justify their inclusion. However, certain cautions are also warranted and provision
must also be made for these in effective design.
Some learning design questions
The foremost question in effective learning design must be what are the desired goals or
outcomes from this learning experience? Having learning outcomes as the priority lends
structure and focus to the effort, while at the same time making the pedagogy stronger and more
valid. Another question must be how do participants prefer to learn? If the desired outcomes
include collaborative, participatory and reflective learning, where meaning is negotiated and
socially constructed, then contemporary learning theories such as situated cognition, distributed
cognition, social networking, and constructivist theories support that approach. A further
question should be what are the tools that would facilitate this learning environment? The
networked, open source nature of Web 2.0 technologies allow for creating, sharing, and co-
editing of content synchronously or asynchronously. Therefore, they would support creating that
kind of environment.
Learning Theories
Situated cognition, distributed cognition, social networking theory, and social
constructivist theories are some of the approaches that offer strong theoretical bases to support
the inclusion of Web 2.0 technologies in learning design. Collectively, they stress that learning
is social, negotiated, situated in a context, and authentic. According to Cifuentes, Sharp, Bulu,
Benz, and Stough, (2009), in social constructivism learners operate in active learning
environments, where members are flexible in their roles (e.g. apprentice, teacher, producer) and
8/2/2019 Synthesis Paper: Education via the Read/Write Web
4/13
4
in the support (as a mentor, coach or model) provided to each other. The authors describe its
similarity with distributed cognition which posits that intelligence is spread throughout
community resources whether human, physical or social. Social networking theory stresses the
patterning and flow of communication and interaction by drawing attention to relationships,
social groupings, friendship, intra- and inter-group behaviours as they are enacted in and across
different geographical locations and over time. (Merchant, 2011, p. 9).
However, since situated cognition was referenced more in the selected research, it will be
discussed in more detail. In this theory, learning is socially constructed through the cognitive
interactions of participants in a learning community. In other words, meaning is not constructed
from an individuals own mental deliberations alone, but is negotiated and shaped by shared
comparisons with other participants. Learning is neither formed nor stored as internal memory
to be retrieved when required. It is instead a process of interaction whereby understandings are
continually being formed and re-formed with each interaction that happens (Hung 2002).
Furthermore, the interactions that bring meaning do not take place only among the actors
but involve their interactions with their physical environment and the social context. How the
entire community of learners perceives and understands are derived from cues from the
environment, and from how they use language, and culture (Hung 2002). That being the case,
learning must be situated in its context using real content so that the cues are as authentic and
meaningful as learning from everyday life. For example, nuances of language are less likely to
be misunderstood when used in a natural context rather than if an individual tries to determine
meaning from a dictionary alone (Brown, Collins, and Duguid 1989). Also by situating the
learning in its context, there is no separation of learning from doing, again reinforcing meaning.
8/2/2019 Synthesis Paper: Education via the Read/Write Web
5/13
5
Another principle of situated cognition as developed by Etienne Wenger is that learning
occurs within a Community of Practice (CoP). True CoPs evolve around members who share
interest in a set of concerns. Varying levels of mastery exist within the community, ranging from
novice to expert. Through interactions and engagement, newcomers are drawn into the
community and increase their level of mastery. Interestingly, the novices are not the only
learners, since they too influence and modify the communally shared and constructed meaning
(Matusov, Bell, & Rogoff, 1994).
Web 2.0 tools
Bower, Hedberg and Kuswara (2010) characterized Web 2.0 technologies as having
social software that permit collaboration; containing micro-content such as in blogs and wikis;
being freely available; and employing interfaces that easily permit information generation and
creation. Wikis and Google Docs are easy examples of how collaboration is possible.
Participants can either synchronously or asynchronously add to or revise shared content, with
histories being kept that reveal how the information exchange progressed overtime. Content is
presented in micro format, as opposed to longer offerings such as essays, academic papers, and
books as in traditional settings. Social networking sites such as Twitter, Facebook, discussion
groups, chat tools, and video clips are some of the media used to produce this type of content.
Web 2.0 technologies facilitate access across many platforms and socio-economic backgrounds
since many are open source, completely free or free with restricted functionality. Whether it is a
social bookmarking tool, RSS feeds or mashups, a great volume of content is being generated
and becoming available to many people. Web 2.0 technologies use interfaces that are user-
friendly and allow reasonably professional looking end products to be created. Web site design,
digital storytelling, and image and video sharing are examples of what can be created.
8/2/2019 Synthesis Paper: Education via the Read/Write Web
6/13
6
Integrating Web 2.0 tools in learning design
Having examined learning theories and the nature of Web 2.0 technologies and tools, the
next question to be considered is how best to blend theory with technology to design an effective
learning activity or product. The findings from four research papers presented below offer sound
suggestions for using the Read/Write Web in effective learning design.
A Framework for Web 2.0 learning design.
Bower et al. (2010) proposed a framework that removes the focus from the technologies
themselves. The terminal objectives of the instruction, the content, and the pedagogies
supporting the objectives are determined before the tools are selected. After the designers set the
primary objective, they can frame the content using the taxonomies of Anderson and Krathwohl.
They can choose pedagogies such as cognitive apprenticeship from situated cognition,
Vygotskys Zone of Proximal Development, and from constructionist and co-constructionist
theories to support interactivity. From here, it is a simpler matter to select presentation
modalities such as audio, text, video, and image and also to decide between synchronous or
asynchronous collaboration from the range of Web 2.0 tools available that align well. For
example, to demonstrate factual and procedural knowledge and reflection, learners could use a
podcast to describe their observations of an experiment; demonstrate they understand steps in a
subject-related process; or make responses to commentary from peers. Some other tools could
include digital storytelling, micro-blogging via Twitter and image creation and sharing.
Regardless of how technologies evolve, the designer is not restricted to a particular tool or even a
learning theory, but is freed by this framework to use those best suited to the ultimate needs of
the lesson.
8/2/2019 Synthesis Paper: Education via the Read/Write Web
7/13
7
Building online communities of practice.
Gunawardena et al. (2009) selected a learning goal (interactive learning), created a
community of practice based on situated cognition theory and then selected supportive
technologies to conduct action research on the connection between Web 2.0. and learning theory
in instructional design. A community of practice is based on domain, community and practice.
Using wikis and blogs, the authors created the common space for exchange of ideas and
knowledge on the shared interest (domain) of the participants. By learning and interacting
through the wiki conversations a sense ofcommunity is built. Perceptions and understandings
form and are re-formed due to shared inputs as knowledge is being socially constructed. This
knowledge, then, is understood by its members, reinforcing the role of language and culture in
forging meaning. The knowledge that is created must be shared and maintained (practice) across
the community. The authors described how information posted on the wikis and blogs would
have been collected from a range of participants. Therefore, the Web 2.0 social networking tools
enable practice. Possible tools include social bookmarking, RSS feeds, creating mashups, and
adding tags which help organize, filter and synthesize content from an array of sources.
Learning is proven to be distributed across the community, shared, and used to construct
meaning personally and socially.
Constructs for Web 2.0 learning environments.
Situated cognition and distributed learning provided the theoretical base for Tu, Blocher,
and Roberts (2008) in suggesting four dimensions of social and cultural learning as the
framework for including Web 2.0 technologies. These dimensions were cognitive, social,
networking, and integration dimensions. Cognitively, learners can use blogs and wikis as they
think about, create, share, negotiate, and reflect. Their relations with others and their own
8/2/2019 Synthesis Paper: Education via the Read/Write Web
8/13
8
identity make up the social dimension. Through self presentation on personal web pages or on
Facebook spaces they build their own sense of identity and present it to others forming the nexus
for relationships. The networking dimension refers to the tools that enhance learning which is
situated and distributed. By responding and editing in a wiki, sharing information through social
annotating (e.g. sticky notes, tagging) and social bookmarking it becomes clear that knowledge
does not reside in select persons, but it is in fact is distributed across the learning community.
Benefiting from the experience of others leads to negotiating and constructing meaning.
Authentic activities that are collaborative and that build community, make up the integration
dimension.
Developing a Web 2.0-based system for community use.
Cifuentes et al. (2009) created a project specifically designed to provide guidelines for
designers in Read/Write Web environments. They used distributed cognition and social
constructivism as the theory behind Web 2.0 tools to design a website for persons with
disabilities and for community education. The authors used a wiki as the platform for
participants to collaborate, solve problems, make decisions, and consume, co-create, and reflect
on content. Since participants were designers, learners, instructors, persons with disabilities and
their families, each person had specific areas of expertise needed to be shared to create the
optimal web site. By writing to the wiki or editing it, participants were able to pull knowledge
from wherever it existed. So for example, a designer of the website could get immediate
feedback from a person with a disability if there were accessibility issues in the design. As
pointed out by the authors, Web 2.0 tools are beneficial when the education goal is to collect,
organize, share, and evaluate information.
8/2/2019 Synthesis Paper: Education via the Read/Write Web
9/13
9
Cautions in Web 2.0 Use in Learning Design
Despite the benefits discussed, some caution in using Web 2.0 technologies in learning
design must be observed. Seery (2010) and Tu et al. (2008) pointed out that the technologies
impact on the notion of self and identity. Through blogs, wikis, and virtual online environments,
persons can create multiple identities and avatars that are slightly or massively different from
their actual physical or emotional self. If they become very attached to the personae, it may
impact on how they perceive themselves. Learning design therefore should be aware of the
differences in perception of identity and should probably not attempt to use Web 2.0 to form self
in the same way as traditional education practice: that is, identity as a singular person. At this
time though, it is difficult to fully analyze how these technologies contribute to formation of self
in the long term. There is a blurring of lines between what information is private and what is for
public view and this is an area of caution for educators using Web 2.0. Though encouraged to
present extensive detail online, persons must apply some restraint because of internet safety
concerns especially with minors. Further, participants must be aware that future employers or
scholarship disbursers, for example, may be influenced negatively if they access indiscreet
disclosures.
While lauding the ability to co-create, collaborate, and negotiate using Web 2.0
technologies, one must add a second caution which is that this does not necessarily constitute
learning in an educational context. The individuals interaction may be occasional, persistent
reluctant orhe or she may even refuse to participate at all (Merchant 2011, p. 14). It cannot
be assumed that all learners will engage actively so that meaningful learning will take place.
Individuals may be uncomfortable in collaborative settings or find online interactions distant and
impersonal. Furthermore, the social networking sought from these technologies does not
8/2/2019 Synthesis Paper: Education via the Read/Write Web
10/13
10
necessarily create the desired unified community where participants feel drawn into relationships
with others. Persons may instead be drawn to specific interest groups which can contribute to
segmented, exclusionary behaviors. Therefore, instead of participants broadening their scope
through connections that may even be global in geographic location, they may instead be
reinforcing narrow, familiar patterns of thinking and doing.
In designing online learning in communities of practice, Gulberg and Mackness (2009)
elucidated some barriers to participation which serve as a third set of cautions. Firstly, the level
of familiarity with the technologies used was critical. Participants who do not know how to use
the interfaces well may even refuse to use them. If they are unaware of all the interfaces are
capable of doing, persons will be limited in what they can achieve. A second barrier identified
was the emotional response to the learning context and conditions. Learners who feel stressed
over time management in an online setting or who prefer a face to face interaction will not
engage successfully in these conditions. Other compensations will have to be sought. A third
barrier is ignorance about the norms of community behavior. For instance, written responses are
not augmented by vocal tone or facial expression and can be open to serious misunderstanding
and tensions. Awareness of the conventions of netiquette would minimize this possibility.
Finally, it is critical to have clear guidance and introduction to the processes and materials used
in the online setting. The designer cannot presume entry level skills or knowledge but should
include clear instructions to guide participants especially at the start. Knowledge of situated
cognition theory can assist the designer in balancing these constraints through modeling of the
more adept in the community of practice and through their conscious guidance as part of the
interactions.
8/2/2019 Synthesis Paper: Education via the Read/Write Web
11/13
11
Conclusion
Web 2.0 technologies can be powerful tools in effective learning design as they leverage
the capabilities for collaboration, participation, creation, negotiation, and co-construction of
meaning. As the technologies evolve, so too will theories of learning, even to the point where
they may come to espouse philosophies diametrically different from what is current. What will
hold true for effective design is to keep the overarching goal of the instruction at the forefront.
Supporting this with relevant theoretical and pedagogical principles, and being mindful of
learner and other contextual realities are critical for successful outcomes. However, effective
design will not guarantee that that the learning experience will be flawless. Using the knowledge
base from theoretical foundations will provide support and proven strategies that can mitigate
potential constraints. Additionally, evaluating research into arguments not supportive of Web 2.0
technologies also will provide valuable insights that ultimately can make the lesson design more
effective. Educators can move beyond simplistic technology choices based on trendiness.
Learning theory and research provide sound justification for education using the Read/Write
Web to facilitate learning outcomes.
8/2/2019 Synthesis Paper: Education via the Read/Write Web
12/13
12
References:
Bower, M., Hedberg, J. G., & Kuswara, A. (2010). A framework for Web 2.0 learning design.
Educational Media International, 47(3), 177198. doi:10.1080/09523987.2010.518811
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 3242. doi:10.2307/1176008
Cifuentes, L., Sharp, A., Bulu, S., Benz, M., & Stough, L. M. (2009). Developing a Web 2.0-
based system with user-authored content for community use and teacher education.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 377398.
doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9141-x
Guldberg, K., & Mackness, J. (2009). Foundations of communities of practice: enablers and
barriers to participation.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(6), 528538.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00327.x
Gunawardena, C., Hermans, M. B., Sanchez, D., Richmond, C., Bohley, M., & Tuttle, R. (2009).
A theoretical framework for building online communities of practice with social
networking tools.Educational Media International, 46(1), 316.
doi:10.1080/09523980802588626
8/2/2019 Synthesis Paper: Education via the Read/Write Web
13/13
13
Hung, D. (2002). Situated Cognition and Problem-Based Learning: Implications for Learning
and Instruction with Technology.Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(4), 393
414.
Matusov, E., Bell, N., & Rogoff, B. (1994). [Review of "Situated Learning: Legitimate
Peripheral Participation" by J. Lave, E. Wenger. (1994)]America Ethnologist, 21(4), pp
918-919.
Merchant, G. (2011). Unravelling the social network: theory and research. Learning, Media and
Technology, 37(1), 419. doi:10.1080/17439884.2011.567992
Seery, A. (2010). Education, the formation of self and the world of Web 2.0. London Review of
Education, 8(1), 6373. doi:10.1080/14748460903557779
Tu, C., Blocher, M., & Roberts, G. (2008). Constructs for Web 2.0 learning environments: a
theatrical metaphor.Educational Media International, 45(4), 253269.
doi:10.1080/09523980802588576