Synthesis Paper: Education via the Read/Write Web

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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


8/13

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.


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


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.


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.


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


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

Synthesis Paper: Education via the Read/Write Web

Documents

Transcript of Synthesis Paper: Education via the Read/Write Web