1. Web 2.0 and the school of the future, today
Neil Selwyn (2010)
Presenters
Catherine Emmerson Riccardo Rosadoni
2. Central Concept
Selwyn explains and explores the role of Web 2.0 tools in our
current and future educational system discussing the challenges,
obstacles, problems and proposed solutions.
3. Join the discussion
Go to https://www.polleverywhere.com/stjohns
and add your comments or questions during the presentation.
Can everyone please contribute at least one post.
If you prefer you can use your phone and Text 102205 and your
message to +61429883481
4. What is Web 2.0?
“Web 2.0 provides a convenient umbrella term for a host of
recent Internet tools and practices ranging from social
networking and blogging to “folksonomies” and “mash-ups” (p.
22)
“In particular the “Web 2.0” label reflects the changing nature
of contemporary online activity…” (p. 22)
5. What is Web 2.0?
“...an increased socialisation of Internet tools, applications and services.” (p. 22)
“...a “mass” Internet connectivity based around the collective actions of online user
communities rather than individual users.” (p. 22)
“...shared digital content that is authored, critiqued and reconfigured by a mass of
users - what has been described as “many-to-many” connectivity as opposed to “one-to-
many” transmission.” (p. 22)
6. Why is it of educational importance?
It has facilitated a move from consumption to production.
It has provided a location for “...“authentic” learning where knowledge is constructed
actively by learners with the support of communal social settings.” (p. 23)
It has sparked debate about Web 2.0 being intrinsically linked to “the future of
education.” (p. 23)
“...an opportunity to (re)connect with otherwise
disaffected and disengaged learners.” (p. 24)
7. Advantages of Web 2.0
“...artefacts that are positioned under the Web 2.0 label are of less importance than the
wider ideals that are seen to drive their use (Allen, 2008).” (p. 22)
Web 2.0 Internet users are “more engaged, active and a participant in the key business of
the Internet: creating, maintaining and expanding the ‘content’ which is the basis for using
the Internet in the first place (Allen, 2008).” (p. 23)
Supporting needs of the 21st Century learner through “...emphasising freedom of choice
and the empowerment of individuals through the ‘architecture of participation’ (Allen,
2008).” (p. 23)
“...education driven by the individual rather than the institution (Evans, 2009).” (p. 23)
8. Acknowledging the realities of
Web 2.0 use in the school of today
Change is difficult
“...teachers were generally cautious in adopting collaborative and communal Web 2.0
practices that many felt could challenge traditional school structures.” (p. 24)
“...use of Web 2.0. tools largely depended on the rigidity or flexibility of the school
curriculum.” (p. 24)
“...little evidence of critical enquiry or analytical awareness, few examples of collaborative
knowledge construction, and little publication or publishing outside of social networking
sites (Luckin et al, 2009).” (p. 25)
9. Acknowledging the realities of
Web 2.0 use in the school of today
“...many Web 2.0 practices do not translate easily into classroom contexts.” (p. 25)
“...the structure of contemporary schools and schooling is responsible primarily for
‘emasculating’ the potential of Web 2.0 technology (Somekh, 2007).” (p. 26)
Inhibitors sighted in the reading:
o structured hierarchical relationships
o formal systems of regulation - school curriculum is too rigid
o school buildings are architecturally unsuitable for networked wireless technology
o teachers are “too old”, incompetent or distrintested
o students lack skills
o leaders lack required direction or foresight
10. Popular solutions - Replacing the
school with Web 2.0 technologies
Is school’s out for ever?
“...school is conceived as an outmoded technology from a past industrial age that
should be dismantled.” (p. 27)
“Needs radical rethinking and reorganisation of existing structures.” (p. 28)
“...home-based Web 2.0 technologies are allowing students to learn despite (rather
than because) of their schools.” (p. 28)
“...huge potential to create new stores of knowledge to the benefit of all, innovate
more effectively, strengthen democracy and give more people the opportunity to
make the most of their creativity.” (p. 29)
11. Popular solutions - Reinventing the
school through Web 2.0 technologies
A good hard look
“...digitally aligned modes of schooling that are built around the active communal creation of
knowledge… imbued with a sense of play, expression, reflection and exploration.” (p. 29)
“...it no longer makes sense to retain ‘pre-digital’ models of curricular organisation focused on
rigidly hierarchical organisation of static content under the control of the teacher.” (p. 30)
Embrace “Curriculum 2.0.” (p. 30)
“...give students the tools, and they will be the single most important source of guidance on how
to make their schools relevant and effective places to learn.” (p. 30)
12. Towards a more reasoned response
“...most educational thinking concerning Web 2.0 reflects an implicit “technology-first”
way of thinking.” (p. 31)
“Educational term Web 2.0 represents the ‘killer app’ for bringing more desirable forms of
socio- constructivist learning to the masses and a chance to reinvent education.” (p. 34)
“...Web 2.0 technologies are being used as a vehicle through which to express a long-standing
tendency in western societies to view digital technology as a “technical fix” for
wider social problems.” (p. 32)
“...“anti-establishment” ideals that have underpinned much of the development of
information technology since the 1970s.” (p. 32)
13. Conclusion
“...there is no neat, unproblematic “Web 2.0” solution to the deficiencies of twenty-first
century education.” (p. 33)
“...at the very core of the debate are the ideological and ethical issues concerning
what schools should be about and whose interests they should serve.” (p. 34)
“...failing to consider the wider social, economic, political and cultural contexts of
the societal act of schooling.” (p. 34)
“...adopt more organic “bottom-up” approaches to the adjustment of schools and
schooling.” (p. 35)
14. Group Questions
1. What is Web 2.0 and why is it of educational
importance? (p. 22)
“... shared digital content that is authored, critiqued and reconfigured by a
mass of users - what has been described as “many-to-many” connectivity as
opposed to “one-to-many” transmission.” (p. 22)
● What makes a good Web 2.0 tool?
● Each create a P(lus)M(inus)I(nteresting) table for your
chosen Assignment 2 tool. Discuss your results.
3. Replacing the school with Web 2.0 technologies (p. 27)
“...school must be removed in order to facilitate the realisation of the
digital transformation of education.” (p. 27)
● What outcomes for students, teachers, parents and the
education system could result from replacing the school
with Web 2.0 technologies.
● Is safety a concern and how might it be assisted?
2. Acknowledging the realities of Web 2.0 use in the
school of today (p. 24)
“Social progress is driven by technological innovation.” (p. 31)
● What needs to change in our school so we can give
students the tools they need to SOAR into their futures?
● What barriers exist to the integration of Web 2.0 tools into
your classroom practise?
4. Reinventing the school through Web 2.0 technologies
(p. 29)
“...give students the tools, and they will be the single most important source of
guidance on how to make their schools relevant and effective places to learn.”
(p. 30)
● Where do you see St John’s currently residing on the
reinvention continuum? Are teachers ahead of the game?
● How can we keep driving change in order to maintain
curriculum that supports 21st Century skills?
15. Groupings
Group 1: Early adopters (1st contributors) - The ‘Replacer’ ready to replace the school with Web 2.0
Group 2: The Re-inventors (2nd contributors) - Ready for the “many to many” revolution
Group 3: The Collaborators (3rd contributors) - Analysing the relevance
Group 4: ‘User Driven’ Educators (Final contributors) - Acknowledging the reality
16. Our Take on the reading...
Technology is increasingly pervasive, resulting in greater interactivity of everything.
This brings great opportunities for sharing, learning changes how learning can be
accessed, causing debate which appears to have progressed from “should
institutionalised education change” to “how do we change”?
“We need to have open and public debate on the nature and purpose of education in
the digital age, which goes beyond safe slogans such as ‘meeting the needs of every
child.” (p. 36)
In this week’s reading:
Selwyn explains and explores the role of Web 2.0 tools in our current and future educational system discussing the challenges, obstacles, problems and proposed solutions.
A second computer and projector should be used here. We can then leave that going and displaying while we get on with the show.
We are using a Web 2.0 tool to assist engagement and interaction with this weeks reading and our presentation. Polleverywhere is a tool that I have used in the classroom and at other school events such as parent information evenings to solicit feedback and engagement and provide an opportunity for voicing opinions, concerns and questions.
I encourage your contribution to today’s discussion by going to this website and adding your comments, questions and opinions.
First of all Selwyn looks at - what is Web 2.0
1. “it provides a convenient umbrella term for a host of recent Internet tools and practices ranging from social networking and blogging to “folksonomies” and “mash-ups” (p. 22)
2. It’s a positive rebranding - Web 2.0 is a term used to describe any online destination where many users can communicate with others to collaborate, create, express and construct.
3. “In particular the “Web 2.0” label reflects the changing nature of contemporary online activity…” (p. 22)
4. For me as a Japanese teacher it has provided an opportunity for our students to be able to do things like Skype with our sister school in Japan. Giving students an authentic, social learning opportunity that was impossible in the past.
In the reading Web 2.0 is defined as ...
…ways of contributing and engaging with others.
…immersive production and feedback of online artefacts, accelerated by the collective.
...Selwyn discusses the growing importance that is being placed on the interaction between and within groups of Internet users.
For me an example of Web 2.0 is the various IT Teacher networks I tap into from SACE and Facebook- These provide relevant news, Q&A and related discussions. i select from these and post relevant links to articles and videos to class Office 365 sites and this drives discussion in the classroom.
1. Next Selwyn explores - Why it is of education importance.
2. It has facilitated a move from consumption to production.
It has provided a location for “...“authentic” learning where knowledge is constructed actively by learners with the support of communal social settings.” (p. 23)
3. The concept of many to many - instead of one to many has been a key phrase in the idea of Web 2.0.
4. It has sparked debate about Web 2.0 being intrinsically linked to “the future of education.” (p. 23)
5. Web 2.0 tools are increasingly embedded into social and business realms providing opportunities for improvements in efficiency, and effectiveness. Key 21stC skill development is therefore vital for our students to best prepare them for their future. Which has sparked debate over how Web 2.0 should be linked to educational change.
6. Other points raised include the fact that Web 2.0 technologies provide “...an opportunity to (re)connect with otherwise
disengaged learners.” (p. 24)
Web 2.0 is less about what is being produced, more about the process to produce… relationships, collaboration, creativity, empowerment - these are the drivers of engagement for our students, and are also identified 21st century skills.
A sense of shared content ownership encourages participation in ongoing discussions, developments and creations that extend beyond classroom walls.
Web 2.0 tools like Facebook or Wikipedia encourage active participation by providing instant and ongoing feedback - like real friends used to do back in the day!
Learning is no longer something that students wait to be told. They can find and engage in content and grasp the learning they desire. Knowledge is no longer something you need a degree to share. Anyone can share knowledge to a global audience.
Selwyn explains that learners gain from participatory experiences in the co-construction of online knowledge.
Next Selwyn Acknowledges the realities of Web 2.0 use in the school of today
1. “...teachers were generally cautious in adopting collaborative and communal Web 2.0 practices that many felt could challenge traditional school structures.” (p. 24)
2. It challenges orthodox notions of technological and institutional arrangements, economic structures and social relationships and the integration of Web 2.0 tools is challenging, when explicit academic standards are expected, and moderated.
3. don’t read “...use of Web 2.0. tools largely depended on the rigidity or flexibility of the school curriculum.” (p. 24)
4. Change needs to happen beyond the classroom
3. Don’t read “...little evidence of critical enquiry or analytical awareness, few examples of collaborative knowledge construction, and little publication or publishing outside of social networking sites (Luckin et al, 2009).” (p. 25)
4. In a study - students were observed to not necessarily immediately embrace any notion of collective ownership or epistemology but continued a practice where the institutionally cultivated individual ownership persisted (Lund and Smordal, 2005, p41).” (p. 25)
Education has remained largely unchanged in recent history despite significant changes in the way we socialise and work. These changes have driven the development of Web 2.0 tools that focus on and cater to socialising and working, with education left to try to apply these tools to our contexts, which is often problematic.
Concerns are raised in the reading that Web 2.0 technologies do not appear to be used to their full potential even in relatively well-resourced, “high-tech” classrooms.’ (p. 24) ‘ this is referred to as the digital disconnect’.
A number of implementation inhibitors are identified in the reading, including top-down decision making, inflexible curriculum, outdated building design, unskilled educators, unskilled students and leaders who lack a futures focus.
1. Selwyn highlights two current camps of thinking on how to embrace the use of Web 2.0 in the classroom
Replace the school with the technology or
Reinvent school
2. Firstly he looks at ‘replacing’ the school:
it’s said that “...school is conceived as an outmoded technology from a past-industrial age that should be dismantled.” (p. 27)
“Needs radical rethinking and reorganisation of existing structures.” (p. 28)
Academic literature is increasingly featuring the promotion of reasoned arguments to remove all structural impediments and challenges in order to facilitate the realisation of digital transformation of education.
The proposal relies on the fact that learning is more accessible now than it ever has been. Sites such as the School of Everything - a Web space in the UK designed to connect teachers with learners and be “an eBay for things that do not get taught in school.
It is argued to have “...huge potential to create new stores of knowledge to the benefit of all, innovate more effectively, strengthen democracy and give more people the opportunity to make the most of their creativity.” (p. 29)
don’t read - ...home-based Web 2.0 technologies are allowing students to learn despite (rather than because) of their schools.” (p. 28)
Radical rethinking and reorganisation of existing structures need to happen for this push forward.
Teachers are still cautious in adopting collaborative and communal Web2.0 practices that many felt could challenge traditional school structures - as we said it is most unchanged structure.
Selwyn is not necessarily suggesting this is the answer.
Don’t read - * The IT Manager from Immanuel College eluded to this concept of ‘replacing the school’ in a webinar last semester and I remember thinking it was a concept that seemed unreal , but the more we study about the Web 2.0 tool - technology and the skills required in the 21st century I can see how it is gaining merit and demanding a place in the educational discussions.
Reinventing schools through rather than with the technology was the second school of thought Selwyn summarised.
This requires a change in traditional practice from teacher-centred to learner-centred, with a focus on creativity and online identity formation that drives support, guides teaching practice and informs policy.
Pre-digital curriculum models no longer make sense, instead, how best can we develop Web 2.0 inspired curricula than can be negotiated rather than prescribed, driven by learner needs, and based on providing our students with skills in managing and accessing knowledge, taking responsibility for their own learning pathway and choices.
Curriculum 2.0... a term coined to exemplify the strong relationship Web 2.0 tool should have with curriculum. What Edson terms as “user-driven education” where learners are encouraged to take an active role in what they learn as well as how and when they learn it. In essence reinvention would result in a move from passive content consumption towards communal knowledge creation.
This isn’t only technology tools, but more importantly all 21st century skills like collaboration, creativity, citizenship and responsibility. Learning becomes learner centred, encourages learner participation and facilitates collaboration and creation.
1. Selwyn argues that Web 2.0 tools are not the answer to improved engagement and learning relevance.
2. “...most educational thinking concerning Web 2.0 reflects an implicit “technology-first” way of thinking.” (p. 31)
3. It has been used to make an impact for better or worse as a technical fix.
Don’t read - (4. ...Web 2.0 technologies are being used as a vehicle through which to express a long-standing tendency in western societies to view digital technology as a “technical fix” for wider social problems.” (p. 32))
5. Selwyn argues that care should be taken within educational debates to recognise the wider ideological connotations and underpinnings. The argument to abolish formal education is fed by a range of anti-school sentiment with Web 2.0 a convenient argumentative tool.
Selwyn is concerned about the proposed changes linked with the political nature of education and questions are raised about that fact that if the state is no longer responsible for the provisions for education through the school system then who will assume responsibility and create equity.
He feels that it is becoming a ‘moral enterprise set to rescue the world instead of the hopes for a more social and communal form of learning that he eluded to at the start of the article.
Any deficiencies in our education system will not be solved by some Web 2.0 app… rather, Web 2.0 is a site of intense ideological and political competition, involving many different interests that do not even necessarily serve education that well.
Educational discussion should not centre on Web 2.0 tools but rather be on what the needs of our students are and how can we best meet them.
Selwyn argues that current positions fail to realise that Web 2.0 in itself is not a solution to the changing nature of our society, and that there is more to learning than content!
He concludes that radical educational change is not the answer and that less disruptive initiatives such as introducing a degree of Web 2.0-led informality to schools’ digital practice is more likely to bridge the digital divide.
He encourages an open and public debate on what the role of education is and how we as educators can best facilitate student learning in the digital age.
Reference polleverywhere questions and comments as a lead-in to group questions.
Reference polleverywhere questions and comments.
Provide time (20mins) for groups to explore answers. During this time wander about and tap into discussions.
Seek a summary response from each group. Expand and summarise the section.
Provide an overall conclusion paraphrasing groups and tapping into their answers.
Talk about our own personal experience with Web 2.0 tools
Catherine - Hologram? Hatsune Miku is a technological tool that has been used to engage, providing a platform for interaction and collaboration for audience members. This technology exemplifies social constructionism. The social construction of reality is a dynamic process that is reproduced by people acting on their interpretations and their knowledge of it. The Hatsune phenomenon certainly poses some interesting questions about how humans will interact with technology and with others through technology in the future.
Probably 4 in each group (dependent on number of attendees)
Digital citizenship
Web 2.0 curriculum can:
negotiated rather than prescribed the curriculum
it’s driven by learners needs
it’s building skills to manage and access knowledge
It controls their own learning and pathways
Web 2.0 has provided an opportunity to talk about the education system -
And ask questions about ‘who decides’
Selwyn is concerned with who is going to make the decisions and who is responsible - politically it is challenging
Is it already changing - students having control of the their learning, finding and bringing to the teacher, access to to information means students are the instigators of their own learning where we are facilitators.