Research in schools suggests that there is more evidence of ‘activity than creativity’, of ‘passive interaction, such as viewing....than active interaction such as editing, uploading and creating (Clark, Logan, Mee, & Oliver, 2009, p68). Australian studies reiterate that we cannot assume that students know how to use Web 2.0 tools, and that skills must be developed in schools to ‘exploit the potential of social software for learning’ in and out of school ( Chan & McLoughlin, 2008). Clark et al (2009) advocate a ‘supportive negotiated response through which the institution guides the learner towards a more critical, reflective appropriation of these technologies’ rather than the reactionary ‘school designated boundary structures’ which see the internet as legitimate for ‘productivity and research’, but not as a set of ‘collaborative and communicative tools’. Such a response is absolutely necessary as there is strong evidence of ‘learners’ routine and frequent circumvention of those [school designated boundary] structures’ along side students under utilisation of all Web 2.0 offers. An effective pedagogic response needs to replace school-mediated regulation of technology use (Clark,Logan, Mee, & Oliver, 2009, p68). Becta, the UK government agency charged with overseeing educational technology policy and practice, commissioned the University of Nottingham Learning Sciences Research Institute to find out in what ways and to what extent young people are using Web2.0. They also sought to find out just how far the use of Web 2.0 was moving into education and how far it might be able to in the future. The aim of the research was to help provide recommendations as to the future role of Web 2.0 in the education sector. The research was oriented towards children in Key Stages 3 and 4 (U.K.) (i.e., aged 11-16) of the curriculum and took place between September 2007 and July 2008. The work was based upon a literature review of research in the area of Web 2.0 in schools and includes a summary of Web2.0 projects offered to the research as being in progress within schools. (:http://www.lsri.nottingham.ac.uk/web2.0/)
The findings suggested that
At Key Stages 3 and 4, learners' use of Web 2.0 and related internet activities is extensive. Despite most learners being confident or even prolific users of Web 2.0 sites, use is not generally sophisticated. Broadly speaking, learners may be characterised as consumers rather than producers of internet content
Of the 2,600 learners surveyed across 27 schools, 74% have social networking accounts and 78% have uploaded artifacts (mostly photographs or video clips from phones) to the internet. However, nearly all Web 2.0 use is currently outside school, and for social purposes
Manylearners lack technical skills, and lack an awareness of the range of technologies and of when and how they could be used, as well as the digital literacy and critical skills to navigate this space.
‘Digital dissonance’ is a term coined (Clark, Logan, Mee, & Oliver, 2009, p56) to describe the ‘tension with respect to learners’ appropriation of Web 2.0 technologies in formal contexts’. There is a boundary, not under the control of learners, established between school and home in the use of digital technologies, which often leads to the ‘proscription’ of certain technologies learners might otherwise like to use in their learning. This ‘dissonance’ may well be a contributing factor towards the types of findings about learners’ ability to use technology outlined in the Becta report above. These findings characterise the use of technology Web 2.0 by users 11-16 years of age as ‘confident’ and ‘prolific’, but not ‘sophisticated’ and they are ‘users’ rather than ‘producers’. This is where education has an important role to play. Education in Web 2.0 is not just about teaching the computing skills but about teaching about possibilities, practicalities and discernment. (http://jcal.info/web2/ataglance.html ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebrvqy2gQpA&feature=player_embedded) The use of Web 2.0 in education is limited only by imagination, utility, and the ability to protect young learners in these open spaces. There may be much that they do not know about Web2.0 that we have both an educational and moral obligation to teach them. ‘While there has been considerable focus on cyber bullying, and a number of educational programs directed at school students regarding cyber bullying, there are no similar projects which focus on legal issues such as privacy, intellectual property, copyright and disclosure’ (Henderson, de Zwart, Lindsay & Phillips 2010, in Webster 2011,p12).
There are many and varied resources for teachers to browse, and to familiarise themselves with, on the internet and in print. Resources for employing Web 2.0 in the classroom, and in many subject areas, and also resources which discuss the pitfalls of online learning and how to make the best effort to avoid them. Web 2.0 websites have several key features that set them apart from things that the web has traditionally been used for http://jcal.info/web2/overview.html . There are new internet tools, websites have been designed to be used in new ways, there is now the availability of easy social networking, and these changes have encouraged the use and development of new kinds of literacies. The internet browser is now the single tool for all applications. In the past, the internet user would have been required to download or purchase and install all kinds of software in order to, for example, watch a movie, or listen to music. Further more, in Web 2.0 users can upload and share there own video and music and even access the tools to compose them (http://jcal.info/web2/technology.html). People can also write into existing web pages that are published online (http://jcal.info/web2/design.html). Social networking is not restricted to Facebook and the like, for forming friendships, but is also for professional networking and the formation of interest groups. Social networking sites have great utility in finding networks for information sharing, and for learning, that would otherwise be hidden from view (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a_KF7TYKVc&feature=player_embedded). (See http: commoncraft.com for other simple and useful videos on Web 2.0). ‘In a medium like the internet we seem to require new forms of fluency, new sensitivities to the expression of meanings. In a sense these are "new literacies"’ (Crook, 2008) (http://jcal.info/web2/literacies.html). Print is not redundant; it is simply not the only means of publishing. The internet, in particular Web 2.0 is having an enormous and irreversible impact on the publishers of media around the world. Whether in print, or other forms of media, control of access is increasingly being invested in the hands of the consumers; (who are frequently ‘providers’ themselves). The ‘long tail’ theory speaks to the huge range of materials of all kinds now available to learners, unrestricted by marketing industries who have previously dominated and therefore to some degree dictated distribution of available resources. For more information see: The ‘long tail’ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xAA71Ssids&feature=player_embedded#at=26
It is important to understand Web 2.0 as a concept which ‘stresses the importance of giving power to the end user’ (Norton & Hathaway, 2008, p.165). It is also a set of tools (Norton &Hathaway, ibid.). How are we to set criteria for choosing amongst the options in the vast array of tools available? Norton and Hathaway (2008) suggest a starting point for teachers in schools. They asked: What could be accomplished in a semester’s time frame? What could students successfully accomplish considering their current level of sophistication? What Web 2.0 tools were technologically feasible in the particular teaching context? Which tools were available at little or no cost? What might be developmentally and practically appropriate for the body of learners? (Norton & Hathaway, 2008, p.166). While always seeking to extend their students’ competency and experience, teachers are ever constrained by time considerations, affordability and access. All teachers will aspire to expand their repertoires, but Norton and Halliday (2008) suggest three main tools as a beginning: blogs, wikis and podcasts. The sub-headings they use in their article to discuss the ‘affordances’ of these tools are illustrative of the progression students can explore through the use of these three particular types of media. ‘The All About Me Web 2.0 (Blogs)’, ‘The All About Us Web 2.0 (Wikis), and ‘The Broadcasting and Sharing Web 2.0 (Podcasts).
Sanden and Darragh (2011) put together guidelines for selecting Web 2.0 resources and designing projects from the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE 2008) Position Statement, with the work of Lankshear and Nobel (2006, cited in Sanden &Darragh, 2011) and Cummins, Brown & Sayers, ( 2007, cited in Sanden &Darragh, 2011) to build their own framework ‘by which to assess the incorporation of technologies in classrooms as a means to build students’ new literacies’ (Sanden & Darragh 2011, p6). After reviewing prior research, Sanden and Darragh (2011) propose six ‘core questions’ (Sanden & Darragh op.cit, p.8). These questions ask in what ways the technology under consideration: 1) Advances students’ social, emotional, and identity development by giving students agency, ownership, and/or personal voice? 2) Provides opportunities for collaborating and sharing information in local and/or global settings? 3) Promotes critical literacy opportunities such as evaluating content and considering different points of view? 4) Allows for the processing, managing, analysing, and synthesising of multiple streams of information? 5) Aids in developing literacy strategies for managing different types of text in a variety of contexts? 6) Values and utilises students’ cultures, experiences, and funds of knowledge?
Sanden and Darragh apply their proposed evaluation tool to Wikis, by way of illustration of the utility of their framework (2011, pp9-17). They conclude that wikis ‘epitomize the potential for new technologies to create an environment in which learning is a collaborative journey’ (Sanden & Darragh 2011, p.18). They advocate less focus on ‘enlarging content knowledge’ by educators and greater focus on ‘involving students in the process of their own knowledge growth’ (Sanden & Darragh ibid.). What is required is more than ‘encouragement’. There is the presumption that given the right ‘environment’ all students will be eager to take up the opportunities afforded by the new technology. Teachers may need to be a very present ‘guide on the side’. New pedagogy will need to demand greater participation in collaborative learning. Despite its potential, Web 2.0 is not automatically the great liberator some of its proponents imagine. Teachers know that they still deal with, to some extent at least, a ‘reluctant clientele’. Web 2.0 tools and the concept of a truly collaborative environment promise such possibilities, but these possibilities still need to be accepted and employed. The ‘leading a horse to water’ truism was relevant to chalk and print and is still relevant with electronic resources. Teachers and their expertise will remain central as long as students are still in process in terms of taking responsibility for their own learning.
Wikis: (Hawaiian for ‘fast’, or an acronym for ‘what I know’ depending on the source). The most famous wiki is Wikipedia which is rivaling the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. Entries are inserted by anyone with access to the wiki and vetted by readers, often in as short a time-span as five minutes. Any number of pages can be added and can be interlinked, and can be edited by all users at any time (Dudeney, 2007, p.127).
Podcasts were originally created, in 2004, by Adam Curry who developed iPodder, and were then developed, in collaboration with Dave Winer, the creator of RSS feeds, to design a means of ‘sending audio files through RSS instead of text’ ( Brown & Green 2008, p.4). Video podcasting or “vodcasting” refers to podcasts that contain visual information either in the form of still images, animation, or video. ‘Vodcasting does not require special server distribution software the way Internet broadcasting does (SCVI.NET, 2006 cited in Brown & Green 2008). This means vodcasting may be useful as both a means to communicate content (Descy, 2005; Ellis & Cohen, 2001; Touvinen, 2000 in Brown & Green 2008) and as a means of amateur and/or student media production’ (Anderson, 2005, in Brown & Green 2008). Brown and Green’s (2008) article discusses vodcasts, primarily, as a means of instructor based content distribution. They discuss some of the advantages, as well as the disadvantages, the most striking of which are the degree of knowledge required despite the ‘advertising’ to the contrary, and the time taken to produce the vodcast itself even without content (Brown & Green 2008, pp.13-14). The article was written three years ago, and technology develops quickly, but students in a recent high school project in 2011 still found the process ‘hard’ ( see the podcast below for material contributed by one of the students). Teachers will be time and skill challenged however strong their own motivation to employ podcasting in their teaching.
The student experience of creating a Podcast:
'When we had to put a podcast together for our English rich task, there were many steps we had to carry out. We had to gather information on the topic we had chosen, and then we had to do things like write multiple scripts and story boards using a program called Celtx, then we had to proof read them and make alot of improvements. After that we had to record our own voices using another program called GarageBand, by reading out our scripts. Then, after that we had to put all our information, photos and voice recordings into iMovie. The tricky thing with putting all of it into iMovie was getting the voice recording to match up with our photos. We had to share it to iTunes so the teachers could put it on their hard drive to show on the presentation evening. All the teachers were a great help if we got stuck, because they knew what they were doing. The whole thing was very frustrating, because technology can be unreliable. It was extremely difficult, but I could do it again.' (Qaris Webster, Year 8).
The result of a Podcast learning experience in Year 8 at a Victorian Girls' Secondary College, in Inquiry Based Learning, (Qaris Webster, Year 8).
A lot of classroom attempts to ‘podcast’ will require time to be allowed for trial and error. Apple’s GarageBand software has been used successfully, along with iTunes and QuickTime applications, in a recent high school project familiar to this author ().
Web 2.0, as well as being a concept and a set of tools, is also a learning academy of sorts. Web 2.0 teaches participants how to use Web 2.0. What is required, we are to believe, is time and application. I propose that there is no substitute for human interaction, whether collaborative learning, or, where required, instruction. Time, motivation and application, are important for learning, along with time away from the machine to absorb, consider, and engage with others, in person, and with the much sought after ‘higher order thinking’ before returning to the new tools.
References.
Brown, A. & Green, T.D. (2007-2008) Video podcasting in perspective: the history, technology, aesthetics, and instructional uses of a new medium, Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35, 1, pp.3-17.
Chan, A. & McLoughlin, C. (2008). Where are we up to? A preliminary study of the usage of Web 2.0 tools in a regional high school. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of Educational Technology? Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/chan.pdf
Clark, W., Logan, K., Mee, A. & Oliver, M. (2009). Beyond Web 2.0: mapping the technology landscapes of young learners, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning25, 1, pp. 56-69.
Dudeney, G. (2007). The internet and the language classroom (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press.
Dudeney, G. & Hockly, N. (2007). How to teach English with technology, Pearson Longman,England.
Erben, T., Ban, R. & Castaneda, M., (2009). Teaching English language learners through technology.Routledge,London.
http://www.go2web20.net/Find all online tools and applications on one page, get a short description, compare, read reviews, see what people are saying about each one on the web.
Norton, P. & Hathaway, D. (2008). On Its Way to K-12 Classrooms, Web 2.0 Goes to Graduate School,Computers in the Schools, 25,3 & 4, pp. 163 – 180
Sanden, S. & Darragh, J. (2011). Wiki use in the 21st century literacy classroom: A framework for evaluation,Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11, 1. 6-20. Wesch, M. The Machine is Us/ing Us (Video) Michael Wesch is an Assistant Professor of Cultural Anthropology atKansasStateUniversity
Webster, D.M. (2011) Position Paper for EXE 734//, submitted for assessment April 2011.
Web 2.0 in Secondary Schools (D.Webster, Student No.: 210638102).
Food for Thought for Educators and Parents
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebrvqy2gQpA&feature=player_embedded )
Research in schools suggests that there is more evidence of ‘activity than creativity’, of ‘passive interaction, such as viewing....than active interaction such as editing, uploading and creating (Clark, Logan, Mee, & Oliver, 2009, p68). Australian studies reiterate that we cannot assume that students know how to use Web 2.0 tools, and that skills must be developed in schools to ‘exploit the potential of social software for learning’ in and out of school ( Chan & McLoughlin, 2008). Clark et al (2009) advocate a ‘supportive negotiated response through which the institution guides the learner towards a more critical, reflective appropriation of these technologies’ rather than the reactionary ‘school designated boundary structures’ which see the internet as legitimate for ‘productivity and research’, but not as a set of ‘collaborative and communicative tools’. Such a response is absolutely necessary as there is strong evidence of ‘learners’ routine and frequent circumvention of those [school designated boundary] structures’ along side students under utilisation of all Web 2.0 offers. An effective pedagogic response needs to replace school-mediated regulation of technology use (Clark,Logan, Mee, & Oliver, 2009, p68).
Becta, the UK government agency charged with overseeing educational technology policy and practice, commissioned the University of Nottingham Learning Sciences Research Institute to find out in what ways and to what extent young people are using Web2.0. They also sought to find out just how far the use of Web 2.0 was moving into education and how far it might be able to in the future. The aim of the research was to help provide recommendations as to the future role of Web 2.0 in the education sector. The research was oriented towards children in Key Stages 3 and 4 (U.K.) (i.e., aged 11-16) of the curriculum and took place between September 2007 and July 2008. The work was based upon a literature review of research in the area of Web 2.0 in schools and includes a summary of Web2.0 projects offered to the research as being in progress within schools. (:http://www.lsri.nottingham.ac.uk/web2.0/)
The findings suggested that
- At Key Stages 3 and 4, learners' use of Web 2.0 and related internet activities is extensive. Despite most learners being confident or even prolific users of Web 2.0 sites, use is not generally sophisticated. Broadly speaking, learners may be characterised as consumers rather than producers of internet content
- Of the 2,600 learners surveyed across 27 schools, 74% have social networking accounts and 78% have uploaded artifacts (mostly photographs or video clips from phones) to the internet. However, nearly all Web 2.0 use is currently outside school, and for social purposes
- Many learners lack technical skills, and lack an awareness of the range of technologies and of when and how they could be used, as well as the digital literacy and critical skills to navigate this space.
( http://www.lkl.ac.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=421&Itemid=94)‘Digital dissonance’ is a term coined (Clark, Logan, Mee, & Oliver, 2009, p56) to describe the ‘tension with respect to learners’ appropriation of Web 2.0 technologies in formal contexts’. There is a boundary, not under the control of learners, established between school and home in the use of digital technologies, which often leads to the ‘proscription’ of certain technologies learners might otherwise like to use in their learning. This ‘dissonance’ may well be a contributing factor towards the types of findings about learners’ ability to use technology outlined in the Becta report above. These findings characterise the use of technology Web 2.0 by users 11-16 years of age as ‘confident’ and ‘prolific’, but not ‘sophisticated’ and they are ‘users’ rather than ‘producers’. This is where education has an important role to play. Education in Web 2.0 is not just about teaching the computing skills but about teaching about possibilities, practicalities and discernment. (http://jcal.info/web2/ataglance.html ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebrvqy2gQpA&feature=player_embedded) The use of Web 2.0 in education is limited only by imagination, utility, and the ability to protect young learners in these open spaces. There may be much that they do not know about Web2.0 that we have both an educational and moral obligation to teach them. ‘While there has been considerable focus on cyber bullying, and a number of educational programs directed at school students regarding cyber bullying, there are no similar projects which focus on legal issues such as privacy, intellectual property, copyright and disclosure’ (Henderson, de Zwart, Lindsay & Phillips 2010, in Webster 2011,p12).
There are many and varied resources for teachers to browse, and to familiarise themselves with, on the internet and in print. Resources for employing Web 2.0 in the classroom, and in many subject areas, and also resources which discuss the pitfalls of online learning and how to make the best effort to avoid them.
Web 2.0 websites have several key features that set them apart from things that the web has traditionally been used for http://jcal.info/web2/overview.html . There are new internet tools, websites have been designed to be used in new ways, there is now the availability of easy social networking, and these changes have encouraged the use and development of new kinds of literacies. The internet browser is now the single tool for all applications. In the past, the internet user would have been required to download or purchase and install all kinds of software in order to, for example, watch a movie, or listen to music. Further more, in Web 2.0 users can upload and share there own video and music and even access the tools to compose them (http://jcal.info/web2/technology.html). People can also write into existing web pages that are published online (http://jcal.info/web2/design.html). Social networking is not restricted to Facebook and the like, for forming friendships, but is also for professional networking and the formation of interest groups. Social networking sites have great utility in finding networks for information sharing, and for learning, that would otherwise be hidden from view (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a_KF7TYKVc&feature=player_embedded). (See http: commoncraft.com for other simple and useful videos on Web 2.0). ‘In a medium like the internet we seem to require new forms of fluency, new sensitivities to the expression of meanings. In a sense these are "new literacies"’ (Crook, 2008) (http://jcal.info/web2/literacies.html). Print is not redundant; it is simply not the only means of publishing.
The internet, in particular Web 2.0 is having an enormous and irreversible impact on the publishers of media around the world. Whether in print, or other forms of media, control of access is increasingly being invested in the hands of the consumers; (who are frequently ‘providers’ themselves). The ‘long tail’ theory speaks to the huge range of materials of all kinds now available to learners, unrestricted by marketing industries who have previously dominated and therefore to some degree dictated distribution of available resources. For more information see:
The ‘long tail’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xAA71Ssids&feature=player_embedded#at=26
The theory of the ‘long tail’: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yku0GTrcuw&NR=1&feature=fvwp
The ‘long tail’ and how to use it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUJ4_w1K60Y&feature=related
It is important to understand Web 2.0 as a concept which ‘stresses the importance of giving power to the end user’ (Norton & Hathaway, 2008, p.165). It is also a set of tools (Norton &Hathaway, ibid.).
How are we to set criteria for choosing amongst the options in the vast array of tools available? Norton and Hathaway (2008) suggest a starting point for teachers in schools. They asked: What could be accomplished in a semester’s time frame? What could students successfully accomplish considering their current level of sophistication? What Web 2.0 tools were technologically feasible in the particular teaching context? Which tools were available at little or no cost? What might be developmentally and practically appropriate for the body of learners? (Norton & Hathaway, 2008, p.166). While always seeking to extend their students’ competency and experience, teachers are ever constrained by time considerations, affordability and access. All teachers will aspire to expand their repertoires, but Norton and Halliday (2008) suggest three main tools as a beginning: blogs, wikis and podcasts. The sub-headings they use in their article to discuss the ‘affordances’ of these tools are illustrative of the progression students can explore through the use of these three particular types of media. ‘The All About Me Web 2.0 (Blogs)’, ‘The All About Us Web 2.0 (Wikis), and ‘The Broadcasting and Sharing Web 2.0 (Podcasts).
Sanden and Darragh (2011) put together guidelines for selecting Web 2.0 resources and designing projects from the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE 2008) Position Statement, with the work of Lankshear and Nobel (2006, cited in Sanden &Darragh, 2011) and Cummins, Brown & Sayers, ( 2007, cited in Sanden &Darragh, 2011) to build their own framework ‘by which to assess the incorporation of technologies in classrooms as a means to build students’ new literacies’ (Sanden & Darragh 2011, p6). After reviewing prior research, Sanden and Darragh (2011) propose six ‘core questions’ (Sanden & Darragh op.cit, p.8). These questions ask in what ways the technology under consideration:
1) Advances students’ social, emotional, and identity development by giving students agency, ownership, and/or personal voice?
2) Provides opportunities for collaborating and sharing information in local and/or global settings?
3) Promotes critical literacy opportunities such as evaluating content and considering different points of view?
4) Allows for the processing, managing, analysing, and synthesising of multiple streams of information?
5) Aids in developing literacy strategies for managing different types of text in a variety of contexts?
6) Values and utilises students’ cultures, experiences, and funds of knowledge?
Sanden and Darragh apply their proposed evaluation tool to Wikis, by way of illustration of the utility of their framework (2011, pp9-17). They conclude that wikis ‘epitomize the potential for new technologies to create an environment in which learning is a collaborative journey’ (Sanden & Darragh 2011, p.18). They advocate less focus on ‘enlarging content knowledge’ by educators and greater focus on ‘involving students in the process of their own knowledge growth’ (Sanden & Darragh ibid.). What is required is more than ‘encouragement’. There is the presumption that given the right ‘environment’ all students will be eager to take up the opportunities afforded by the new technology. Teachers may need to be a very present ‘guide on the side’. New pedagogy will need to demand greater participation in collaborative learning. Despite its potential, Web 2.0 is not automatically the great liberator some of its proponents imagine. Teachers know that they still deal with, to some extent at least, a ‘reluctant clientele’. Web 2.0 tools and the concept of a truly collaborative environment promise such possibilities, but these possibilities still need to be accepted and employed. The ‘leading a horse to water’ truism was relevant to chalk and print and is still relevant with electronic resources. Teachers and their expertise will remain central as long as students are still in process in terms of taking responsibility for their own learning.
Blogs
Graham Stanley, (Dudeney, 2007, p.126) describes three types of blogs in school contexts: teacher blog, (informational), class blog, (teacher learner collaboration), and learner blog, (for the individual student). Website for Graham Stanley :(http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/resources/blogging.shtml). The easiest place to set up a blog is probably Blogger (http://www.blogger.com) .
More sites for blogging in EFL teaching is available at: http://blog-efl.blogspot.com/;http://webpages.csus.edu/~hansonsm/Blogging.html ; http://dekita.org/articles/classroom-blogging-two-fundamental-approaches; http://writing.berkley.edu/tesl-ej/ej35/m1.html;http://www.grahamstanley.com/weblogs/ (Dudeney, 2007,pp.126-127).
Wikis: (Hawaiian for ‘fast’, or an acronym for ‘what I know’ depending on the source). The most famous wiki is Wikipedia which is rivaling the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. Entries are inserted by anyone with access to the wiki and vetted by readers, often in as short a time-span as five minutes. Any number of pages can be added and can be interlinked, and can be edited by all users at any time (Dudeney, 2007, p.127).
Free wikis are available at ‘Wikispaces’ at http://www.wikispaces.com/.
Further information relevant to EFL is at
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl ; http://careo.elearning.ubc.ca/wiki?WikiLand ;http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec700/wiki/
How to create a wiki in five minutes:
http://iteachworkshop.pbworks.com/f/PBwiki_Howto.pdf
How to create an education wiki:
http://members.tripod.com/sjbrooks_young/edwikicue.doc
Podcasts:
A free podcast site like podOmatic can be used (www.podomatic.com)
Podcasts were originally created, in 2004, by Adam Curry who developed iPodder, and were then developed, in collaboration with Dave Winer, the creator of RSS feeds, to design a means of ‘sending audio files through RSS instead of text’ ( Brown & Green 2008, p.4). Video podcasting or “vodcasting” refers to podcasts that contain visual information either in the form of still images, animation, or video. ‘Vodcasting does not require special server distribution software the way Internet broadcasting does (SCVI.NET, 2006 cited in Brown & Green 2008). This means vodcasting may be useful as both a means to communicate content (Descy, 2005; Ellis & Cohen, 2001; Touvinen, 2000 in Brown & Green 2008) and as a means of amateur and/or student media production’ (Anderson, 2005, in Brown & Green 2008).
Brown and Green’s (2008) article discusses vodcasts, primarily, as a means of instructor based content distribution. They discuss some of the advantages, as well as the disadvantages, the most striking of which are the degree of knowledge required despite the ‘advertising’ to the contrary, and the time taken to produce the vodcast itself even without content (Brown & Green 2008, pp.13-14). The article was written three years ago, and technology develops quickly, but students in a recent high school project in 2011 still found the process ‘hard’ ( see the podcast below for material contributed by one of the students).
Teachers will be time and skill challenged however strong their own motivation to employ podcasting in their teaching.
The student experience of creating a Podcast:
'When we had to put a podcast together for our English rich task, there were many steps we had to carry out. We had to gather information on the topic we had chosen, and then we had to do things like write multiple scripts and story boards using a program called Celtx, then we had to proof read them and make alot of improvements. After that we had to record our own voices using another program called GarageBand, by reading out our scripts. Then, after that we had to put all our information, photos and voice recordings into iMovie. The tricky thing with putting all of it into iMovie was getting the voice recording to match up with our photos. We had to share it to iTunes so the teachers could put it on their hard drive to show on the presentation evening. All the teachers were a great help if we got stuck, because they knew what they were doing.
The whole thing was very frustrating, because technology can be unreliable. It was extremely difficult, but I could do it again.'
(Qaris Webster, Year 8).
The result of a Podcast learning experience in Year 8 at a Victorian Girls' Secondary College, in Inquiry Based Learning, (Qaris Webster, Year 8).
A lot of classroom attempts to ‘podcast’ will require time to be allowed for trial and error. Apple’s GarageBand software has been used successfully, along with iTunes and QuickTime applications, in a recent high school project familiar to this author ().
Web 2.0, as well as being a concept and a set of tools, is also a learning academy of sorts. Web 2.0 teaches participants how to use Web 2.0. What is required, we are to believe, is time and application. I propose that there is no substitute for human interaction, whether collaborative learning, or, where required, instruction. Time, motivation and application, are important for learning, along with time away from the machine to absorb, consider, and engage with others, in person, and with the much sought after ‘higher order thinking’ before returning to the new tools.
References.
Brown, A. & Green, T.D. (2007-2008) Video podcasting in perspective: the history, technology, aesthetics, and instructional uses of a new medium, Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 35, 1, pp.3-17.
Chan, A. & McLoughlin, C. (2008). Where are we up to? A preliminary study of the usage of Web 2.0 tools in a regional high school. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of Educational Technology? Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/chan.pdf
Clark, W., Logan, K., Mee, A. & Oliver, M. (2009). Beyond Web 2.0: mapping the technology landscapes of young learners, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 25, 1, pp. 56-69.
Dudeney, G. (2007). The internet and the language classroom (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press.
Dudeney, G. & Hockly, N. (2007). How to teach English with technology, Pearson Longman,England.
Erben, T., Ban, R. & Castaneda, M., (2009). Teaching English language learners through technology.Routledge,London.
http://www.go2web20.net/ Find all online tools and applications on one page, get a short description, compare, read reviews, see what people are saying about each one on the web.
http://web.me.com/technologytoolkit/TT/About_Technology_Toolkit_website_files/Technology%20Toolkit.pdfTechnology Toolkit: An introduction to Web 2.0 by Gary Bass & John Pearce ISBN: 978 0 17 013665 5. Pages: 200. June 2008
http://www.edna.edu.au/edna/go/schooled/school_theme_pages/blogs Free on-line network for educators, Australian site.
http://jcal.info/web2/ Learning Sciences Research Institute, University of Nottingham U.K. Web 2.0 project: http://www.lsri.nottingham.ac.uk/web2.0/ Becta project.
http://www.lkl.ac.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=421&Itemid=94 Results of the Becta research at the University of Nottingham at: http://www.lsri.nottingham.ac.uk/web2.0/ andhttp://jcal.info/web2/
Norton, P. & Hathaway, D. (2008). On Its Way to K-12 Classrooms, Web 2.0 Goes to Graduate School,Computers in the Schools, 25, 3 & 4, pp. 163 – 180
Sanden, S. & Darragh, J. (2011). Wiki use in the 21st century literacy classroom: A framework for evaluation,Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11, 1. 6-20.
Wesch, M. The Machine is Us/ing Us (Video) Michael Wesch is an Assistant Professor of Cultural Anthropology atKansasStateUniversity
Webster, D.M. (2011) Position Paper for EXE 734//, submitted for assessment April 2011.