Understanding the pedagogy Web 2.0 supports: The presentation of a - - PDF document

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228853519

Understanding the pedagogy Web 2.0 supports: The presentation of a Web 2.0 pedagogical model

Article · October 2011

DOI: 10.1109/NWeSP.2011.6088231

CITATIONS

14

READS

818

10 authors, including: Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Web2.0 View project Designing and Validating a Methodology for Shared Decision-making Between Patients and Healthcare Professionals View project Gavin Baxter University of the West of Scotland

49 PUBLICATIONS 251 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Thomas Connolly University of the West of Scotland

195 PUBLICATIONS 6,001 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Nikolina Tsvetkova Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski"

34 PUBLICATIONS 99 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Bistra Stoimenova Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski"

13 PUBLICATIONS 66 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas Connolly on 22 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Understanding the Pedagogy Web 2.0 Supports: The Presentation of a Web 2.0 Pedagogical Model

Gavin J Baxter, Thomas M Connolly, Mark H Stansfield, Carole Gould

School of Computing University of the West of Scotland Paisley, Scotland {thomas.connolly, gavin.baxter, mark.stansfield, carole.gould}@uws.ac.uk

Nikolina Tsvetkova

Faculty of Philosophy,

Rumyana Kusheva, Bistra Stoimenova, Rositsa Penkova, Mirena Legurska, Neli Dimitrova

Department of Information and In-service Training of Teachers Sofia University “St Kliment Ohridski” Sofia, Bulgaria nina.tsvetkova@gmail.com, {kushevi_r, bstoimenova, r.penkova, legurska_mirena}@abv.bg, neli_di@gbg.bg

Abstract—This paper explores the concept of Web 2.0 and provides an overview of three types of Web 2.0 tools currently used in education today, namely, wikis, blogs and online

• forums. The paper also presents the results of a systematic

literature review on Web 2.0 in education, the findings of which revealed a lack of Web 2.0 pedagogical models in the

• literature. This paper makes a contribution to knowledge in

the area of Web 2.0 use in education by presenting a Web 2.0 pedagogical model to inform educators of how to apply the learning theories associated with Web 2.0 in the classroom. In addition, the paper presents the findings of a teacher training course based on the Web 2.0 pedagogical model taught through the use of an integrated Web 2.0 platform that was carried out as part of a large-scale evaluation of Web2.0 across Europe. Keywords: Web 2.0; Wikis; Blogs; Online Forums; Teacher Training; Web 2.0 Pedagogical Model.

• I. INTRODUCTION

Web 2.0 is a term that appears to have strong associations within the educational sector. The phrase Web 2.0 often relates to how the application of certain Web 2.0 tools such as wikis, blogs and online forums can enhance the learning experience of students in the classroom. However, the use of Web 2.0 in the classroom is also changing the way in which teachers deliver their lessons and how they fulfill the learning expectations of students. It is important that educators adopting the use of Web 2.0 understand the pedagogy of Web 2.0 prior to introducing a Web 2.0 tool into the classroom. In doing so, educators can ensure that the Web 2.0 application they are using will help them achieve the desired learning outcomes of their courses. However, the literature surrounding Web 2.0 in the classroom seems to be lacking evidence of the success or otherwise of different underlying pedagogical models and how these pedagogies can be applied to facilitate the intended learning outcomes of a course. The outline of this paper is as follows. The concept of Web 2.0 is examined to provide clarity about what the term means in an educational context. The changing role of the teacher is briefly discussed to demonstrate how Web 2.0 use is transforming how learning occurs in the classroom. Three examples of Web 2.0 tools, namely, wikis, blogs and online forums are also reviewed to indicate what their pedagogical benefits are for both educators and students. The results of a systematic literature review on Web 2.0 in education are also discussed, the findings of which revealed a lack of Web 2.0 pedagogical models in the literature. A Web 2.0 pedagogical model is presented to assist educators in gaining a greater understanding on how to apply the learning theories associated with Web 2.0 in the classroom. The findings from use of the model in a teacher training course are then

• presented. A supporting framework is discussed in Baxter,

Connolly, Stansfield, Tsvetkova and Stoimenova [1] and an evaluation of a large-scale pilot of the use of Web2.0 in education that uses this pedagogy in Connolly et al. [2].

• II. THE CONCEPT OF WEB 2.0

Web 2.0 is an expression that has different meanings to different individuals. One possible reason for this is that people’s perceptions of Web 2.0 are based on how they use it

• r their opinions of the concept are formed from how it has

been applied throughout their daily lives. For example, individuals could have different experiences of having used Web 2.0 in the classroom, or as part of an online community

• r in the context of organizational learning when engaged in

training and personal development courses at work. However, several definitions of Web 2.0 have been proposed in the literature. For example, according to Aharony [3: 227] the concept of Web 2.0 “…emphasizes the value of user-generated content. It is about sharing and about communication and it opens the long tail which allows small groups of individuals to benefit from key pieces of the platform while fulfilling their own needs”. This definition suggests that Web 2.0 is associated with notion of openness and transparency in terms of how individuals share information among one another when engaged in using a platform that supports the use of Web 2.0 tools. In contrast,

Boateng, Mbarika and Thomas’ [4: 17] definition of Web 2.0 accentuates the point that Web 2.0 is a term that has connotations with collaboration and interaction for the purposes of knowledge sharing: “Web 2.0 facilitates knowledge creation and sharing by involving, engaging and empowering people, and by creating a collaborative environment for social interaction between those who need to seek knowledge and those who hold the knowledge”. The characteristics of collaboration and social interaction provided in Boateng, Mbarika and Thomas’ definition are also supported by McGee and Begg’s description of Web 2.0 [5: 164], who argue that: ‘‘Web 2.0’’ describes a collection

• f web-based technologies which share a user-focused

approach to design and functionality, where users actively participate in content creation and editing through open collaboration between members of communities of practice”. From the various definitions of Web 2.0 cited, several keywords feature in those definitions that include communication, sharing and collaboration. The phrase Web 2.0 is used to refer to a collection of tools and applications that are not focused on imparting information (or at least this is not their main or only feature) but the collaborative creation of content. Web 2.0 most often is said to include social networking platforms, wikis, blogs, and tagging tools.

• Fig. 1 illustrates some of the key terms and words most

commonly associated with Web 2.0.

• III. WEB 2.0 AND THE CHANGING APPROACH TO LEARNING

Web 2.0 and its application in the classroom are altering the approach that educators use when teaching their lessons in the classroom. An important pedagogical shift that is

• ccurring with the introduction of Web 2.0 in education is

that students now have a greater degree of independence in how they learn and also when they learn. For example, through the use of Web 2.0 tools such as a wiki or blog, learning can occur beyond the walls of the classroom with students being able to learn at their own convenience and during their own time. The role of the teachers in the context

• f Web 2.0 is still an important one as they must be seen to

be supporting the use of the Web 2.0 tools, co-coordinating the learning through their use when required and must provide continuous feedback to students in terms of their engagement with Web 2.0. In contrast, the use of Web 2.0 in the classroom provides students with the opportunity to take control and self-direct their learning where the teacher adopts the role of facilitator.

Collaboration

Community-Driven CoP Participation Social Interaction Information Sharing Openness Human Approach Content User-Driven Empowerment

Figure 1. Key terms commonly associated with Web 2.0

• IV. EXAMPLES OF WEB 2.0 TOOLS USED IN THE

CLASSROOM

• A. Wikis

Wikis are Web 2.0 tools that are commonly used to support group work in educational contexts. Several definitions of wikis exist in the academic literature. A comprehensive definition of a wiki is given by Wheeler, Yeomans and Wheeler [6] who provide a technical account

• f a wiki in terms of its features: “Wiki pages can be used by

all to publish new content direct to the Web, including text, images, and hyperlinks; to edit existing content; and also, because the wiki is fluid and open to all, to ‘roll back’ if necessary to previous versions through a ‘page history’ utility”. Wikis are associated with generating content that students can collectively contribute to and learn from. In addition, the fact that wikis support the incorporation of hyperlinks and various multimedia features such as images and graphics in their pages provides students with additional scope to create interesting and dynamic wiki pages when engaged in project work. Wikis are also useful for storing content in a central knowledge repository where students can locate shared knowledge through a ‘view history’ feature.

• B. Blogs

Herring, Scheidt, Wright and Bonus [7] consider blogs as being “…frequently modified web pages in which dated entries are listed in reverse chronological sequence”. Blogs, similarly to wikis, are websites that are created by students to display up-to-date as well as historical content. Due to their association with the word ‘log’ blogs are likened to diaries or

• journals. Avram [8] reinforces the personalized nature of

blogs when stating that “…a weblog is highly subjective, reflecting the thoughts, opinions and preferences of its author(s)”. Though some definitions of blogs state that they are publicly accessible to everyone [9] blogs can also be used for private reflections. For example, Wordpress.com provides the creator of a blog with the option of whether to set their blog to private or public status. Blogs can be created by students solely for the purposes of individual use and access. Similarly to wikis, the features of blogs can also include a lot

• f multimedia content such as sound and video, animation

and graphics. In addition to their technological developments blogs are no longer viewed solely as a medium for personal reflection. Many blogs are now being used collectively often being administered by multiple authors. Depending on the purpose

• f the blog they can be created to allow several students to

add posts as well as comments because blogging is now perceived as being community-driven.

• C. Online Forums

Online forums function through allowing “… the user to post a message for others to read and to which others can respond” [10]. The topics posted on online forums are known as ‘threads’ and the replies are known as ‘posts’ [11]. Knowledge and information provided in online forums are

mostly facilitated through the posting of questions which are answered by those with an interest in the topic under discussion. Similarly to wikis and blogs, online forums can assist students to learn collaboratively. Tanis [12] argues in favour

• f online forums being used to support collaborative
• learning. He implies that because online forums are generally
• rganized around a central theme or subject areas they can

serve as a “… meeting place for people who are at least to a certain extent interested in or familiar with the topic…”.

• V. LACK OF WEB 2.0 PEDAGOGICAL MODELS IN LITERATURE

Despite the introduction and use of Web 2.0 gradually increasing in the classroom and with empirical studies now being more frequently documented in the literature, there still appears to be a lack of pedagogical models cited in the literature informing educators of the various pedagogies that Web 2.0 tools can support. The authors therefore performed an extensive review of the Web 2.0 literature to identify papers relating to pedagogical models in a Web 2.0 context. A set of Web2.0 terms were used for the literature search: (“social networking” OR blogs OR wiki OR “Web 2.0” OR “learning 2.0” OR podcast OR E-portfolio OR vodcast OR “media sharing”) AND (learning OR education) AND (“empirical” OR “quantitative” OR “qualitative”) AND (“evaluation” OR “impacts” OR “outcomes” OR “assessment”) A number of electronic databases were searched, namely: ACM, ScienceDirect, Emerald, IngentaConnect, ERIC, CINAHL Plus, EBSCO and PsychInfo. A total of 965 papers were returned where 181 of the papers were empirical though not all of them related to Web 2.0 or education. Table I indicates some of the initial results in terms of the number of papers and the particular Web 2.0 tools that were covered in the papers. It is clear that by far the most discussed Web 2.0 tool in the papers were blogs/weblogs, followed by social networking. An interesting finding is that no papers were found that provided the creation or use of any Web 2.0 pedagogical models.

TABLE I. EMPIRICAL PAPERS RETURNED FROM SEARCH. Web 2.0 referred to in paper

• No. of papers returned

Blogs/Weblogs 54 Wikis 9 Social Software 4 Podcasts 7 Web 2.0 (General) 22 Social Networking 24 E-portfolios 2 Instant Messaging 1 Non-Web 2.0 Related 58

• VI. WEB 2.0 PEDAGOGICAL MODEL

Since a substantial part of modern digital technology is

• pen source it is now accessible to wide audiences and it can

be considered a powerful agent in facilitating the exchange

• f news, information and ideas. What is more, as outlined in

the previous sections of this paper, it has begun influencing various educational settings as well. This is hardly surprising as young people – teenagers and university students, even primary schoolchildren - take up a substantial share in the number of users of digital technologies. Educational institutions have started looking for ways to incorporate digital tools in regular classroom use and most of all, to prepare teachers to deliver their content in such a manner. Bearing in mind young people have proved to be proficient in learning how to use digital tools [13], faster than adults, educationalists need to devise adequate pedagogical approaches to support teachers and lecturers in this process. Given these objective necessities as well as the lack of systematically reviewed empirical evidence regarding the implementation of Web 2.0 tools in teacher training and school settings, some projects have been initiated to deal with such tasks. Among them is the Web 2.0 ERC (European Resource Centre – Simplifying Web 2.0 Education) project under the Life Long Learning Programme.1 The pedagogical model takes into account the following learning theories: As a result of the extensive research into existing officially published and gray literature undertaken by the project partnership a Web 2.0 Pedagogical Model has been created [14]. It is based on constructivism as a high order pedagogy relying on the understanding that knowledge is not passively received but actively constructed by the learner. a. Constructivist – which emphasises on the active participation of the learner in the process of acquiring knowledge and the importance of real-life settings and authentic tasks [15].

• b. Constructionism – which contends that learning
• ccurs by building knowledge structures through

progressive internalization, especially in a context where the learner is consciously engaged in constructing knowledge; it explicitly focuses on the art of ‘learning to learn’ [16]. c. Connectivism – seen by its creator Siemens as a learning paradigm of the 21st century, naturally connected to the deployment of digital and Web 2.0 technologies it focuses on the importance of making connections between newly acquired and old information elements and the ability to acquire new information to make the difference between important and unimportant information [17].

1 The project partnership comprises University of the West of

Scotland, Scotland (coordinating partner); Sofia University, Bulgaria; PROJEKTkompetenz.eu OG, Austria; University of Peloponnese, Greece; Kulturring in Berlin e.v., Germany; Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny W Poznaniu, Poland; and Çukurova Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi, Turkey.

• d. Cognitive apprenticeship – which proposes that

knowledge should be acquired by observing ‘masters’ and applying what has been learned through observation in practice with an emphasis on solving real-world problems [18]. e. Cooperative learning – which states that cooperative learning is active learning within a group setting [19] and is seen as beneficial to learning through discussion and active participation in high performance groups.

• Fig. 2 depicts the proposed Web 2.0 pedagogical
• framework. As evident in Fig. 2, the proposed model is

generic (i.e. it is not confined to a particular type of educational context) and deals with the general educational setting with the specific subject and level of education in focus and the particular Web 2.0 tool or tools (wikis, blogs,

• nline forums) employed in the process of learning this
• subject. It also accounts for the teacher and learner space

paying special attention to the tasks (the assignments that the educator has set for the students/learners) and the activities (the students’ interpretation of the task(s) set by the educator) [20] as well as the importance of reflection with regard to the learning path and learning outcomes. Thus the framework can provide guidance in setting up, reflecting on and evaluating learning experiences – from teacher and trainer training one to activities designed for regular classroom use – of any format and duration.

Figure 2. Web 2.0 Pedagogical Model

• VII. WEB 2.0 AND TEACHER TRAINING

The pedagogical model has been implemented in the creation of a Web 2.0 teacher training model which is based

• n the discussed theoretical premises and is constructivist in

nature as it allows for the active construction of knowledge in the course of completing a succession of training tasks. It has the following basic features:

• distance format (or one in which face-to-face

trainer-trainee and trainee-trainee interaction is brought to a minimum);

• (relative) independence of time/place constraints;
• accessibility to content provided for different

categories of learners (in terms of their Web 2.0 expertise, professional experience, subject and level

• f education taught);
• learner control over the learning process (flexibility
• f time, non-linear structure of the task sequence

where possible);

• easy adaptation and updates of the learning

materials made possible;

• accessibility to and transparency of learning aims,

resources, practice exercises, feedback, assessment

• learning through active communication with peers

and teacher(s)/trainer(s) ;

• learning by doing and reflection – trying out

different Web 2.0 tools and evaluating their usefulness and possible applications in various educational settings;

• electronic course administration in which paper use

is brought to a minimum.

Figure 3. Web 2.0 Teacher Training

Fig. 3 demonstrates how these features were implemented in the actual training sequence. It also shows that the implemented courses focused on the use of different Web 2.0 tools such as online forums, blogs, wikis, social bookmarking, and provided both practice in the use of these tools as well as in their subject and level-specific classroom

• applications. A variety of educationalists - primary,

secondary teachers and university lecturers, adult educators and future teachers – participated in the training. The training programme was delivered in several different European countries, including: Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Poland, Turkey and the UK. As a result of the training, teachers from Bulgaria developed and implemented courses with students from primary, secondary and higher education institutions. The subject areas targeted in these courses were: 1) Languages: a) English (and intercultural communication) – 3 courses b) French – 2 courses c) Bulgarian language and literature – 7 courses 2) Social sciences: a) History – 3 courses b) European studies – 1 3) Nature sciences and IT – 9 courses 4) Primary education – 14 courses. In these courses, the teachers devised tasks following the principles of the learning theories outlined in the previous section, as illustrated in Fig. 4. The latter were mainly based

• n the use of blogs, wikis, online forums and, to a lesser

extent, social bookmarking. A closer look at their work proves that the teacher-generated ‘courses’ provided space for students to participate actively in the knowledge-creation process, to communicate with their peers as well as their teacher and to reflect on the process and the learning

• utcomes and in general, correspond the proposed Web 2.0

pedagogical model. In their turn, students who were engaged in these Web 2.0 learning sequences acquired new ideas and practiced new skills by using different Web 2.0 tools while constantly interacting with classmates and teacher/teachers.

• VIII. CONCLUSIONS

Although the traditional model of teaching states that the most important role a teacher/tutor plays is to offer a coherent story within the boundaries of a certain discipline [18], under the altered conditions in the digital era, a teacher is no longer the only expert in the classroom. What is more, Web 2.0 technologies allow learners to connect and ‘converse’ with peers and specialists outside the classroom

• walls. This, in turn, poses a basic challenge to educators -

how to organize the education process in the conditions of convergence of the boundaries between formal and independent learning. Equipped with an adequate Web 2.0 pedagogical model and subsequently developed teacher training teachers do not perceive such challenges as insurmountable any more, when it comes to implementing digital technologies in secondary and even in primary

• classrooms. Instead, they are able to plan, design and

implement their own teaching units based on Web 2.0 instruments and applications in a way that is beneficial to their students’ learning.

Figure 4. A Web 2.0 course aimed at developing intercultural communicative competence during intensive English language classes in Bulgaria.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work is supported by the EU Lifelong Learning Programme under contract 504839-LLP-1-2009-1-UK-KA3- KA3MP. REFERENCES

[1] G.J. Baxter, T.M. Connolly, M.H. Stansfield, N. Tsvetkova,

and B. Stoimenova, “Introducing Web 2.0 in Education: A Structured Approach Adopting a Web 2.0 Implementation Framework”, Proceedings of International Conference on European Transnational Education, 20-21 October 2011, Salamanca Spain.

[2] T.M. Connolly, T. Hainey, G.J. Baxter, M.H. Stansfield, C.

Gould, N. Tsvetkova, R. Kusheva, B. Stoimenova, R. Penkova, M. Legurska and N. Dimitrova, “Web 2.0 Education: An Evaluation of a Large-scale European pilot”, Proceedings of International Conference on European Transnational Education, 20-21 October 2011, Salamanca Spain.

[3] N. Aharony, “The influence of LIS students’ personality

characteristics on their perceptions towards Web 2.0 use”, Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, Vol. 41, No.4, Dec. 2009, pp. 227-242, doi: 10.1177/0961000609345088.

[4] R. Boateng, V. Mbarika and C. Thomas, “When Web 2.0

becomes an organizational learning tool: evaluating Web 2.0 tools”, Development and Learning in Organizations, Vol. 24,

• No. 3, 2010, pp. 17-20, doi:10.1108/14777281011037254.

[5] J.B. McGee and M. Begg, “What medical educators need to

know about “Web 2.0”, Medical Teacher, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2008, pp. 164-169, ISSN: 0142-159X.

[6] S. Wheeler, P. Yeomans and D. Wheeler, “The good, the bad

and the wiki: Evaluating student-generated content for collaborative learning”, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 36, No. 6, Feb. 2008, pp. 987-995, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00799.x.

[7] S.C. Herring, L.A. Scheidt, E. Wright and S. Bonus,

“Weblogs as a bridging genre”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2005, pp. 142-171, doi: 10.1108/09593840510601513.

[8] G. Avram, “At the Crossroads of Knowledge Management

and Social Software,” The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2006, pp. 1-10, ISSN: 1479- 4411.

[9] H.H. Lee, S.R. Park and T. Hwang, “Corporate-level blogs of

the Fortune 500 companies: an empirical investigation of content and design, International Journal of Information Technology Management, 2008, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 134-148, doi: 10.1504/IJITM.2008.016601.

[10] R.S. Weisskirch and S.S. Milburn, “Virtual discussion:

Understanding college students’ electronic bulletin board use”, Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 6, No. 3, 3rd quarter 2003, pp. 215-225, doi:10.1016/S1096- 7516(03)00042-3.

[11] S. Kahn, “Wonderful wikis and internet forums: using

technology to foster collaboration on science projects”, Science and Children, Vol. 46, No. 9, Jul. 2009, pp. 27-31.

[12] M. Tanis, “Health-Related On-Line Forums: What’s the Big

Attraction?”, Journal of Health Communication, Vol. 13, No. 7, Oct. 2008, pp. 698-714, doi:10.1080/10810730802415316.

[13] M. Prensky, “On the Horizon”, NCB University Press, Vol. 9

• No. 5, Oct. 2001.

[14] T.M. Connolly and C. Gould, “The Use of Web 2.0

Technologies for Learning and Teaching: A Pedagogical Framework”, 2011.

[15] P. Lameras, I. Paraskakis and P. Levy, “Pedagogy and tools

for e-Learning practice”, Proceedings of the International Informatics Education Europe ll Conference, 2007.

[16] S. Papert and I. Harel, “Constructionism”, Ablex Publishing

Corporation, 1991.

[17] G. Siemens, “Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital

age”,URL: (http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm), [Accessed August, 2011].

[18] A. Collins, (anon). “Cognitive apprenticeship, The Cambridge

Handbook of the Learning Sciences”, Chapter 4, URL: (http://llk.media.mit.edu/courses/readings/Collins.pdf), [Accessed August 2011].

[19] J. McConnell, “Active and cooperative learning: final tips and

tricks”, Proceedings ITiCSE-WGR working group on ITiCSE

• n innovation and technology in computer science, New

York, 2006.

[20] R. Kusheva and N. Tsvetkova, “Learning in a digital

environment – some challenges, in E-learning, Distance Education ... or the Education of 21st century”. Conference

• proceedings. International Conference, Sofia, Bulgaria, 6-8

April, София, Деметра, 2011.

View publication stats View publication stats