Web 2.0 for engaging and collaborative learning in higher education - Essay Example

? Web 2.0: For engaging and collaborative learning in higher education WRTG 101 28 July Web 2.0 is room 2.0 in higher education. It is the kind of classroom, where asynchronous learning supports synchronous learning. Web 2.0 encourages collaboration and participation, because it makes it easy for participants to add and share online content (Abedin, 2011, p.5). Classroom 2.0 uses asynchronous learning to promote collaboration among large numbers of users, instead of consuming one-way information, which is common in Classroom 1.0. Some educators are concerned, however, with the adoption of Web 2.0, because it may not serve their specific teaching needs and it may not always be aligned with learners’ skills and interests (Bennett et al., 2012; Yoo & David, 2011). Other educators think that Web 2.0 is a powerful enabling technology for students (Churchill, 2011; Sistek-Chandler, 2012). This essay aims to negotiate differences in the perceptions of Web 2.0 because of different beliefs in the effects of Web 2.0 on learning. Web 2.0 promotes learning through providing diverse tools for engaging and collaborative learning. Web 2.0 contributes to synchronous and asynchronous learning in higher education because it assists student content creation and sharing, promotes self-regulated learning and teamwork, and supports critical and reflective participation. Opponents of Web 2.0 assert that students have different Web 2.0 skills and these differences can produce cognitive load that can interfere with deep learning. Cifuentes, Alvarez Xochihua, and Edwards (2011) learned that the cognitive load from Web 2.0 interfered with deep learning due to students’ varying Web 2.0 skills. This means that because of competing academic goals of learning how to use Web 2.0 and attaining learning objectives, students did not achieve deep learning of some important concepts and skills. Bennett et al. (2012), in “Implementing Web 2.0 Technologies in Higher Education,” evaluated six Web 2.0 implementations in Australian universities, and they discovered that majority of the students had little previous experience with appropriate technologies. They also learned that many students had problems seeing the function of using Web 2.0 technologies for learning and teaching, both of which have significant repercussions for designing suitable learning activities. The authors stressed the importance of Web 2.0 in enhancing student content creation and sharing, but the inexperience of the students with these tools may prove disconcerting to them enough to not understand its value in their education. Cifuentes, Alvarez Xochihua, and Edwards (2011) also stressed that not all students understood the objectives of using Web 2.0. This article emphasizes the role of instructors in mediating learning through providing clear learning objectives in the use of Web 2.0. Teachers must consider these issues, before introducing Web 2.0 into learning practices. Technology skills and learning goals can impact how Web 2.0 will be used and adopted by both teachers and students alike. Students and teachers may have different interests and preferences too, when it comes too Web 2.0, which can affect how Web 2.0 is accepted and used in actual class settings. Yoo and David Huang (2011), in “Comparison of Web 2.0 Technology Acceptance Level Based on Cultural Differences,” examined the role of culture in accepting Web 2.0. They learned that Koreans and Americans have different preferences, when it comes to Web 2.0 technologies. If instructors are not aware of these preferences, they might not be able to motivate their students in maximizing Web 2.0 for learning. Bennett et al. (2012) noted that teachers also have varying perceptions on the importance of Web 2.0 in teaching and learning. Some teachers continue to believe that face-to-face communication is still the best way of learning, because actual presence can stimulate deep learning. Others believe that Web 2.0 presents interesting ways of engaging students. Clearly, differences in how Web 2.0 is perceived and used can affect its adoption and effectiveness in enhancing learning processes. Despite these concerns, Web 2.0 can provide a solid platform to engaging learning, since it provides numerous tools that can support learning goals. These tools can help students interact with one another and with their teachers, where they can learn more through this collaborative process. Brown (2010) explained the importance of Web 2.0 when compared to VLEs in “From VLEs to Learning Webs.” He explored the current use and future directions of virtual learning environments (VLEs), and he argued that despite their pervasiveness in the education sector, VLEs fail to do anything better than its substitutes, especially Web 2.0. Brown (2010) asserted that Web 2.0 can possibly reshape learning and teaching through learning-controlled tools, so they can challenge existing institutions unlike other older technologies. However, he concluded that the education sector must be vigilant in using Web 2.0 without understanding its limitations and supporting conditions. This and other studies showed that Web 2.0 has the potential of changing the learning environment, not because it will replace all forms of teaching, but because it is an enabling technology. Web 2.0 is a tool of tools, where it provides means for interaction and sharing, and these processes can promote and reinforce learning. Web 2.0 promotes interaction and this process leads to student content creation and sharing outside and inside the physical classroom. Sistek-Chandler (2012) tries to explain the connection between Web 2.0 and learning in “Connecting the Digital Dots with Social Media and Web 2.0 Technologies.” She wanted to know how social media and Web 2.0 supported learning theories and practices. From her secondary research, she learned that engaging with social media affected how learners search for, produce, and disseminate information. Web 2.0 makes it easier to create and to share knowledge, and so people can produce more content through it than without these tools. In “Web 2.0 in Education,” Churchill (2011) examined the outcomes and learning processes for a postgraduate class that used blogs in one of their courses. He learned that blogs are a kind of enabling technology, instead of something that directly shapes the learning of specific knowledge and skills (Churchill, 2011, p.155). In “Web 2.0--E-Learning 2.0,” Ehlers (2009) examined the effects of shifting from teaching through transmission to teaching through collaboration. Findings showed that learning through Web 2.0 promotes participation, and that quality of learning outcomes can be enhanced through participation-oriented activities, providing opportunities for reflection, and ensuring the participation of learners in feedback loops. These articles asserted that Web 2.0 offers means of discussions outside the traditional classroom. In the blogsphere, for instance, some students can find it easier to express their ideas and opinions and to get immediate feedback. When they meet in real classes, they can use the new learning to support classroom discussion. Student content and sharing relies on participation, and Web 2.0 supports that kind of approach to learning. Web 2.0 enhances participation through providing different tools for discussing ideas and opinions with others. Aside from facilitating student content creation and sharing, Web 2.0 promotes self-regulated learning and teamwork, because students work on their own and with others. Self-regulated learning pertains “to the degree to which students are active and responsible participants in their own learning process” (Zimmerman, 2008, cited in Kitsantas & Dabbagh, 2011, p.100). The main benefits of self-regulated learning are becoming more accountable for further learning and enhanced academic achievement (Kitsantas & Dabbagh, 2011, p.100). Cifuentes, Alvarez Xochihua, and Edwards (2011) showed that Web 2.0 helped students in giving critiques to each other’s work, promoted interactions with co-students and instructors, and encouraged self-regulated learning. Another study shows the same findings on the effect of Web 2.0 on self-regulated learning. Kitsantas and Dabbagh (2011), in the article, “The Role of Web 2.0 Technologies in Self-Regulated Learning,” explored the function of Web 2.0 in self-regulated learning. Using secondary research, they established that Web 2.0 technologies can innovate higher education teaching and learning conditions, where they support self-regulation among students. They help students learn more through working with others as part of the learning team, where collaboration and participation are the norm. After collaborating with others, they are encouraged to study on their own and to explore questions and concepts that need further research or analysis. Since class time is limited, more discussion can occur online, and these discussions can produce new questions for participating students. Students, who cannot get all answers through Web 2.0, can be inspired to conduct further research on their own. One of the most important concerns of critics and supporters of Web 2.0 is increasing the engagement of students, without sacrificing critical and reflective participation; and Web 2.0 can attain this as long as instructors place high value on critical thinking, use of scholarly references, and structured guidelines in using and maximizing Web 2.0 technologies. Critical and reflective participation entails adopting a critical stance in producing and sharing online information through Web 2.0. This means that students support their ideas and claims with evidence or strong logical arguments. They should be trained to use scholarly references to back up their arguments. In “Web 2.0 and online learning and teaching,” Abedin (2011) noted that Wikis and blogs are the most popular Web 2.0 tools, because they facilitate critical and reflective participation. Abedin (2011) concluded that Web 2.0 has a high potential in enhancing critical thinking, because of the existence of feedback processes and if there are goals in raising learning to higher, critical levels. Another article believes that Web 2.0 is an appropriate tool in higher education, because it can complement critical thinking strategies. Asselin and Moayeri (2011) provided classroom recommendations that included using Wikis, social networking sites, and video sharing, because they supported critical and reflective participation and promoted teamwork in the construction of new understandings that can be easily distributed online. Reflective participation is not only an inward approach to learning, but also comes from learning through interacting with a group of critical thinkers. This is where the importance of structure comes in when using Web 2.0 in learning environments. Structure provides the goals and rules that help students exploit the advantages of Web 2.0. Web 2.0 provides the tools that engage students, because it promotes interaction and participation. This topic is important because it reveals the complex relationship between Web 2.0 and learning. Internet-based collaboration can result to deep learning, but several important conditions have to exist, such as the existence of structure and the alignment between skills and interests and the kind of Web 2.0 tools used. For many educators, Web 2.0 should not be considered as the panacea of learning. It is only one of the budding enabling technologies that can help students and instructors communicate beyond the solid walls of the traditional classroom. Web 2.0 crumbles these walls to support learning, by enabling students and teachers to collaborate and to participate in discussions that classrooms cannot ordinarily hold. It offers out-of-the-box learning tools, which contributes to inside-the-box relearning processes too. Hence, the future of Web 2.0 in higher education relies on its ability to support the evolving learning demands and learning preferences of classroom 2.0. References Abedin, B. (2011). Web 2.0 and online learning and teaching: A preliminary benchmarking study. Asian Social Science, 7 (11), 5-12. Retrieved from http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass Asselin, M., & Moayeri, M. (2011). The participatory classroom: Web 2.0 in the classroom. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 34 (2), i-vii. Retrieved from http://www.alea.edu.au/resources/AJLL Bennett, S., Bishop, A., Dalgarno, B., Waycott., J., & Kennedy, G. (2012). Implementing Web 2.0 technologies in higher education: A collective case study. Computers & Education, 59(2), 524-534. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.022 Brown, S. (2010). From VLEs to learning webs: The implications of Web 2.0 for learning and teaching. Interactive Learning Environments, 18 (1), 1-10. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/nile20/current Churchill, D. (2011). Web 2.0 in education: a study of the explorative use of blogs with a postgraduate class. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 48 (2), 149-158. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/riie20/current Cifuentes, L., Alvarez Xochihua, O., & Edwards, J. C. (2011). Learning in Web 2.0 environments: Surface learning and chaos or deep learning and self-regulation? Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12 (1), 1-21. Retrieved from http://www.aect.org/intranet/publications/qrde/subguides.html Ehlers, U.D. (2009). Web 2.0--E-Learning 2.0--Quality 2.0? Quality for new learning cultures. Quality Assurance in Education: An International Perspective, 17 (3), 296-31. Retrieved from http://www.josseybass.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0787947407.html Kitsantas, A., & Dabbagh, N. (2011). The role of Web 2.0 technologies in self-regulated learning. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, (126), 99-106. DOI: 10.1002/tl.448 Sistek-Chandler, C. (2012). Connecting the digital dots with social media and Web 2.0 technologies. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 5 (1), 78-87. Retrieved from http://www.nu.edu/OurPrograms/ResearchCouncil/The-Journal-of-Research-in-Innovative-Teaching.html Yoo, S.J. & David Huang, W. (2011). Comparison of Web 2.0 technology acceptance level based on cultural differences. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14 (4), 241-252. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/ Read More