Readiness of Faculty Members in Saudi Universities to Use Web 2,0 Networking in Education - Research Proposal Example

PROPOSAL: READINESS OF FACULTY MEMBERS IN SAUDI UNIVERSITIES TO USE WEB 2.0 NETWORKING IN EDUCATION Background Web 2.0 is a moderate reference to a variety of trends, developments and points of view as part of the need for change in the mode of learning amid the digital revolution. It is more of an expression of the need to evolve with technology by incorporating social software into learning. The world is at the verge of technological breakthrough in the fields of telecommunication and computer technology. The recent evolution in the digital world has been nothing short of unprecedented. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Splint and Verizon, the world is gradually transforming into a small ‘global ICT village.’ The wake of this digital revolution has transformed teaching and learning with the introduction of online learning (e-learning) in schools, colleges and other learning institutions all over the world. Quantitative and qualitative research shows that Saudi recognizes the need for developing a knowledge culture (Tuddenham, et al, 2009). The country has initiated strategic partnership with the renowned e-learning-solutions company, Upside Learning. The special liaison marks a significant milestone towards facilitating the ever-growing learning needs in Saudi Arabia. Research Aims One of the goals of this research is to test the preparedness of faculty members in Saudi institutes of higher learning to use web 2.0 networking in education. Similarly, the proposal seeks to establish the readiness of students and faculty alike to incorporate web 2.0 into the curriculum mainstream. Research Significance The key significance is to test the readiness of faculty members in Saudi universities to use web 2.0 networking in education. To begin with, there is need to establish a transition from the traditional learning model by establishing a participative approach in learning. E-learning 2.0 would transform learning into an interconnected social process facilitated by the use of Web 2.0 tools. It also makes sure that learning objectives are achieved just the same. Research Questions Do faculty members in Saudi university and colleges show preparedness to use web 2.0 networking in education? Are students seemingly ready to embrace e-learning 2.0? Are Saudi systems and institutions capable of administering the amalgamation of web 2.0 into the learning mainstream? Literature Review The world is at the verge of technological breakthrough in the fields of telecommunication and computer technology. The recent evolution in the digital world has been nothing short of unprecedented. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Splint and Verizon, the world is gradually transforming into a small ‘global ICT village.’ The wake of this digital revolution has transformed teaching and learning with the introduction of online learning (e-learning) in schools, colleges and other learning institutions all over the world. The evolving term e-learning extends to refer to all forms teaching and learning that is electronically supported. Saudi recognizes the need for developing a knowledge culture. The country has initiated strategic partnership with the renowned e-learning-solutions company, Upside Learning. The special liaison marks a significant milestone towards facilitating the ever-growing learning needs in Saudi Arabia. (Preston, 2011) It is essential to note, right from the onset, that web 2.0 is not a scientific term as commonly perceived. Far from it, e-learning 2.0 is not even about an emergent technology, or evolving model of learning or a novel, distinctive, ground-breaking variation of e-learning (Jermann, et al., 2010). Neither is it about supplementary technological advancement nor some sort of replacement like a new release. E-learning 2.0 rather is a moderate reference to a variety of trends, developments and points of view as part of the need for change in the mode of learning amid the digital revolution. It is more of an expression of the need to evolve with technology by incorporating social software into learning (Plaisant et al 2011). Looking at the advent of web 2.0, one would find that e-learning 1.0 is based on the understanding of teaching as being ‘transmissive’, this is to say that e-learning 1.0 follows a broadcasting logic. Students receive distributed learning materials and other relevant information – course outline, assignments etc. In this particular outlook, learning occurs by virtue of “acquisition” of content. Drifting away from this mode of learning, e-learning 2.0 facilitates “participation.” (Smith et al., 2008) This is to say that learning is more of an interconnected social process facilitated by the use of Web 2.0 tools. Learning results are developed through communicative collaboration where the internet is viewed as a learning resource in itself. In e-learning 2.0, learning goes beyond the assigned materials and the course outline to reach out far and wide for knowledge with the help of social software. This face of e-learning includes the conception of a novel learning platform through social software. One learning management system (LMS) is not any longer being considered a material island in the vast sea that is the internet; it ought to be perceived as a doorway leading into the web (Black & McClintock, 2009) In web 2.0, the e-tutor functions merely as a signpost in the sense that the role of the teacher is to avail micro content in a portal, which subsequently opens the gate to independent learning. The e-tutor’s role is to facilitate learning by making sure that learning objectives are achieved. In light of this evolution of learning, certain terms and phrases such as ‘signpost’ and “personal learning environment” have come to be used. In a personal learning environment, learners use podcasts or weblogs to channel their reflections. It is safe to say that learning has evolved from the hitherto broadcast nature of transmission and consumption of content into a more independent and participative approach through which social software facilitates the process of acquisition of knowledge (Graham, 1995). Gallup International projected that Saudi Arabia eLearning market would reach $375 million by 2012 with an estimated growth of 33% over the past two years. While it is hard to tell whether this has already happened, it is safe to say that it is actually happening given the rapid evolution of digital technology and computer-based technology. Gallup could not establish any reports detailing the present market size (Delanty, 2001). Earlier in 2012, the National Centre for e-Learning and Distance Training tabulated an Ambient Insight report, which projected growth rates of web-based learning in Saudi for the period raging between 2009 and 2014. The report pegged the growth rate in the entire Middle Eastern region at a passionate 8%, which was amongst the slowest regions along with Africa.  One would assume that Saudi is among the fastest growing web users in the region given the Gallup estimates. Saudi’s workplace eLearning market trails its web-based education market, which is helped along for the most part by government funding (Wolfe & Wolfe, 2001) Interviews were conducted in major learning institutions in Saudi Arabia. In a series of workshops and seminars, members of faculty, staff and student bodies were interviewed in three major universities: Umm Al-Qura University, Mecca Northern Border University and Arar King Abdul-Aziz University. Faulty members expressed a growing dissatisfaction of traditional learning saying that it was tedious ad time consuming. They expressed readiness to embrace e-learning 2.0. Similarly, students expressed the need to embrace participative learning using social software. At King Fahd University, efforts are underway to establish web 2.0; the faculty and student fraternity have already embraced e-learning 2.0 (King, 2004) Research Methodology The research methodology for this proposal will take a quantitative approach. Data will be collected through spreading of questionnaires to members of the student body and faculty members in the aforementioned institutions of higher learning in Saudi Arabia i.e. Umm Al-Qura University, Mecca Northern Border University and Arar King Abdul-Aziz University. Since testing is the main research agenda, a survey will be conducted in all three universities. The goal of the survey will be to evaluate the mode of learning and teaching in the universities. The primary focus will be on web-based learning and the incorporation of e-learning 2.0 through social welfare. Survey will be based on observation, interviews and questionnaires. Projected findings from all valid questionnaires will be entered in form of tabular representation. Likewise, results from interviews will be tabulated as well. All results will be interpreted through graphs and pie charts. Conclusion Quantitative and qualitative research shows that Saudi recognizes the need for developing a knowledge culture. The country has initiated strategic partnership with the renowned e-learning-solutions company, Upside Learning. The special liaison marks a significant milestone towards facilitating the ever-growing learning needs in Saudi Arabia. This shows the readiness of faculty members in Saudi universities to use web 2.0 networking in education. References 1. Lipsitz, Lawrence & Reisner, Trudi, The Computer and Education, Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Educational Technology Publications, January 1973. Articles selected from Educational Technology magazine. 2. Wolfe, C., & Wolfe, C. R. (2001) Learning and teaching on the world wide web. San Diego, Calif. ; London: Academic. 3. Delanty G. (2001), Challenging Knowledge, Open University Press, London. 4. King R. (2004), The University in the Global Age, Palgrave Macmillan, London. 5. Seely Brown, John; Adler, Richard P. (2008) "Minds on Fire:Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0". Educause review 6. Bloom, B. S., and D. R. Krathwohl (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook 7. Bååth, J. A. (1982) "Distance Students' Learning – Empirical Findings and Theoretical Deliberations" 8. Graham, H (1995) The Tutorial Process – the Roles of Student Teacher and Tutor in a Long Term Perspective 9. Black, J. & McClintock, R. (1995) "An Interpretation Construction Approach to Constructivist Design." 10. Smith B, Reed P & Jones C (2008) ‘Mode Neutral’ pedagogy. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning" A. Gokhale, “Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking,” Journal of Technology Education, vol. 7, 1995, pp. 22-30. 11. K. Kreijns, et al., “Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research,” Computers in human behavior, vol. 19, no. 3, 2003, pp. 335-353. 12. M. Rajamoney and S. Stapa, “Computer Supported Collaborative Learning In Developing Written Literacy in ESL Classroom ”, 2005, pp. 1-13. 13. W. Rubens, et al., “Design of web-based collaborative learning environments. Translating the pedagogical learning principles to human computer interface,” Computers & Education, vol. 45, no. 3, 2005, pp. 276-294. 14. K.M. Hansen and A.V. Ratzer, “Tool support for collaborative teaching and learning of object-oriented modeling,” Proc. Proceedings of the 7th annual conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education, ACM, 2002, pp. 146-150. 15. K. Siau and P. Loo, “Identifying difficulties in learning UML,” Information Systems Management, vol. 23, no. 3, 2006, pp. 43-51. Simons and I. Graham, “30 Things that go wrong in object modelling with UML 1.3,” Behavioral Specifications of Businesses and Systems, 1999, pp. 237-257. 16. N. Baghaei and A. Mitrovic, “A constraint-based collaborative environment for learning UML class diagrams,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science4053, Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2006, pp. 176-186.978-3-540-35159-7 17. E. Lehtinen, et al., Computer supported collaborative learning: A review of research and development, Department of Educational Sciences University of Nijmegen, 1999. 18. P. Jermann, et al., “From mirroring to guiding: A review of state of the art technology for supporting collaborative learning,” Proc. of EuroCSCL, 2001, pp. 324-331. 19. C. Plaisant, et al., “The design of history mechanisms and their use in collaborative educational simulations,” Proc. of Computer support for collaborative learning Conference, International Society of the Learning Sciences, 1999. 20. Preston, Rob (May 16, 2011) "Down To Business: Higher Education Is Ripe For Technology Disruption". InformationWeek Redecker, Christine (2009) "Review of Learning 2.0 Practices: Study on the Impact of Web 2.0 Innovations on Education and Training in Europe JRC Scientific and technical report. 21. S. Hunter and P. Maes, “WordPlay: A Table-Top Interface for Collaborative Brainstorming and Decision Making,” Submitted to IEEE TableTop Collaborative Surfaces, 2008. 22. P. Tuddenham, et al., “WebSurface: an Interface for Co-located Collaborative Information Gathering,” 2009; www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pr10/publications/tis09.pdf. 23. E. Vonesh and V. Chinchilli, 1997.Linear and nonlinear models for the analysis of repeated measurements, Marcel Dekker Inc, Read More