Educational Trends and Learning 2.0

Learning 2.008 Conference
An international conference to discuss 21st century pedagogies held in Shanghai, China with conference materials and discussion forums hosted on Ning by Jeff Utecht.

It’s interesting to see in what ways this upcoming conference reflects the Horizon Report’s predictions on emerging technologies that will “likely enter mainstream use in learning-focused organizations within three adoption horizons over the next one to five years.

For this week we’ll take a look at the Horizon Report with an eye to how it could inform your teaching, research and scholarship. These “disruptive technologies” are changing the publishing landscape in some unforeseen and radical ways as well and during our f2f meeting we’ll break up into groups to explore and report back on our findings. Some hands-on activities will include exploring and subscribing to blogs and podcasts and we’ll use popular RSS (Really Simple Syndication) aggregators like iTunes and personalized portals like netvibes to help us collect, sort and manage our web-based information. Finally, we’ll take a look at some short videos and interactive web sites that help contextualize Web 2.0 for educators.

I’d like to hear what your thoughts are on the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 and which, if any, of the Web 2.0 examples we’ve explored thus far resonate with you as an educator and scholar.

Advertisements

5 Responses to “Educational Trends and Learning 2.0”

  1. Alan Says:

    This is great stuff, Barabara, thanks for sharing your followup work on the Horizon Report. I am going to be presenting it as well at Learning 2.008, ideally to see how perspectives in Asia and other parts of the world compare to the 2008 report. Preliminary materials are at:
    http://cogdog.wikispaces.com/What%27s+On+Your+Horizon

    At the NMC we very much are tracking how people are using and expanding and following up on the Horizon Report. There are many ways people can add to the process. We are in process of preparing the next “Call for Scholarship” a publication we release in the year following the report to suggest the areas ripe for research and development. You and your team can add to this by posting responses at the Horizon Research Agenda wiki:
    http://horizon.nmc.org/wiki/Research_Question_One

    We also have a web version of the 2008 report published in CommentPress format, which permits people to post comments attached to specific paragraphs in the report– an attempt to make the report more “conversational”:
    http://wp.nmc.org/horizon2008/

    You can tag in delicious.com any related resources for the 2008 report using our “hz08” tag:
    http://delicious.com/tag/hz08

    and as we are ramping up our advisory board for the 2009 report, you can also send relevant links to them via the new tag, “hz09”
    http://delicious.com/tag/hz09

    Lastly, we have wiped clean our “sandbox” the wiki are where the advisory board posts ideas, but you can access the one for 2008 and the short list (the 12 semifinalists) at:

    http://horizon.nmc.org/wiki/Horizon2008:Research_Question_One
    http://horizon.nmc.org/wiki/Horizon2008:Shortlist_1a

    And… the main difference between Web 2.0 and Web 1.0 is exactly… 1.000000!

  2. Barbara Says:

    Thanks very much for these additional participatory resources, Alan, especially your wiki. These will be very useful as our class explores applied concepts that fall under the Web 2.0 rubric. As an aside, I have used your “Twitter Life Cycle” graph to great effect in several PD workshops.

    Thanks!

  3. jessiemcbride Says:

    Helen Sword and Michele Leggott’s article “Backwards into the Future:
    Seven Principles for Educating the Ne(x)t Generation”
    really resonated with me for a lot of reasons. It showed me not only how important changing the way we view electronic information can be to how our students learn, but also how much I am still “looking backwards” in terms of the importance of physical archives versus digital materials. After reading the Horizon Report, the articles for our 4th session and discussing different Web 2.0 options that can be used in the classroom, I don’t think any of us can/should ignore how important and rewarding implementing them could be to our students.
    As instructors of foreign language, I think it’s important to distinguish between tools that could be helpful in our language classes as compared with literature classes. This semester I’m teaching French Literature in Translation where students are required to read and write about both historical and abstract topics. After our discussion on Friday and after having explored Nathalie Ettzevoglu’s blog used for the same course last year, I see the potential that a student-crafted blog or wiki site could offer. Students are given the opportunity to share their thoughts not only with their classmates, but also with the whole internet community (the world, in other words!) which not only gives them an “authentic learning experience” as discussed in Marilyn M. Lombardi’s article, but also gives a sense of ownership. We all know that when our names are attached to something officially (i.e. present a paper, publish an article, etc.) we are much more likely to make sure the end product is of a higher quality than if we were just turning something into a professor anonymously. Nathalie’s site is making me rethink my Web 1.0 HuskyCT page where students post ideas without a real sense of ownership or showmanship.
    In terms of language classes, the Web2.0 examples that seemed the most exciting (and in one case also the most problematic) were grassroots videos and second-life. Youtube and podcasts of student presentations or performances in the target language could be great for language classes and specifically for culturally-oriented activities. As was the case with a blog for a literature course, videos on the web allow students to feel pride in their work because they know it will be presented to a large audience. As for second-life, the idea of being able to create a virtual universe all in the target language where students could practice their language skills with native speakers is unbelievable. However, as Nicolas pointed out, there are also serious dangers that would need to be examined before guiding students into such an uncontrolled environment. I think that later in second-life’s development when instructors could control how/who/where/what their students see and explore, it could be a great tool to let students practice and also to get them personally involved with the culture and language of another country.

  4. Barbara Says:

    Jessie, thought you might find this YouTube video about educational uses of SecondLife interesting. Here are some guidelines about SecondLife online safety.

    With regard to safety in SL, it would be interesting to discuss if, and in what ways, participating in SL puts our students at any more risk than in using other online environments. We teach our students about academic honesty, about how to conduct original research and how to cite sources. Should we add on to that educating our students about safe, responsible online practices? And maybe the bigger questions are: to what extent should we/do we need to control our students’ learning environments? And for what purpose? What do you all think?

  5. jessiemcbride Says:

    Barbara,
    Thanks for posting the video and guidelines to secondlife safety (the section on “griefers” was particularly interesting!). I think that you’re asking really good questions if we consider that many of our students may use secondlife in their freetime without any supervision at all. Kind of off-topic, but something struck me in the video. They talk a lot about students being able to visit places that they wouldn’t normally be able to either b/c they are historical reproductions on secondlife that no longer exist (Roman festivals) or b/c it would be difficult (they showed a lot of different college campuses). I’m just wondering if anyone has done any studies that show to what extent, if any, secondlife experiences increase or diminish students’ desire to see the real thing? For instance, students in the video can travel into a Van Gogh painting, but do we know empirically if this will make them want to or feel no need to try to see the actual work of art?


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: