Web 2.0 and emerging trends within online learning

PhD student Thomas Ryberge-Learning Lab

Department of Communication and Psychology, Faculty of Humanities, Aalborg University

ryberg@hum.aau.dk

This work is published under a Creative Commons license:Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/

Outline

• Web 2.0 – core points and demonstration of “Web 2.0” services

• Emerging trends within online learning

• The Aalborg Model (PBL/POPP)• Widening and Supporting Student

Participation - empowering students through innovative use of ICT

Web 2.0

• What’s the fuzz?? Web 2.0 refers to a second generation of services

available on the internet that let people collaborate, and share information online. They often allow for mass publishing (web-based social software). The term may include blogs and wikis. To some extent Web 2.0 is a buzzword, incorporating whatever is newly popular on the Web (such as tags and podcasts), and its meaning is still in flux. Adapted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0

• May be a lot of buzz – but it’s buzz that’s supported and developed by Google, Yahoo and Microsoft…

• It could be a generational shift in how we conceptualise knowledge, sharing and ownership

“Web 1.0” “Web 2.0”

Ofoto Flickr

Akamai BitTorrent

mp3.com Napster

Britannica Online Wikipedia

Personal websites Blogging

Web services publishing Participation

Content management systems Wikis

Directories (taxonomy) Tagging ("folksonomy")

Stickiness Syndication (RSS, XML)

Web 1.0 Web 2.0

Some Examples: www.furl.net, www.elgg.net, http://www.librarything.com

Matrice above adapted from: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

Some metaphors and “movements” on the internet

• Individual user: browsing centrally defined web-pages, or constructing such a webpage

• Communities: With strong relations and common goals/enterprises – usenet, online communities (Communities of Practice) – Soap Opera, Computer Games etc.

• Networked Individualism: Constant traversing of different types of networks with strong and weak ties. Constructing an individual, but deeply relational network, through blog-rings, tagging, sharing links, aggregating or distributing news via RSS – social networking sites have become increasingly popular: Hi5.com, Friendster, MySpace, Arto.dk

Some web-trends• From communities to networked structures• From centrally defined content and static pages to user driven

content (Blogs, Wikis, Flickr, Wikipedia) – democratisation of Knowledge

• “Web 2.0 either empowers the individual and provides an outlet for the 'voice of the voiceless'; or it elevates the amateur to the detriment of professionalism, expertise and clarity.” (Citation from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0)

• Potential Democratisation, de-centralisation and anarchy – “back to the future” – the original idea of the Internet e.g. Creative Commons alternative copyright licences, The Open Source Movement

• Distribution, Aggregation and tagging of various media and content – from hierarchical directories and central ownership to distributed, user driven “folksonomies” and media aggregation

• From consumers to producers: a recent study from PEW internet research concluded that 57% of American teens are producing content for the web of various nature (blogs, fan-fiction etc.)

2 “exaggerated” views of learning and institutions

• The top-down view:Ministry: National curriculum

University

Faculty

Department

Education (e.g. human centred informatics)

Lecturers

Student or groups of students

There is a well-defined body of knowledge that should be passed on to students through the educational food-chain – from ministry plans to the student – National strategies, material databases, learning objects, curriculum.

Knowledge view: “Delivery or transmission of knowledge”

2 “exaggerated” views of learning and institutions

• The dispersion model

There is an ill-defined and massive body of knowledge that no individual or institution in itself can handle. Knowledge construction can be seen as diffusion of knowledge between different types of nodes in networks, where some nodes are more central than others. Knowledge is created, through transgressing boundaries, collecting, distributing and aggregating ”bits” of knowledge into regimes of competence

Knowledge view: “Chaotic diffusion of knowledge”

Trends within theories of learning

• It seems that the general ‘unit of analysis’ is on the move in socio-cultural theories of learning CHAT: From single activity systems to multiple interacting

systems featuring on-the-spot constructed relations Apprenticeship Learning: Identity as participation across

contexts, knowledge transformation as changed participation in multiple settings

Social Theory of Learning: Identity formation through trajectories and multi-membership, boundary-crossing

Nexus analysis and MDA: Nexus of practice rather than CoP Networked learning: connecting people with each other and

various resources• In all theoretical accounts there is a movement away from a

single practice, community or activity system – rather the focus is on movements, transformations, boundary crossing, cross-context participation (school, home, work, leisure time, online/offline etc.).

POPP/PBL – The Aalborg Model• A semester consists of both

course work and project work (50/50)

• The students define their own projects within a “thematic framework” e.g. “Cultural Analysis”

• Problem formulation and problem setting (enquiry)

• Exemplary and interdisciplinary

• Participants control• Project based• Action learning• Long time collaboration – all

semester – 4-5 months• This in a sense builds on a sort

of bottom-up view of learning processes or diffusion…BUT… Technological infrastructures are hierarchical

QuickPlace

Moodle

Technological infrastructures are hierarchical

• Though there is no overarching LMS at AAU our local implementations are to a large extent built on the hierarchy of the institution: HCI Semester Course Groups

Faculty

Education

Course

Group

• Students’ worlds and lecturers’ worlds are not visibly connected e.g. difficult for students to know about research networks of the lecturer – difficult for the lecturer to know about students ”non-course” activities

• Relation between different courses may not be immediately visible – even at the same semester

• Relations to other organisational actants are largely invisible (e.g. between faculties) – this doesn’t suggest they don’t exist but that they’re difficult to see

• Texts are given by the teacher – sharing and exchange between students happen but is largely invisible

Widening and supporting students participation

• What would learning systems look like if: They took their departure in students’ and lecturers’ networks,

interest groups and research projects rather than being constructed around subject matter and courses

If students and lecturers could display a wider variety of their interest and relations to different networks and enterprises – one can be both a lecturer, mother, vivid WoW player, socialist and interested in quiliting

Which types of identity and relations would emerge and how could this bridge and enable relations between different disciplines, environments and people?

How would learning technologies if they were genuinely based on the metaphor of networks and intersections of weak and strong ties – how can we prepare for youngsters used to social networking sites?

How would social networking sites, collaborative tagging, link sharing, wikis and blogs affect the knowledge construction environment of the university?

General questions

• If the claim is right that knowledge is more a matter of diffusion than transmission: Then can and should we ensure an institutional development of skills, through top-level management and development of knowledge (or a knowledge strategy)? Management of knowledge vs. knowledge driven by competent local networks (or Communities of Practice)

• A bold assumption management may not be the technological pioneers (present company of course not included in this assumption :-); May be visionaries but have little knowledge of the practicalities of systems and concrete use of the tools: How can management ensure a creative and innovative use of ICT?