fabio suarez's List: web2.0

• A growing number of in-depth observational studies also suggest that the compulsion for convivial creation that is seen to lie at the heart of many web 2.0 practices does not translate easily into many classroom contexts
• These imperatives to change and reinvent have been expressed most fully in terms of curriculum and pedagogy, as evidenced in the variety of recent proposals from education commentators and stakeholders for ‘pedagogical mash-ups’, ‘remix curricula’ and pedagogies of social interaction (e.g. Fisher and Baird 2009, Code and Zaparyniuk 2009).
• • esto me sirve en el parrafo inicial que pidio renne sobre web 2.0
• • tener en cuenta los autores que salen aca para la bibliografia
    
• • esto puede servir para el trabajo teorico de seminaire d'auteurs
• • Allen 2008 n.p. es un autor para utilizar cuando hable de la naturaleza del web 2.0
• • esta afirmacion de Mason and Rennie ayuda a mi idea de comunidad de practica con Diigo
• • menciona una problematica que existe en el actual modelo de educacion, sirve para lo de madame Bertrand-teluq
• he current prominence of ‘web 2.0’ within popular and academic discussion of the internet reflects the growing importance that is being placed on interaction between and within groups of internet user
• • este puede ser una pregunta que puede tumbar mi memoria, que pasa, es que en realidad la web 2 tiene un uso masivo y participativo de los jovenes, o es solo por entretenimiento y desviar la productividad
• ransmission.
• • el estudio reporta que la mayoria de aplicaciones web 2 aparece para motivar al estudiante con el contenido y con la interaccion con otros en forma muy pasiva en vez de darle libertad para la interaccion con la informacion y el conocimiento
• • en los estudios se ve como el trabajo colaborativo como por ejemplo los wikis, es mas un ideal, pero en la realidad no se concreta, al final prevale la economia de la educacion, y donde el trabajo individual persiste
• • esto tumba la posibilidad de que mi idea de validar el conocimiento colectivo generado con la web 2 en los procesos de investigacion, sea aceptado
• • una de esas deficiencias es la estructura de las instituciones

  • los pedagogos comienzan a buscar explicacion de porque el web 2 no se ha podido implementar con exito, una razon es las deficiencias de las instituciones y sus practicantes
• web 2.0 use, it is now being argued widely that web 2.0 tools, applications and services offer schools an opportunity to (re)connect with otherwise disaffected and disengaged learners.
• • esto me lo debo preguntar yo para mi tema de memoria
• schoo
• The study reported that for most students web 2.0 applications appeared to be used to engage with learning content and other learners in a number of bounded and passive ways, rather than supporting unconstrained active interaction with information and knowledge.
• For example, as Mason and Rennie (2007, p.199) reason, “shared community spaces and inter-group communications are a massive part of what excites young people and therefore should contribute to [their] persistence and motivation to learn”
• The study reported that for most students web 2.0 applications appeared to be used to engage with learning content and other learners in a number of bounded and passive ways, rather than supporting unconstrained active interaction with information and knowledge
• • una poderosa afirmacion de CAstell que es una de los principales argumentos que tengo
• As Luckin et al. (2009) concluded, even in schools with high levels of web 2.0 use in the classroom there was “little evidence of critical enquiry or analytical awareness, few examples of collaborative knowledge construction, and little publication or publishing outside of social networking sites”. At best, many students’ engagement can be said to lead to what Crook (2008) terms a ‘low bandwidth exchange’ of information and knowledge, with any potential for socially-situated authentic learning realised more accurately in terms of co-operation rather than collaboration between individuals. This, of course, contradicts the rhetoric of ‘the web 2.0 ethos of establishing and sustaining collaborative learning communities’ (Crook and Harrison, 2008, p.19).
• The notion of web 2.0 therefore merits serious consideration – not least in describing what is seen to be a renewed ‘spirit’ and ‘ethos’ of contemporary internet use.
• . As Luckin et al. (2009) concluded, even in schools with high levels of web 2.0 use in the classroom there was “little evidence of critical enquiry or analytical awareness, few examples of collaborative knowledge construction, and little publication or publishing outside of social networking sites”
• In this sense the individual technological artefacts that are positioned under the web 2.0 label are of less importance than the wider ideals that are seen to drive their use (Allen 2008).
• • en este texto si se justifica y se dice que las personas si aprenden utilizando el web 2
• As is often the case with debates over the ‘short-comings’ of public education, ‘blame’ has tended to be most readily attributed to the perceived deficiencies of educational institutions and practitioner
• For example, web 2.0 can be seen as conveying a new sense ofeconomy of internet use (based around notions such as the ‘attention economy’ and the provision of ostensibly ‘free’ services in return for greater audience share.
• These uncertainties are encapsulated in current debates over the place of so-called ‘web 2.0’ technologies in education
• In this sense the school is conceived as an outmoded technology from a past industrial age that should be dismantled
• eb 2.0 technologies
• o drive their use (Allen 2008). For example, web 2.0 can be seen as conveying a new sense ofeconomy of internet use (based around notions such as the ‘attention economy’ and the provision of osten
• • leadbeater es un autor que visiona el futuro del colegio con la web 2
• This paper offers an overview of the educational implications of web 2.0 technologies for schools – arguing that current portrayals of web 2.0 use replicate a long-standing tendency in education for exaggerated and ideologically driven reactions to technology
• As Solomon and Schrum (2007, p.8) conclude, “everyone can participate thanks to social networking and collaborative tools and the abundance of web 2.0 sites … The web is no longer a one-way street where someone controls the content. Anyone can control content in a web 2.0 world”.
• In particular, the last five years have seen a consensus forming amongst educational technologists that the structure of contemporary schools and schooling is responsible primarily for ‘emasculating’ the potential of web 2.0 technology (Somekh 2007).
• In a higher education context, the 

   

    International University of the People represents a not-for-profit volunteer university offering 

   

    courses provided entirely online and free of charge based around principles of open source courseware and social networking (Swain 2009a).
• The paper concludes by arguing for the need to retain a realistic, if not critical, perspective on schools and web 2.0 – seeking to find ways of using web 2.0 technologies to workwith the schools of today, rather thanagains t them.
• • el problema de la implementacion del web 2 en las escuelas no debe ser vista como simplemente un determinismo technologico, donde se cree qeu se mejora si se hacen los ajustes technologicos necesarios, lo que se debe hacer es ver que son propositos politicos los que estan en juego y que marcan contextos culturales y sociales
• In particular, schools’ continued reliance on broadcast pedagogies of various kinds, structured hierarchical relationships and formal systems of regulation is seen to leave them ‘poorly placed to deal well’ with the challenges posed by web 2.0 technologies (Bigum and Rowan 2008, p.250)
• • desde hace mas de 40 anos, la formacion en los colegios ha sido cuestionada por su falta de calidad, y por eso en su afan de salir de esa crisis, ven en el web 2 una esperanza de salvacion, pero lo ven como una tecnica fija, y no lo ven como el poder educativo de la tecnologia
• Finally, and perhaps most significantly, web 2.0 can also be seen as conveying a new sense of thepolitics of the internet – based around libertarian notions of empowered individuals and diminished institutions - “expressed in traditional democratic terms, emphasising freedom of choice and the empowerment of individuals through the ‘architecture of participation’” (Allen 2008, n.p.)
• Indeed, powerful arguments have long been advanced that children are better off learning amongst themselves through web 2.0 and other internet technologies – gaining an education through the ‘hard fun’ of creating and playing in online environments rather than being subjected to the ‘teaching disabled’ pedagogies of the conventional classroom (Negroponte 1995, Shaffer 2008)
• Yet rather than being cursory additions to traditional schooling, these examples and others like them are seen to mark the first steps in a radical rethinking and reorganisation of existing structures and organisation of education provision
• ourse, this ‘pick and mix approach’ to curricular content and form are also seen to present a fundamental challenge to the professional roles and cultures of educators (Swain 2009b).
• Allen 2008, n.p.). F
• The unsatisfactory use of web 2.0 tools in school settings is also reflected in the emerging qualitative research literature on the nature of students’ use of web 2.0 tools in school settings.
• As Luke (2003, p.398) concluded just before the mainstream emergence of web 2.0 technologies, twenty-first century educators can be accused of failing increasingly to “come to terms with the contradictions” between the complexities and fluidities of digitally-based learning and the persistence of a model of schooling “based on static print/book culture and competitive individualism where learning is geographically tied to a desk … and old-style transmission and surveillance pedagogy”.
• As McLoughlin and Lee (2008, p.647) conclude, all of these proposals therefore centre on the need for educators to also change their practices and expand their vision of pedagogy, “where learners are active participants or co-producers of knowledge rather than passive consumers of content and learning is seen as a participatory, social process supporting personal life goals and needs”.
• These criticisms reflect long-running dissatisfactions with schools in the ‘digital age’. As Luke (2003, p.398) concluded just before the mainstream emergence of web 2.0 technologies, twenty-first century educators can be accused of failing increasingly to “come to terms with the contradictions” between the complexities and fluidities of digitally-based learning and the persistence of a model of schooling “based on static print/book culture and competitive individualism where learning is geographically tied to a desk … and old-style transmission and surveillance pedagogy”.
• • se corre el riesgo de confundir el boom de web 2 con intereses neo liberales o neo conservadores, poner cuidado a eso
    
• Yet rather than being cursory additions to traditional schooling, these examples and others like them are seen to mark the first steps in a radical rethinking and reorganisation of existing structures and organisation of education provision.
• A growing number of in-depth observational studies also suggest that the compulsion for convivial creation that is seen to lie at the heart of many web 2.0 practices does not translate easily into many classroom contexts
• In all these instances, web 2.0 therefore presents a significant and specific challenge to orthodox notions of technological and institutional arrangements, economic structures and social relations.
• One of the key weaknesses of a technologically determinist reading of schools and web 2.0 is the tendency to approach technology-based processes as a closed ‘black box’.
• For instance, recent qualitative studies have illustrated how fostering a spirit of ‘commons-based peer production’ within a community of web 2.0 users is especially difficult in formal education settings

• Leadbeater (2008b, p.26) reasons, the imperative of web 2.0 based education provision....  

   

    “… require[s] us to see learning as something more like a computer game, something that is done peer-to-peer, without a traditional teacher ... We are just at the start of exploring how we can be organised without the hierarchy of top-down organisations. There will be many false turns and failures. But there is also huge potential to create new stores of knowledge to the benefit of all, innovate more effectively, strengthen democracy and give more people the opportunity to make the most of their creativity”
• In particular, web 2.0 is felt by many commentators to address a number of ‘participatory deficits’ in terms of public/state services – positioning state services around the needs of the individual, with services such as education driven by the individual rather than the institution (Evens 2009).
• Alongside other tags such as the ‘social web’, ‘modern web’ and ‘social software’, the notion of ‘web 2.0’ provides a convenient umbrella term for a host of recent internet tools and practices ranging from social networking and blogging to ‘folksonomies’ and ‘mash-ups
• equire[s] us to see learning as something more like a computer game, something that is done peer-to-peer, without a traditional teacher
• For instance, recent qualitative studies have illustrated how fostering a spirit of ‘commons-based peer production’ within a community of web 2.0 users is especially difficult in formal education settings.
• • este es el principal mensaje del articulo
• In particular, a consistent picture is emerging from the empirical literature of a noticeable disjuncture between the rhetoric of mass socialisation and active community-led learning and the rather more individualised and passive realities of web 2.0 use in schools
• Grant’s (2009) case study approach to the use of wiki technologies by thirteen and fourteen year-old science and technology students in the UK offers some revealing insights into the clash between the communitarian ideals of many education technology designers and the rather more ‘closed’ approaches towards technology-based learning which are fostered in learners from what Grant (2009) terms their “experience of the broader economy of education and school practices”. Similarly, Lund and Smørdal’s (2005) earlier study of collaborative wiki construction in Norwegian secondary schools showed how learners preferred to create new entries indefinitely at the expense of editing and improving their own or their classmates’ contributions. Students were observed to “not immediately embrace any notion of collective ownership or epistemology but continued a practice where the institutionally cultivated individual ownership persisted” (Lund and Smørdal, 2005, p.41).
• For example, web 2.0 tools such as wikis, social networking and folksonomy software are seen to be able to change education away from being ‘a special activity that takes place in special places at special times, in which children are instructed in subjects for reasons they little understand’ (Leadbeater 2008a, p.149)
• • esto es lo que dificultaria que la recherche valide el conocimiento en masa de la web 2
• We are just at the start of exploring how we can be organised without the hierarchy of top-down organisations.
• In a technical sense, web 2.0 can be argued to refer to an increasedsocialisat ion of internet tools, applications and services.
• • no se trata de buscar una solucion que arregle todo a travez de tecnologia, lo importante es saber la relacion entre la formalidad y la informalidad entre colegios puede ser alterada y ajustada en formas que pueden cambiar la tecnologia del colegio sin socavar las estructuras basicas de la institucion y sus intereses
    
• As Danah Boyd (2007, p.17) points out, for many technologists the notions of ‘web 2.0’ and ‘social software’ are not used merely as neutral labels, but also as a rallying call for new age of activities which are made ‘by the people, for the people’ rather than centred around official, institutional interests
• • este es el problema que quiero resolver
• In a technical sense, web 2.0 can be argued to refer to an increasedsocialisat ion of internet tools, applications and services
• As such, many practice-based reasons are beginning to be put forward for the poor showing of web 2.0 in schools.
• There will be many false turns and failures. But there is also huge potential to create new stores of knowledge to the benefit of all, innovate more effectively, strengthen democracy and give more people the opportunity to make the most of their creativity”.
• s Danah Boyd (2007, p.17) points out, for many technologists the notions of ‘web 2.0’ and ‘social software’ are not used merely as neutral labels, but also as a rallying call for new age of activities which are made ‘by the people, for the people’ rather than centred around official, institutional interests
• As such, the forms of web 2.0 based changes being proposed from within the education technology community are not merely benign technical readjustments to school-based learning and teaching. Whether they realise it or not, these proposals are highly political in nature.
• Concerns are therefore beginning to be raised that web 2.0 technologies do not appear to be used to their full potential even in relatively well-resourced, ‘high- technology’ classrooms.
• radically minded educators and proponents of democratic education there is a feeling that web 2.0 represents a ready means to reinvent the provision of education along more expansive, equitable and easy lines
• As Matthew Allen (2008, n.p.) describes, the notion of web 2.0 reflects “approaches to the des
• For instance, school buildings are criticised as being architecturally unsuitable for widespread networked and wireless technology us
• ign and functionality of Web sites and the services they offer, emerging in recent years, and essentially describing technological implementations that prioritise the manipulation and presentation of data through the interaction of both human and computer agents”. Of course, many computer scientists dispute the technical necessity of such rebranding of the internet. As Scholz (2008) arg
• Conversely, for neo-liberal educators there is a feeling that web 2.0 represents a ready means to wrestle schooling and education away from the clutches of ‘big government’ and the state.
• Teachers are criticised as being too old, incompetent or disinterested to integrate web 2.0 applications into their teaching. Students are said to lack the skills or application to make the most of educational (rather than leisure) applications of web 2.0 applications and tools. School leaders and administrators are felt to lack the required direction or foresight to adopt collective and communal approaches into their school organisation and management. School curricula are criticised as remaining too rigid and entrenched in top-down paradigms of information transfer.
• For instance, calls continue to be made for the rebuilding of schools to fit with the needs and demands of modern technology
• n particular the privileging of participatory and collaborative group activity within web 2.0 debate has been welcomed as having clear parallels with contemporary understandings of learning and education, and it is perhaps unsurprising that it has been the learning and pedagogy-related aspects of web 2.0 that have prompted greatest enthusiasm of late amongst educators and educationalists (see Davies and Merchant 2009)
• More attention could be paid, for example, to exploring ways of ‘loosening up’ the use of digital technologies within school settings and introducing a degree of web 2.0-led informality to schools’ digital practicewithout undermining the overall institutionalised social order of the school
• School leaders and administrators are felt to lack the required direction or foresight to adopt collective and communal approaches into their school organisation and management
• For example, much of the current debates about web 2.0 and the reinvention of schools (what can be recognised as a set of arguments concerning ther e-s chooling of society), position web 2.0 technologies as a ‘technical fix’ for addressing wider concerns about schools and schooling. Over the last forty years at least, schools have been seen by many commentators as a cause for concern rather than celebration, with accounts persisting in many developed countries of school systems somehow ‘failing’ to perform as well they should. For many policymakers and other commentators, the under-performance of schools has led to what Stephen Gorard (2001) has termed a prevailing ‘crisis account’ of schooling where educational opportunities are seen to be increasingly polarized, and schools are characterized by poor overall educational standards. In this sense, some sections of the educational community appear to be all too keen to seize upon web 2.0 technologies as offering a ready ‘technical fix’ to the problem of the failing – or at least underperforming – school. As such, many of the arguments being advanced for web 2.0 are not driven by a deep belief about the educative power of technology, rather they are driven by a deep concern about the state of schooling in contemporary society. As such web 2.0 technologies are being used as a vehicle through which to express a long-standing tendency in western societies to view digital technology as a ‘technical fix’ for wider social problems
• many claims for the technical novelty of web 2.0 applications are misleading, with much use of the term driven by a commercial and political ‘branding mania and obsession with newness’. Yet issues of originality notwithstanding, the notion of web 2.0 is an important framing device for understanding contemporary internet use - defining ‘what enters the public discourse about the impact of the Internet on society’ (Scholz 2008, n.p.)
• Thus, there is a pressing need to refocus current educational discussion and debate away from how web 2.0 technologies may be best used to revitalise learning and education in the twenty-first century
• The [students] were able to choose what they learned and when they learned. They viewed the medium in which they did it as a form of leisure. They were also able to choose who and what they learned from – not just what has been set up as exclusive and privileged. They were able to both learn and receive pleasure from their engagement and not have to be concerned about the hierarchisation and failure in relation to how traditional schooling determines competence. They were in fact designing and engaging in their own learning. The teenage experts did not gain a significant amount of learning in the area of computing from formal education and traditional schooling [….] what is significant is that these participants accomplished (in their own eyes) a level of expertise that schooling had not been chiefly responsible for. Indeed, all of the participants alleged that schooling had had little influence in their trajectory toward expertise” (Johnson 2009, p.70).
• the notion of redesigning and rebuilding the physical environment of the school continue to gain popularity.
• Thus instead of calling for a complete learner- driven free-for-all mode of school technology use, careful thought now needs to be given as to exactly how the relationships between formality and informality within schools may be adjusted and altered in ways that can shift the frames of in-school technology use without undermining basic institutional structures and interests
• Underpinning many of these suggestions is the belief that children should be given more control of their interactions with information and knowledge.
• , support remains amongst many educationalists and some technologies for the use of web 2.0 tools as a means to re- configure and re-invent the school – retaining the overall notion of the school as an institution, but along more fluid and flexible lines of ‘school 2.0’ (e.g. Wang and Chern 2008
• In particular, it has been argued that web 2.0 practices have a strong affinity with socio-cultural accounts of ‘authentic’ learning where knowledge is co-constructed actively by learners with the support of communal social settings – taking the form of constantly reassessed ‘collective agreement’ (see Dede 2008)
• In particular, it has been argued that web 2.0 practices have a strong affinity with socio-cultural accounts of ‘authentic’ learning where knowledge is co-constructed actively by learners with the support of communal social settings – taking the form of constantly reassessed ‘collective agreement’ (see Dede 2008).
• how the relationships between formality and informality within schools may be adjusted and altered in ways that can shift the frames of in-school technology use without undermining basic institutional structures and interests.
• how the relationships between formality and informality within schools may be adjusted and altered in ways that can shift the frames of in-school technology use without undermining basic institutional structures and interest
• Whilst the study was able to identify some examples of engaging and educationally worthwhile web 2.0 approaches, a range of impediments to effective use were identified.
• the emerging received wisdom amongst many educationalists and technologists is that schools and those within them lack what it takes “to go with the technological flow”
• As Scholz (2008, n.p.) observes, web 2.0 “is not and cannot be the all–mighty teacher, healer, and redeemer for everything that went astray in society
• hese findings are replicated in other studies of different web 2.0 tools. For example, Knobel and Lankshear’s (2006) study of blogs produced by US school-children revealed a lack of creativity and development of ideas in terms of students’ writing process, coupled with a subsequent lack of supportive feedback and commentary for other members of the group. The overall conclusion drawn from the study was what the authors termed as a ‘why bother?’ attitude amongst students and teachers alike. These reactions are, perhaps, unsurprising as learners’ participation in school-based learning activities (by their very nature) are coerced rather than chosen
• This sense of allowing young people opportunities to influence the direction of institutional change is reflected in Donald Tapscott’s (1999) advice to “give students the tools, and they will be the single most important source of guidance on how to make their schools relevant and effective places to learn” (p.11).
• hilst these ‘replacement discourses’ are growing in popularity, support remains amongst many educationalists and some technologies for the use of web 2.0 tools as a means to re- configure and re-invent the school – retaining the overall notion of the school as an institution, but along more fluid and flexible lines of ‘school 2.0’ (e.g. Wang and Chern 2008
• A great deal of attention has been paid to the personalised and socially situated forms of learning (intended or otherwise) that can be found within web 2.0 practices, with learners said to gain from participatory experiences in the co-construction of online knowledge (e.g. Lameras et al. 2009).
• For example, the study found that teachers were generally cautious in adopting collaborative and communal web 2.0 practices that many felt could challenge traditional school structures.
• In particular the ‘web 2.0’ label reflects the changing nature of contemporary online activity – not least what is described as a ‘mass’ internet connectivity based around the collective actions of online user communities rather than individual users (see O’Reilly 2005, Shirky 2008, Brusilovsky 2008).
• All of these factors therefore underpin a growing sense in the minds of many proponents of web 2.0 use in education that schools are simply unable to deal with the challenges posed by web 2.0 technologies for a number of intractable structural reasons.
• what is significant is that these participants accomplished (in their own eyes) a level of expertise that schooling had not been chiefly responsible for
• Donald Tapscott’s (1999) advice to “give students the tools, and they will be the single most important source of guidance on how to make their schools relevant and effective places to learn” (p.11).
• Such ‘reschooling’ arguments are advanced most commonly via proposals for the development of digitally aligned modes of schooling that are built around the active communal creation of knowledge (rather than passive individual consumption), and imbued with a sense of play, expression, reflection and exploratio
• Gorard, S. (2001) ‘International comparisons of school effectiveness: the second component 

   

    of the ‘crisis account’ in England?’ Comparative Education 37, 3
• More importantly, a number of practical barriers relating to technological access, infrastructure and bandwidth continued to impede web 2.0 use even in the more well- resourced schools.
• As the sociologist Manuel Castells was led to conclude recently, “education is the most conservative system as to changing anything since the Middle Ages […] the rules, the format, the organisation of the schools are completely different in terms of interactivity and hypertextuality” (Castells 2008
• Indeed, all of the participants alleged that schooling had had little influence in their trajectory toward expertise” (Johnson 2009, p.70).

• Michael Apple (2002, p.442) has reasoned:  

   

    “the debate about the role of the new technology in society and in schools is not and must not be just about the technical correctness of what computers can and cannot do. These may be the least important kinds of questions, in fact. Instead, at the very core of the debate are the ideological and ethical issues concerning what schools should be about and whose interests they should serve”.
• Thus, web 2.0 has now come to embody the long-held belief amongst education technologists that learning best takes place within technology-supported networks of learners involved in the creation as well as consumption of content. For these reasons alone, web 2.0 is now being touted in some quarters as “the future of education” (Hargadon 2008)
• The study also underlined that the educational use of web 2.0 tools largely depended on the rigidity or flexibility of the school curriculum.
• in contrast to the ‘broadcast’ mode of information exchange that characterized internet use in the 1990s, the web applications of the 2000s are seen to rely on openly shared digital content that is authored, critiqued and re-configured by a mass of users - what has been described as ‘many-to-many’ connectivity as opposed to ‘one-to-many
• s Daanen and Facer (2007) argue, one of the key issues underpinning any use of technology in education is the simple question of ‘who decides?’.
• Additionally, teacher fears related to internet safety and school policy constraints such as school internet restrictions and firewalls, were reported to often impose barriers for the adoption of web 2.0 practices.
• Manuel Castells was led to conclude recently, “education is the most conservative system as to changing anything since the Middle Ages
• hat writers such as Langdon Winner (1997) have termed ‘cyber-libertarianism’. Here the power of technology and the power of the individual (what Kelemen and Smith [2001, p.371] term ‘two ideas which lie at the heart of modern civilisation’) converge into an argument for the creation of new forms of action and organisation that do not require the appropriation of traditional space or structures.
• the rules, the format, the organisation of the schools are completely different in terms of interactivity and hypertextuality” (Castells 2008
• With these thoughts in mind, much of the current debate concerning web 2.0 and schools is now beginning to focus on how best to re-structure the school to fit with the demands and needs of the technology use.
• s Johnson infers, web 2.0 tools are seen as having the capacity to make learning a ‘looser’ arrangement for the individual student - involving a variety of people and places throughout a community for a variety of reasons.
• These imperatives to change and reinvent have been expressed most fully in terms of curriculum and pedagogy, as evidenced in the variety of recent proposals from education commentators and stakeholders for ‘pedagogical mash-ups’, ‘remix curricula’ and pedagogies of social interaction (e.g. Fisher and Baird 2009, Code and Zaparyniuk 2009).
• Thus, as Kate Orton-Johnson reasons, the communicative and communal activities most readily associated with web 2.0 technologies are often, in effect, only ‘secondary activities’ which contribute little to the ‘real’ practices of academic study which remain “grounded in traditional offline activities; reading, note taking and the production of assessed work” (Orton-Johnson 2007, para 11.2)
• Grant, L. (2009) ‘HEATHER I DON’T CARE DO UR OWN PAGE! A case study of using wikis for collaborative inquiry in school’Learning, Media and Technology, 34, 2, pp.105-117
• The study also drew attention to the fact that ‘learners spend, on average, more time working on school work on a computer outside school than at school itself’ (Luckin et al, 2009).
• hese imperatives to change and reinvent have been expressed most fully in terms of curriculum and pedagogy, as evidenced in the variety of recent proposals from education commentators and stakeholders for ‘pedagogical mash-ups’, ‘remix curricula’ and pedagogies of social interaction (e.g. Fisher and Baird 2009, Code and Zaparyniuk 2009).
• nstead, web 2.0 technologies are too more important and significant an issue to be simply ‘handed down’ to education. As such a far more inclusive and user-driven debate about web 2.0 and school now needs to be initiated - involving all of the ‘publics’ of education, not least teachers, learners, parents and other people in the currently ‘silent majority’ of end-users:
• These solutions for change tend to take one of two forms – either the complete replacement of the school through web 2.0 technologies and practices, or else the reinvention of the school through the use of web 2.0 tools and practices
• In this sense digital technology is positioned as nothing less than “a moral enterprise set to rescue the world” (Kelemen and Smith 2001, p.370), underpinned by an ideological faith in the power of radical individualism, market forces and pursuit of rational self-interest
• argadon, S. 

   

    (2008) 

   

    ‘Web 2.0 is the future of learning’ 

   

    March 4th 

   

    [www.stevehargadon.com/2008/03/web-20-is-future-of-education.htm
• Luckin’s study was also significant in highlighting the rather narrownatur e of web 2.0 use in
• Popular solutions for overcoming the ‘problem’ of schools in a web 2.0 world
• ll of these curricular reconfigurations are predicated upon the notion that web 2.0 technologies are leading to different types of information and knowledge production that is based around fast-changing, non-textual forms that require new forms of more critical and reflexive information skills and literacies (Buschman 2009
• From James Gee’s celebration of the learning potential of computer games through to Futurelab’s ‘Out-Space’ agenda, some influential elements of the education technology community appear keen to hasten the decline of the school as the primary site of learning.
• llich. I. (1971) ‘Deschooling Society’ Harmonsworth, Penguin Books
• some aspects of web 2.0 use ‘fit’ better than others with 

   

    the realities of contemporary schools and schooling.
• For all its intuitive appeal, the widespread valorisation of informal learning and the technology- empowered individual learner dangerously depoliticises the act of learning (Gorman 2007), placing far too much emphasis on the disembodied individual learner
• (Buschman 2009)
• As such, we cannot leave discussions of the future role of technology in education only to the technology industry
• In this spirit, growing number of educationalists are concluding that the school is a ‘dead’ site for technology use that will never be able to adapt sufficiently to the challenge and disruption of the emerging forms of

• Indeed a spirit of using digital technologies to bypass traditional education institutions is evident in online services such as the School of   

   

    Everything – a popular web space in the UK designed to put teachers in contact with learners 

   

    and therefore aiming to be “an eBay for stuff that does not get taught in school
• In particular it should be observed that current discussions of web 2.0 and schools repeat a long-standing tendency in education for exaggerated and extreme reactions to technology that are centred around matters of learning and teaching rather than the wider social, political, economic and cultural contexts of education.
• Instead, we need to develop the mechanisms for an open and public debate on the nature and purpose of education in the digital age which goes beyond safe slogans such as ‘meeting the needs of every child’
• questions are now being asked in relation to how best to develop web 2.0 inspired curricula that can be negotiated rather than prescribed, that are driven by learner needs and based on providing learners with skills in managing and accessing knowledge and being in control of their own learning pathways and choices (Facer and Green 2007)
• Illich’s (1971) condemnation of institutionalized learning centred on a set of concerns that educational institutions individual growth and community-based learning
• Instead, questions are now being asked in relation to how best to develop web 2.0 inspired curricula that can be negotiated rather than prescribed, that are driven by learner needs and based on providing learners with skills in managing and accessing knowledge and being in control of their own learning pathways and choices (Facer and Green 2007)
• (Leadbeater 2008b
• Any reader of this article should now be clear about the political nature and the political importance of schools and web 2.0 technology. Debates about schools and web 2.0 are not simply about matters of internet bandwidth or the pedagogic affordances of wikis. They are also debates about questions of benefit and power, equality and empowerment, structure and agency and social justic
• Instead, we need to confront the fact that longstanding assumptions about what education is for, who conducts it, and how it is assessed, may need to be challenged.” (Daanen and Facer 2007, p.28).
• if the state is no longer responsible for the provision of education through school systems, then who is to assume responsibility? What is the role of the private sector and corporate capitalism in the libertarian take on web 2.0 based schooling? What inequalities of access, skills, resourcing or know-how will remain, and who will be concerned with correcting them?
• For example, if the state is no longer responsible for the provision of education through school systems, then who is to assume responsibility? What is the role of the private sector and corporate capitalism in the libertarian take on web 2.0 based schooling? What inequalities of access, skills, resourcing or know-how will remain, and who will be concerned with correcting them
• he tendency of educationalists to celebrate individuals’ self-determination of their learning via web 2.0 tools feeds into a wider enthusiasm shared amongst many in education for the inherent benefits of forms of ‘informal learning’ that take place outside the control of formal education organisations and settings (see Sefton-Green 2004).
• what Edson (2007) terms as ‘user-driven education’ allowing learners to take an active role in what they learn as well as how and when they learn it. O
• ‘curriculum 2.0
• Crook, C. (2008) ‘Theories of formal and informal learning in the world of web 2.0’ in Livingstone, S. (ed.) ‘Theorising the benefits of new technology for youth’ University of Oxford/ London School of Economic
• echnologically determinist
• web 2.0 is a site of intense ideological competition and struggle along many lines and involving many different interests.
• All of these questions and silences point to the dangers of educational technologists using web 2.0 as a justification for giving up on the notion of the school with some form of pedagogic authority and responsibility
• Lameras, P., Paraskakis, I. and Levy, P. (2009) ‘Using social software for teaching and 

   

    learning in higher education’ in Hatzipanagos, S. and Warburton, S. (eds) ‘Handbook of 

   

    research on social software and developing community ontologies’ Hershey PA, IGI 

   

    Publishing
• For technologists, there is a feeling that web 2.0 offers a second chance to get the internet ‘right’ – to correct the wrongs of the dot.com boom and bust and counter the increased commercial proprietary control of internet services.
• Instead of rejecting the entire notion of the industrial- era school as it currently exists, it may be more productive to set about addressing the ‘problem’ of schools and technology in subtler and less disruptive ways that work ‘with’ the micro-politics of the school rather than against them.
• Similarly in educational terms there is a feeling amongst many learning technologists that web 2.0 represents the ‘killer-app’ for bringing more desirable forms of socio-constructivist learning to the masses
• For some
• uckin, R., Clark, W., Logan, K., Graber, R., Oliver, M. and Mee, A. (2009) ‘Do web 2.0 tools really open the door to learning: practices, perceptions and profiles of 11-16 year olds learners’Learning, Media and Technology 34, 2, pp.87-114
• isher, M. and Baird, D. (2009) ‘Pedagogical mashup: Gen Y, social media, and digital 

   

    learning styles’ in Hin, L. and Subramaniam, R. (eds) ‘Handbook of research on new 

   

    media literacy at the K-12 level’ Hershey PA, IGI Global 

   

    14 

   

   

   

   

     

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

    

      <script type="text/javascript">  (function() {  var pageParams = {"origHeight": 1276, "origWidth": 901, "fonts": [0, 1, 2], "pageNum": 14};  // page.uuid : fsnd1fck9py000  // page.page_request.cdn_path('html') : http://127.0.0.1:3128  // page.page_name : 14-3938f5abb5  // 'request_host': genserve   pageParams.containerElem = document.getElementById("outer_page_14");  pageParams.contentUrl = "http://html3.scribdassets.com/fsnd1fck9py000/pages/14-3938f5abb5.jsonp";  var page = docManager.addPage(pageParams);  })();  </script>    

     <script type="text/javascript">  var unit = Scribd.Ads.betweenUnitForPage(14)  if (unit) {  document.write('

  ')  }  Scribd.Ads.addAttribute('FourGen', 'True');  Scribd.Ads.addBetweenPageUnit(14);  </script> 

               

   

170 more annotations...