Problem 2.0 - Difficulties, limitations and issues surrounding utilisation of Web 2.0 technologies in education, Part 5: Another thing to learn

Web 2.0 technologies have the ability to enhance student learning in many areas. However, as a number of my previous posts have eluded to, teachers and students alike must learn to use the technologies appropriately before their full potential can be realised. Certainly this is true in terms of students abilities to seek, assess and appropriately use the information and tools on offer, however before even getting to this stage, there are also some practical difficulties to consider associated with using Web 2.0.

In the previously mentioned study by Moayeri (2010), completion of the Web 2.0 based assignments was found to be an "onerous task" for teachers and students alike. In this study, and similarly in this course, the teachers had difficulty in accessing the work presented to them in any sort of efficient manner. Similarly, students in the study and in this course have had difficulty navigating the wealth of options and information presented to them through different tools. Indeed, many students in this unit seem to be struggling just to keep up with learning about the different Web 2.0 tools on offer, let alone using them to their full potential. The existence of Megan Poor's (2011) 'Web 2.0 survival guide' is itself evidence of the difficulty some students have in getting the hang of these tools. Without appropriate guidance, it is conceivable that one could spend most of their time playing with the wealth of Web 2.0 tools on offer, before ever using the technology to learn in other areas. 

This really begs the question, how much is too much? Arguably, digital literacy of children is improving, and we might therefore expect their uptake of Web 2.0 technologies to be faster. However, the fact remains that a significant portion of children are not digitally literate (MCEECDYA 2010). Furthermore, in this course we are using Web 2.0 to apply skills such as critical thinking, which we have already largely developed through our previous education and experience. Our students on the other hand, will be needing to use Web 2.0 to develop other skills and knowledge (MCEECDYA 2010). 

Even if all the difficulties and barriers relating to utilisation of Web 2.0 were addressed such that capable students and teachers had easy unrestricted access to the full variety of technologies and information, the fact remains that any use of technology for learning comes at a time and convenience cost. For example, Moayeri (2011, pg 36) noted that some students complained of "being unable to work on the bus". Even when access is not an issue, loading and downloading take time. The average modern student may be fast on the functional uptake of technology, but arguably any significant time spent playing with new tools is time that could be spent using old ones.

References

1. Moayeri, M 2010. 'Classroom uses of social network sites: Traditional Practices or New Literacies', Digital Culture and Education, 2:1, 25-43.

2. MCEECDYA 2010. 'National Assessment Program -- ICT Literacy Years 6 & 10. Report. 2008, viewed 21 March 2010, http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/verve/_resources/NAP-ICTL_2008_report.pdf

3. Poor, M 2011. 'Web 2.0 survival guide', viewed 21 March 2010, http://web2survivalguide.wordpress.com/

Problem 2.0 - Difficulties, limitations and issues surrounding utilisation of Web 2.0 technologies in education, Part 4; Changing the educational paradigm

So far I've drawn attention to a few barriers that must be overcome before Web 2.0 technologies can be used extensively in class rooms. However, realising the many benefits such technologies can afford requires more than teachers and students making functional use of them.

For example, in this unit, a number of students are drafting their journal in word documents before copying them into their blog. They are using the technology, but they are not immersing themselves in the educational experience that blogging can provide. Furthermore, drafting in word first can lead to formatting problems and other difficulties in submitting the assessment. This highlights the issue that for students and teachers to greatly benefit from using Web 2.0, they must engage with the technology, and not simply see it as a different way to learn traditionally. A study titled Classroom Uses of Social Network Sites: Traditional Practices or New Literacies? (Moayeri 2010) made similar observations, noting that some students saw no difference between their Web 2.0 assignments and regular assignments. Moayeri (2010) also noted that "teachers were still using the technology in a way that allowed them to maintain their authoritative position".

Inability to adopt appropriate pedagogies for utilising technologies has the potential to inhibit the educational paradigm shift that could otherwise result (Hodas 1993). Arguably, in the case of Web 2.0 technologies, this eliminates some of the key benefits of their use. As with the previously mentioned issue of 'digital literacy', it seems some groundwork on pedagogies and learning with Web 2.0 technologies is required with students and teachers in order for much of the potential for their use in education to be unleashed.

References


1. Moayeri, M 2010. 'Classroom uses of social network sites: Traditional Practices or New Literacies', Digital Culture and Education, 2:1, 25-43.

2. Hodas, S 1993. 'Technology refusal and the organizational culture of schools', Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 1(10).

Problem 2.0 - Difficulties, limitations and issues surrounding utilisation of Web 2.0 technologies in education, Part 3: Cyber-safety and Accountability

The digital divide and digital literacy are key issues relating to use of all ICT in education. However, use of Web 2.0 technologies relies specifically on relatively unrestricted access to the internet and other forms of digital network, which raises another difficulty with its utilisation. Schools have a duty of care to their students, and as such internet access in schools must be restricted to prevent access to illegal and inappropriate content. In the current educational environment in Australia, some popular Web 2.0 sites are also blocked. This is generally to mitigate perceived risk relating to cyber-safety. These risks are as a general rule, poorly understood by society at large, which further amplifies perceived risks to schools in increasing access to internet tools and content (SICTAS 2009).

There are of course many perfectly safe and powerful Web 2.0 tools (we've looked at a number in this unit), assuming that the administrator has appropriate awareness of the dangers and security and privacy options on offer. However, inflexibility of school site blocking systems may still result in access restriction to these tools, as well as educationally relevant content from blocked sites (SICTAS 2009). If these barriers are not overcome to some extent across all schools, some students could be disadvantaged, which would only further the previously mentioned 'digital divide'. Regardless, accountability to students, parents, governments and society at large means that extensive use of Web 2.0 in education would require schools and education departments to continually balance unleashing its full potential with concerns relating to cyber-safety (SICTAS 2009).

References

1. SICTAS 2009. 'Web 2.0 site blocking in schools', strategic ICT advisory service,

Problem 2.0 - Difficulties, limitations and issues surrounding utilisation of Web 2.0 technologies in education, Part 2: Digital Literacy

In my last post I mentioned 'digital literacy', an issue closely associated to the digital divide. However, it is undoubtedly a major issue relating to use of Web 2.0 technologies in education in its own right. Similar to the digital divide, digital literacy is broad in scope, encompassing functional skills, as well as a broad range of other skills for effective use of ICT, including 'critical literacy' and 'network literacy'. Significant use of Web 2.0 in the class room requires both teachers and students to be 'digitally literate'. In particular, teachers (and certainly a number of pre-service teachers in the grad dip ed) may feel that their functional and network digital skills relating to ICT are inadequate (SICTAS 2009). Equally important, and interestingly, many students have major holes in their digital literacy, particularly relating to their ability to appropriately uncover and assess information (MCEECDYA 2010).

On one hand, use of Web 2.0 in education provides an opportunity for teachers and students to improve their digital literacy while reaping many of the other educational benefits they afford. However, poor student digital literacy highlights a need for appropriate and competent guidance if such technologies are to be utilised in learning, and lack of teacher confidence in use of the technology has the potential to form a barrier in providing such guidance (SICTAS 2009). Therefore, generic digital literacy is something that must be addressed, particularly on part of teachers, before Web 2.0 can be effectively utilised in education.

References


1. SICTAS 2009. 'Web 2.0 site blocking in schools', Report.

2. MCEECDYA 2010. 'National Assessment Program -- ICT Literacy Years 6 & 10. Report. 2008, viewed 21 March 2010, http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/verve/_resources/NAP-ICTL_2008_report.pdf

3. Atwell 2007. 'Web 2.0 and the changing ways we are using computers for learning: What are the implications for pedagogy and curriculum?', Article.

Problem 2.0 - Difficulties, limitations and issues surrounding utilisation of Web2.0 technologies in Education, Part 1: The Digital Divide

There seems to be a wealth of information relating to the possible benefits of utilising Web2.0 technologies in education (SICTAS 2009). On the other side of this, as my research question suggests, the negative issues and concerns surrounding use of these technologies are also of interest to me, and will be the focus for this research journal. These issues will no doubt also be of interest to other pre-service teachers, teachers and policy makers, who to a large extent, will determine the extent to which Web2.0 is utilised in classrooms of the future.

The 'digital divide' is a key difficulty relating to use of all ICT in education. It is broader in scope than Web 2.0, and presents multiple research topics on its own. However, it essentially refers to the inequality resulting from parts of the community having limited 'access' to ICT technologies. This 'access' can be over simplified to account only for access to computers. However, it should be recognised that unequal opportunity arises from limited access to a range of  different hardware, as well as connectedness to information and telecommunications networks, and proficiency in all of the above. This proficiency is very broad in scope, and must encompass a range of other 'non-technological' skills and competencies such as literacy and numeracy (Selwyn & Facer 2007).

The proficiency aspect of the digital divide seems to be of particular relevance to use of Web 2.0 technologies in education, as such technologies require ICT competency extending beyond the scope of basic 'digital literacy'. There may be many benefits to use of Web 2.0 in education, but who would we be benefiting most in its use? or more importantly, who would we be disadvantaging?

References

1. Selwyn, N & Facer, K 2007, 'Beyond the digital divide', futurelab, http://archive.futurelab.org.uk/.

2. SICTAS 2009. 'Web 2.0 site blocking in schools', Report.

STS Module D (3-10 March)

This week's lecture on pedagogy drew together concepts that have been examined in previous weeks and other units, and for me, partially closed a void between the constructivist pedagogies that have been put forward and my memories and impressions of the practices implemented by my teachers. Until now, the concept of constructivism seemed completely removed from my school experience, because the authority and specific direction with which we were taught seemingly contradicted the concept of students constructing their own learning and knowledge. However, the introduction of authentic pedagogy and productive pedagogy has allowed me to reflect on the practices of my teachers, and realise that despite the generally authoritative nature of the teaching, I was often taught in ways consistent with constructivist concepts. Certainly, when I reflect on the most valuable things I learned at school, my understanding is tied to my own and often unique experiences within the class room, something that would not have been possible without the teacher providing an appropriate environment. 


I feel this reflection is strongly connected to the provocations I identified last week. What kind of teacher do I want to be? What will students want and need from me? and should we teach students or subjects?

Something to work towards...

The phone beeps, message received. A short but simple message from someone I haven't heard from in a while.

"Hey Michael, still keen on XPD? I have an offer to buy a team entry". Momentary excitement leads to a quick response, "YES!". I'd been dreaming about entering this a few months earlier, but a serious knee injury, relationship difficulties and a general lack of direction in life had led to me watching the entry cut off date fly past.

A few more messages back and forth, and then he calls. Three significant things are mentioned: 110% commitment required, $2000.00 entry fee, and a decision is required there and then, cos he'd be buying the entry that evening. There's a brief moment of serious indecision, but then something comes over me and I think, "what the hell, yes!".

So, two days later, I find myself very suddenly committed to what must surely be one of the most demanding sporting events in the world, XPD, which this year will also be combined with the adventure race world championship.

Most of you will be unfamiliar with the race, so I'll sum it up by saying that it will be a week and a half of non-stop trekking, mountain biking and kayaking, most likely with some other exciting adventure activities thrown into the mix. When I say non-stop, I mean NON-STOP. The top teams will barely sleep and cover the course in around 4-5 days. The course is 700km long, which doesn't sound like much until you see it drawn on a map of Tasmania, on which it covers most of the state. Tasmania's hardly renowned for being flat either.

Most teams will be just aiming to finish within the 10 day cut off, as will ours. I'm not sure it's possible to stay awake that long, so we'll definitely be sleeping at least a little bit at some point, but it's definitely not going to be easy.

http://www.xpd.com.au/

The Climate Change Debate

"You always hear climate change theorists talking about all these consequences that seem incomprehensible. That's why I continue to be a climate change sceptic. They say we could be looking at several metres sea level rise. Well, show me one metre and I might start to be convinced." - a senior employee in a company specialising in large scale project and risk management.

With the recent government announcement to "put a price on carbon", the climate change debate has been thrown back into the limelight. However, it seems that the opposition, its followers and a number of climate change sceptics have immediately shifted the debate to a nonsensical political one, by labelling it a "carbon tax". Whatever you want to call it, it seems a good opportunity for me to put forward some long held opinions about this whole climate change thing, and maybe try to shift the debate back to something more relevant to intelligent Australians.

So, I'll start by putting forward what seems to be the common question. Do you believe in climate change? Before you answer though, I'd like you to consider this. I don't care what you believe, and neither, in my opinion, should anyone hoping for any sort of sensible and research supported action or non-action on the issue. After all, we're not talking about religion here, it's not about belief. We're also not talking about pure mathematics, so there's little scope for a sensible definitive 'yes or no' debate either. The fact that (again in my opinion) many of the central figures in the debate treat it as a 'with us or against us scenario', and that many of the people they're trying to persuade continually demonstrate little understanding of the scientific method, evidence and peer review process pushes the issue out of the realms of academic debate all together. Therefore, rather than try to put forward evidence for why I 'believe in global warming', I will put forward a rational case for why we might want to consider taking action regardless of what truly is.

I'll begin by putting forward some more questions. When will someone next break into your house? and when will a fire next sweep through your neighbourhood? You've probably answered, "I don't know", a very sensible answer unless you're God, or at least some sort of prophet. In view of that fact, consider this. If you own your own home, you probably spend upwards of $1000/year on home and contents insurance (http://www.insurancecompared.com.au/explained/in-the-home/home-ins.php). The insurance council of Australia reports that approximately 5.8 million Australians have house and contents insurance. So, collectively we spend upward of $5.8 billion a year on home and contents insurance (If someone wants to go to the trouble of finding the real figures, that would be great!). A brief look at our ever reliable media implies that a significant portion of victims of the recent Queensland flood were uninsured for their losses, many of whom thought they would be (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/15/3113439.htm, http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-reports/no-insurance-no-payout/story-fn7kabp3-1225987475477). This suggests that not only do Australians spend a lot on insurance, but many do so without comprehensive background research or consideration of the risks. Why are we happy to throw money at insurance companies without a complete understanding, without guarantee that our expenditure will work, and without any guarantee that an incident will occur in the first place? It seems to me that we do so because there's a risk, and even if we can't be sure of stopping it, we want to do something to mitigate that risk. We don't know our house will burn down, but we don't know that it won't either.

Now let's examine the common arguments against climate change action:

Argument 1 - We don't know the extent to which climate change is caused by humans, or (for the serious sceptics) whether it's influenced by us at all.

Argument 2 - Action is expensive, we can't afford it, and we don't know if it will be effective anyway.

Assuming you believe both these arguments to be valid, ask yourself this? Can you say for sure that humans are not causing climate change? and can you say for sure that any of the proposed forms of climate change action will be ineffective? If so, unveil your evidence, and you will soon be rich and famous. If not, maybe ask yourself why you pay so much house and contents insurance to protect against something which you don't know will occur, and may not protect you even if it does occur.


If you think I'm not comparing apples with apples, you're right. A fire, or serial burglar might rob you of your house and all your possessions, or possibly even your entire town or community. Weigh this up against theorised consequences of global warming which include global famine, increased incidents of extreme weather events, economic devastation and much much more (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007). If you don't 'believe' in these things, just remember, I don't care, and in my opinion neither should you if you're sensible. There seems to be a lot of evidence out there suggesting that these are likely consequences, and maybe you're not convinced, but at the very least you have to acknowledge a risk. Anyone who's familiar with AS/NZS 4360:2004, the Australian standard for risk management will be able to tell you that mitigating action should consider both the likelihood and the consequences. Maybe, if you're a climate change sceptic, it doesn't seem likely, but consequences don't get any more severe.

Ironically, I'm one of the minority without contents insurance.

STS Module C (24 Feb - 3 March)

Reflections

I'm becoming increasingly aware of how much my background and values will influence my teaching. This week we were encouraged to think about what should be passed on to students, and it was only upon thinking about it, that I realised how tempting it seems to try and make my students just like me. However, my students aren't me, they have different backgrounds, skills, interests, and values. Reading for my other units has suggested that consideration of who they are and what is of interest and relevance to them will keep them more engaged, and is more likely to help them become life long learners. I feel this is something to keep in mind continually through this course and my teaching career. It also relates to some of our course provocations, in particular, what kind of teacher do I want to be? What will students want and need from me? and should we teach students or subjects?