After reading Web 2.0 How-To for Educators, Leading 21st Century Schools, and
Social Media for School Leaders, I
found a lot of the arguments for using Web 2.0 tools seem repetitive. All of
the readings seem to focus on the fact that as we entered the new century, the
tools used should reflect a change from what was once the educational norm. The
fact that Web 2.0 is more dynamic than the original Web 1.0, the tools now
available should be more powerful in the sense that students should get more
out of them.
Davies and Merchant are cited in this question as giving significant reasons for exploring Web 2.0. This list of 8 reasons follows what the authors of the required texts had to say. For instance, Davies’ and Merchant’s first statement (“…young people are already engaged in Web 2.0 practices.”) is echoed by Solomon and Schrum (“Using technology is the Way today’s students learn outside of school because they are comfortable with the tools.” Page 3.). Students have always been curious, and they tend to accept change faster than adults. Teachers have not been as quick to use these tools in the classroom. Dixon uses the term technophobe (page 5) to explain why teachers are hesitant to use these tools. While some reasons seem valid (District or School restrictions), others seem dated (teachers who don’t know what to do).
The second reason reflects the concept of collaboration. When video was first introduced as a tool, the concept of distance learning was born. If a school’s population was too small to have certain courses (A.P. classes, for instance), they could hook up with another school in order to be part of the class. This sharing does not have to reach around the world: in New York, it could mean a neighborhood Catholic School teaming with the local Public School on a collaborative project.
The third reason, which links online social practices to be useful in work and leisure, has already shown results. In the PBS series Frontline, an episode entitled “Digital Nation” highlighted some of these evolving practices. IBM uses virtual meeting rooms to conduct meetings. Those involved are scattered throughout the country. This reflects the chat rooms of the 1990’s. The episode also showed how this technology extended into leisure activities. Gaming sites such as World of Warcraft work in much the same way.
Their fourth reason reflects on the enjoyment of these tools for both the student and the teacher. To paraphrase my former chairperson, engaging students with activities they know allow them to “take ownership of their work.” While some teachers would think twice about giving students such latitude (the fear that the students work may be less than adequate), other teachers have the personality to not take themselves too seriously.
Their fifth rationale reflects “new literacies.” Shrum and Levin discuss the importance of this at length. In fact, the Westchester section of the NY State Science Teachers’ Association (STANYS) met tonight for a round table discussion on the new State Standards for teaching science. When someone mentioned that these standards were last looked at 10-15 years ago, I cited Schrum and Levin, whose anecdote regarding the changes students have faced over their educational lifetime (K-12) which lasts 13 years (page 10). Students graduating this year began with e-mail (AOL), instant messaging, Word and Excel. They lived through the beginning of Web 2.0, joined social media in its infancy, and have graduated to taking video on smart phones.
The sixth rationale reflects the idea of digital citizenship. Current events can be tied in with these lessons: predators stalking social media, sexting, and bullying are all topics that can be discussed. In the Frontline episode noted before, South Korea has instituted policies on digital citizenship as early as the primary grades. The South Koreans have also instituted policies to deal with those students who overuse the net, especially when it involves addiction to game rooms.
The seventh rationale reflects the inclusion of parents and community into the schools. Dixon again stresses the need for engagement of all stakeholders in the educational process. Parents can now have access to grades 24/7. They can be more active in their child’s education, rather than waiting for a phone call or a report card. Involving the community allows partnerships, which could allow for expanded volunteer service, involvement in school activities, and partnerships for work or internships.
Finally, the collaborative nature of Web 2.0 allows others to share in the vision of a 21st century school. Dixon repeatedly uses the argument that a school leader cannot do every job by his or her own self. Much like a ship, a captain may lead, but the members of the crew each has their own job to do to make the voyage successful. Teachers should be aware, however, that criticality and insult are two different things. This reflects back to making students good digital citizens.
Isaac Asimov, in his years as an author of science fiction, created the “Three Laws of Robotics.” When discussing them, he likened these laws to laws involving the use of tools. Tools must be used for the right reasons, have proper safety protocols, and be used correctly (Robot Dreams, pages 424-425). Web tools should also follow these suggestions. Perhaps the technophobia Dixon refers to is the overwhelming number of tools, some of which have fallen out of favor. Perhaps teachers are wary, and are waiting to see what tools stand the test of time. My first website used AOL. Many students admit to have used MySpace. Even though technology advances quickly, the general public hates the constant change. Even changing the look of a website brings groans from people. As the course progress, I hope to see if these rationales stand the test of time (well, 3 months).
No comments:
Post a Comment