Examination Answers: Question 2:

Question 2: “A social constructivist learning approach” has been proposed as a way to think about learning social networking technologies (hardware and software). Connectivism and Constructivist Learning have also been proposed as a way to provide a theoretical basis for online learning. Having experienced a semester of learning in the Web 2.0 environment and been involved in learning using these methodologies, what do you see as the key issues for the teacher in the following areas:  (Connectivism approach to learning:

Click here for a really thorough understanding:

Here is another example, click here! :  (Constructivism approach to learning:Click here for some information on Constructivism JClick here for more info on Constructivist approaches to learning J:  

(a)- The ways in which the teacher conveys new information:

  The teacher is, essentially the means by which education, collaborative learning and networked learning can be incorporated together. They therefore need to adjudicate between these essential components of students learning and participation. However there is also the necessity of either:           (1)- Being able to delegate ways in which the students can use Networking elements (Such as blogs, search engines) even when the teacher is unsure about the process: Delegating the role to the students to play.          (2)- The teacher learning how to use the sites themselves in order to teach the students.Click here for a little information on these points: particularly: (2). However, if we were to use (2)- The students (living in the digital age) would be able to excel in the products, perhaps even before the teacher has mastered the use of one Web application. This use of the Internet, particularly the newly foundered Web 2.0, is, in essence a great and growing technology, where students are able to move with the technology of this time. Teachers are now accepting this technological reformation as a benefit, instead of a means of pulling students away (Please see article referring to Homework, restricted internet and technology further above)  IT is also important for the teacher to present information to the students in a really effective and constantly changing (to suit different styles of learning). The students need to be encouraged to understand that technology is not only effective for personal gain, but rather a strength in the collaboration and the ways it brings about change to the ‘old system’ of technology.

(Click here for a fantastic example of new technology within an old school system)

 (b)The encouragement of collaboration among students: As explained a little above, this is a massive reason why technology is being incorporated into the school system. It allows students to follow through with a group assessment, or relate information they have found online. They can also really get involved by exploring the web, resulting in them teaching themselves (Click here for more info!):  Through group assessments, students can work together in collecting and researching information so that they too understand the importance of collaboration and technology coming under the same heading of education. It is confirmed: that through others and teamwork/partnership, students are able to excel in the works that they do. Through associating the works we find, teaching it to others, and learning from others (alike) we are able to effectively open up a gateway to education that fonder new and growing talents of a technologically fit generation. The only way that this can properly occur is through collaboration: with peers, internet websites (created by billions of people internationally), and building relationships needed for positive results.     c) Classroom management methods:Classroom Management methods and Web 2.0:Vygotsky:Hattie:Blooms taxonomy:Gardner (multiple Intelligences):

Examination Answers: Question 2:

Examination Answers: Question 2.

Examination answers: Question 1.

Question 1:You have developed a Learning Project using Web 2.0 technologies. This was a project that you have put together for a group of 4 students and their parents to work on collaboratively.  (a)- In order to mark this project, provide the internet address of your blog: http://classblog4drama.wordpress.com/  (b)- Discuss 5 of the key issues you had to struggle with to get this project to work. 1.    One of the more difficult tasks was to make sure that the assessment was specific enough for the students to be able to work with many different forms and structures: i.e. -  Gardner’s Multiple Choices: Working to build the students like a ‘jigsaw’, where they are able to be influenced through a range of learning styles and techniques. 2.    Keeping the students motivated throughout the piece was also an essential key component. Without the motivation of the students, it would be difficult to let the students follow on with the task. One idea we had was to reward them every step the student would accomplish, so that when students reached a certain level they were rewarded, be it intrinsic/extrinsic, and somehow rewarded again when they completed another level http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation The teacher could post updates on to the parents’ blogs/postings so that they too could see how there child is doing with the assignment. This was also another form of motivation for the student: who know that the parents can see what they are doing.  3.    Finding a way in which the parents can work along side their children was a really difficult task to work on. However, essentially, if the parent is an influence over the children’s working environment, they should be passionate to be apart of it also. We looked at a few examples of this on the web, and realised it’s VERY possible: http://reading.indiana.edu/www/famres/pctogeth/ish07/laff.html  By allowing the students to work with their parents, this in return opens up the opportunity for the parent to see what the student is learning in this technological age, and how that can be incorporated into a learning style. There are going to be some cases, however, where it will parents will not understand or realize how to use the internet sufficiently enough for this task. This means that the students will be able to step up to the task: and teach their parents: which in return will help their personal learning and growth: through teaching, the students will also learn.  4.    Direction of the piece: (how the heck were we going to incorporate DRAMA into WEB 2.0 INFO!?!?!?)This was another difficult question that we needed to face head-on and answer. The majority of us in the group study drama for our major. We went through quite a few processes to get where we wanted to go with the assignment. We all knew the importance of the assignment, as a means of redirecting the learning within drama to be collaboratively web-based. Drama is ultimately about personal growth and learning about theorist and putting them into action: ‘to act’ through collaboration. We wanted to stay true to this concept: but at the same time experiment with how we were going to incorporate Web 2.0 as a newer advanced technology and form of collaboration for our changing students. http://www.news.com/Futurist-To-fix-education,-think-Web-2.0/2100-1032_3-6140175.html We had certain ideas about the structure, and finally decided that Playbuilding: could be incorporated as apart of Web 2.0 AND specifically collaborative learning. We then went to the BOS website, where we found a fantastic specific question that we could revolve around the use of the Web appropriately, and as a way that the parents could also be involved. So we used their questions and information on Playbuilding as our stimulis for incorporating the two and building a relationship between parent/student/web/theatre.5.    We also had to make sure that everything was being covered in the piece, and so, we had to break down the question and work out the best way that we could approach the situation: so we decided to make a structure of what we had to do (based on the assignment outline Allan gave us: Plan for assessment: Playbuilding.We have to incorporate these main things;1: How are students motivated to be engaged in this kind of learning?2: Is the collaboration being done in a way that requires all to contribute equally?3: Does this Web 2.0 technology really add educational value and improve learning?4:How do students effectively communicate when working together using Web 2.0 technologies?5: What happens to students who do not have access, or the skills to use the Web 2.0 technologies?6: How reliable is the information, what should be used and how private should it be? *Design the project around these ideas. PUTTING THE PROJECT TOGETHER:-must review articles online: papers, internet information, etc: including: “A social constructivist learning approach: The value of collaborative learning projects as educational methodologies”www.cs.tcd.ie/Sara.Bradshaw/portfolio/research/respaper.doc  and 4 other articles.*Reflect on them throughout the project.( I can be in charge of this if you like???) BASIS AROUND THE PROJECT- How to create the project:(1)Identify the topic that you wish to construct for a group of 4 students to learn collaboratively using Web 2.0 technologies. (THEATRE – PLAYBUILDING- how to incorporate this around the different theorists we have learnt and web 2.0 with group work) (2)- Need to create a criteria, specific questions for the students to follow and a marking criteria.(3)- Must show forms of support to the students ‘a expert teacher‘: (hatties sheet on the characteristics of the Expert teacher)(4)- Higher order of thinking:  BLOOMS TAXONOMY: Throughout the project: make sure students are analysing, evaluating and creating their own pieces: which should be pretty easy for play building.(5)- Many learning styles to fit many learning needs:  Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences.(6)- OVER VIEW STRUCTURE FOR THE LEARNING PROJECT: THIS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 6 HOURS IN LENGTH. (We should include what is going to be taught in class. (7)- Find ways to keep the students excited about the projects: MAYBE we could do a reward system: where after they have reached a certain point: they are rewarded??? (Lesson Construction and Motivation to Learn). (I think two people can work on this section: one to set up the idea: the other to see how it works with certain theories etc.) PRESENTATION OF THE PROJECT: SHOULD BE REALLY AWESOME: COLOURFUL ENTICING- I say we can all work on this part together… aahh, shucks. (But we can work on that once the project is down). 

HOPEFULLY THIS WORKS OUT LADIES!

c) Evaluate the worth of the collaborative nature of this project in light of the motivation that comes from within the person. (Refer to Dreikurs’ Key human Driver)*(Based on information found from another students; blog!:http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:P6v_u3ErdsAJ:myexamblog.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html+Dreikurs%E2%80%99+Key+human+Driver&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=au ) One of the key focuses we had was making sure that each person was to work collaboratively, but also within the structure of a group in order to receive intrinsic motivation and therefore personal reward. Through working with other, and working positively, this can really affect the outcome of your learning: Dreikurs believed that by allowing the student to feel worthy of this, and establishing a positive environment, as well as gaining a much needed trust: MUTUAL TRUST, This could in turn build about the relationship between teacher/parent/student. This, could ultimately lead to feeling emotionally worthwhile and bring about a sense of belonging for the student. 

We looked especially at the aspect of working collaboratively with the students. The task feels as if it will be an exciting on for the students, and through this, they can grow and have accomplished something together. By working with there parents, I believe this was an essential part of ‘belonging’ because the parent can see the work that the student is doing, and needs to trust the child to fulfill the requirements of the task at hand.

 

FOR ALLAN

Hey Allan,

Sorry there is no excuse for how late this essay is: only to say that I have no life atm. Many apologies- and I understand I will be deducted marks for how late this essay is. So sorry that you had to wait for so long to recieve this!

Amy Maddison.

Question: Amy Maddison 2006 4260.
Web 2.0 is essentially an increasing range of software that supports a variety of technologies for open and collaborative communication, learning and creativity. Discuss.
A significant understanding of the newly found and used ‘Web 2.0’ is an ‘increasing range of software that supports a variety of technologies for open and collaborative communication, learning and creativity‘. Though many, who have viewed the examples of these Web programs agree with this terminology, others are still quite impartial to it’s contrast with Web 1.0 and, even the existence of Web 2.0. When viewing the similarities and contrasts of Webs 1.0 and 2.0, and viewing it through the definition as above, there can be both reasons for and against the concept and ultimate appreciation of Web 2.0.Web 2.0 is constantly being both praised and scrutinised for its contemporary understanding of ‘collaborative technology’. The idea is constantly being defined as an adaptation of Web 1.0, and as an example of how collective learning can be incorporated through forms of Web 2.0. To understand the concept of Web 2.0, it is necessary to look at its history, and arguments that it brings forward. Looking at the definitions of Web 2.0 from the creators of the idea will also help in deciding it’s relevance.

The concept of Web 2.0 began after initiating a conference after the ‘crash’ of dot-com and the reasoning upon how it happened, and why there were so many similarities between the companies that survived this ‘crash.’ Tim O’Reilly, along with MediaLive International brainstormed a new understanding of the web, confirming that it was far from dying out, and instead ready to excel into a much wider and universal conformity. And through this, the idea of collaborative web was motioned.

Programs such as ‘Google‘, and ‘webblogs’ were created to coincide with this relationship, and previous programs such as Yahoo, and EBay (previously known as Web 1.0) were changed and reinvented. However, some disagree with Google actually being a Web 2.0 product. This is because:

(1)- It does not hold a blogline blogrole.

(2)- On the previous version, it did not could not hold ‘tabs’.

(3)- A lacking in programs such as catalyst, Adverse, del.ic.ious, and simantic markup

(Which are all examples of Web 2.0 accessories.)

(4)- It is not commonly identified with collaborative learning and technology.

However, these arguments are invalid particularly because Google has now adapted to more advanced and upgraded innovation. It is also a ‘search engine’ which means that these products and concept do exist within the capacity of the engine, and are used specifically to find sites such as ‘flicr’ and del.ic.ious. Point (4)- speculated above can also be argued because although Google is a search engine, it involves collaborative learning through accessing popular blog-websites: such as Myspace and wordpress, where collaborative learning is used.

The new developments within Google; also include access to webblogs through joining up on Google blogs (another form of collaborative learning) and creating email-message-news accounts within Google (known as igoogle.) Therefore it through the process and use of Web 2.0, Google has become the Largest and highly used Search engine worldly because of its adaptations into this modern technology.

When you juxtapose the accessibility and social-networked information of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0: there are some significant differences. While Web 1.0 was about accumulating information for the wider public to read and learn about: Web 2.0 is about the public having the access to join into this social system. Through the use of Web 2.0, people are able to build communities in this ‘technological age’ and make their learning personal by themselves attributing to the learning for each of them, and others. Many see Web 1.0 as the stepping stone Web 2.0 needed to see how the internet and the public could coincide with a growth in learning and joint knowledge of a growing generation of ‘internet-ees’.

With such advanced partnership, came a few discrepancies along the way. Because of the intimacy that Web 2.0 developed, programs such as Webblogs, and Wikipedia meant that some sites ‘could not be trusted’ to give correct information the way Web 1.0 could more clearly give. Assuming that Web 2.0 is a new advancement of Web 1.0, if everyone is able to write information on worldly issues, then who do we know who to trust? What security measures are being put in place to make sure that we are receiving trusted materials from webblogs and other such sites?

This is ultimately a difficult thing to decipher. Because of the openness that Web 2.0 offers, it is difficult to answer this question. Particular security measures and copyright laws make it difficult to bypass incorrect or lacking material, and therefore the understanding would be that it happens rarely. However, because Web 2.0 opens up personal interpretation, that can be both subjective and objective, this does infact introduce a dilemma. Therefore, in some circumstances it is important to look at the wider used and valued sources on the net such as Google and other search engines to look for sights that can give proper evaluations and information.

This is not the only security issue Web 2.0 faces. Because of the availability Web 2.0 allows users to have, many come to assume that it is much easier for hackers to hack into accounts to access credit card details and other personal details that can cause serious issues to the users. In many situations, this is true. However this was also an issue Web 1.0 had previously (as well as advertisements that took a large time to download and even memory use capacity). The main difference is that during the time of Web 2.0, new security measures occurred to prevent hackers from entering personal accounts: such as updated Norton Security viruses, advanced APPLE Computers (With built-in security means), and Trend Micro (and other restructured internet security devises).

Web 2.0 allows creativity and personal interpretations of the web to be used. People can now develop their own understanding of the web through adding uploading images and information that they can both share and use to store personal thoughts, information, videos and even music. Since the introduction of Web 2.0, there have been a huge range of programs that have supported the development of the use of the internet. Some include: Google, flickr, wordpress, Myspace, igoogle, Wikipedia, wiki-spots (information blogs), and numerous more. This is just another example of how technology in contemporary society is changing much within the modern world of personal expression, and even marketing and media.

You-tube is a newly owned program of Google that allows videos/movies scenes/short movies/song clips/ personal movies to be viewed by people from around the world. This is yet another transformation of the way this new technology has an effect on both marketing and media around the world: By allowing people to download movies and advertisements from the Web and even accessing Government based advertisements for the following election occurring November 2007, we see a huge change in the use of technology that affects the way communities will adapt in the time to come.

Through using the definition of Web 2.0 as supporting changes to make the internet a more collaborative and supported form of learning, tends to be obvious. If Web 2.0 is in fact true, and is reflective of the history of Web 1.0, then the new advancement in technology just in the past 18 months have created a new means for collaborative community development in the coming technological generation. Although these are fantastic creative and collaborative means of growing internet technology and accessibility, there were also many issues, such as security and accountability of correct information that is hard to determine, which seem to have been counter-acted through security restrictions, copyright laws and identifying reliable sites on the web. Since 2006, the introductions of webblogs and other collaborative-based sites have meant an increase in the way creativity, subjectivity and technology has seemed to reinvent the way technology is viewed: opening up a new vector from Web 1.0 adapting into Web 2.0. The only issue now is conforming to a definition that people will agree with, and finding if the future of Web 2.0 is as hopeful as it seems.