I wrote this as part of a third year Psychology unit called “Design in the Workplace” which was about user-centred design and testing.  It has become more relevant as I now work for a company that installs Apple Mac systems to educational establishments. Web 2.0 style technologies are transforming our schools as part of the Building Schools for the Future programme and the kids love it

It is also published at http://www.jigsaweducation.com

This essay will describe educational goals of staff and students, some current uses of technology in higher education and limitations of these current systems. A brief description of web based collaborative technologies known as Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2005) will be given. The concept of improvement will be clarified, and post-modern concepts of education introduced. Educational applications of new technology will be outlined along with some practical and philosophical issues that arise. The conclusion is reached that education is already changing due to large numbers of students using these technologies and institutions face the choice of ignoring it, or accepting and using the new tools to maximise their investments.

The main goals of educators are to access resources, provide resources to students and to communicate with other staff and students. The goals of students are to access resources such as lectures, notes and reading materials and to interact with staff and other students. Goals can be categorised into access to resources, and communication. Current educational systems are mainly based on a read-only model of information that is based on the library metaphor (O’Hear, 2006). Resources are chosen and stored by librarians and course administrators to be accessed by students during their studies. Such systems have increased access to vital information and vastly improved the speed of communication, but are still limited by the metaphor and limited investment in networked systems. Educational systems rely on computer networks, which slow down when being used by thousands of students. The costs involved in maintaining a university network are high. Information and communication technology (ICT) moves at an exponential rate, making it hard to stay up to date. ICT investment may be staggered over many years, resulting in a mixture of technologies and systems with multiple databases. For example, three systems are used at the University of Lincoln: A Microsoft Sharepoint based “portal”; Outlook based email and the Serco Virtual Campus (VC). Most of the functions of the VC could be implemented using Sharepoint and Outlook, which are currently underused. As well as the university using multiple databases, logons and interfaces, the VC is a perfect example of feature based rather than user-centred design (Cooper, 1999). It is difficult to use, badly structured and does not integrate with the Windows interface. The content management system and message board are primitive and unfriendly; lacking basic formatting features and spell checking. As a result, staff and students do not make full use of the VC meaning wasted learning opportunities. The use of Java and JavaScript throughout the VC also means that it is not accessible to many new browsers and devices. This places constraints on mobile and distance learning possibilities using this system.

Computer technology advances at a rapid rate and the 21st century has brought considerable processing power to homes and educational establishments. Broadband internet, wireless networking and mobile devices such as PDAs, smartphones and notebooks are now common. Increased availability and reduced cost of internet connections has resulted in an explosion of websites, including social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook that connect people from around the world. Discussion forums, instant messaging (IM) such as MSN Messenger, blogs and wikis such as Wikipedia allow instant storage and transfer of information. Social bookmarking sites allow users to tag and organise links and materials however they wish. Peer to peer (p2p) file sharing networks such as eMule and BitTorrent allow for the rapid decentralised transfer of large files such as music and video. What would previously have been expensive software is often available for free through open source projects. These recent interactive web technologies have been labelled Web 2.0 by O’Reilly (2005). Web 2.0 is a fundamental switch from published, read-only content towards the creation and modification of content by the users. This essay will concentrate on the use of IM, wikis, blogs and p2p file sharing.

Part of the essay question is about improving learning and to answer this, the concept of improvement must be clarified. Improvement can be within current methods, or by using entirely new methods of education. Current education largely conforms to a modernist paradigm, where success is achieved by reflecting the standards and curriculum of the institution (Gergen, 2001). Knowledge is chosen and distributed by those in authority through textbooks and lectures, what Freire describes as a nutritionist model (Freire, 1995). Information is decontextualised and fragmented. There is a belief in one right answer and educational institutions have a hierarchy of authority and power (Naidu, 2003). New technology can be used to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of modernist education by increasing the speed of information transmission and the quality of reading materials within current curricula. Assessments and monitoring of learning progress can also be facilitated by new technology, such as online testing and learning portfolios. However, improvements in education are not limited to merely speeding up and regulating existing practices. The involvement of Web 2.0 technologies in education is moving towards what is described by Alexander (2006) and Warlick (2007) as School 2.0. In School 2.0, emphasis is on communal construction of meanings and collaboration rather than following a strict curriculum. Technology is used to create and share information, with students as responsible for content as teachers. This is in line with post-modern concepts of educational practices such as heterarchy, pluralism and providing information in context (Gergen, 2001). In the spirit of Web 2.0, the power to create and modify content is returned to the end users, in this case students. The shift to post-modern education is assumed by many to be what is meant by improvement and will be used as the definition of improvement in this essay. There are however significant problems with this assumption that will be addressed later in the essay.

From an educational point of view, Web 2.0 has many useful applications in accessing resources and communicating (Freedman, 2007). Resource distribution is revolutionised by these new technologies. Assessments can be submitted electronically, bringing massive benefits in terms of handling and storage of submitted work. Electronic submission will also reduce the amount of printing carried out, saving money and helping the environment. It will be possible to set and assess new formats of work that cannot be physically handed in, and checking for plagiarism will be as simple as feeding the electronic versions into automated software. Work can currently be submitted via email, but that leads to problems with network congestion and full inboxes. IM and p2p file sharing would provide a much more effective way of transferring large files. As well as submitting work, course materials can be transferred in the same ways, again reducing the traffic over the university network and facilitating sharing of materials. There is no need to reserve, collect and return electronic materials that propagate across a network. File sharing allows for massive duplication of resources that allows everyone to access the same material at once. For example, if 150 students need to watch a video for a class and there is one copy of this DVD in the library, few will be able to get access to it. However, if the relevant part of the DVD was encoded and transferred via p2p networks, all 150 students have the capability to watch the video at the same time, and at any time that suits them. The university does not even need to host the file, as it can be propagated via MSN or existing p2p networks.

Communication can be improved also. By using wikis, blogs and social bookmarking sites, students can interact with the material and other students, increasing their engagement with the subject (Naidu, 2003). This is supported by the levels of processing approach to memory, in that the more complex the processing of information, the more likely it is to be remembered. Hearing, writing and then explaining to someone else are increasingly good for retention of information (Craik, 2002). Collaborative learning is also in line with Vygotsky’s idea of the zone of proximal development which states that people learn best when interacting with those that know slightly more than themselves (Vygotsky, 1978). These are constructivist concepts, that learning is improved when material is reworked into the student’s current knowledge rather than passively consumed. Files can be worked on collaboratively over the internet using applications such as Google Notebooks instead of physically meeting up. This may increase the participation in group activities, a traditionally difficult area of education. The asynchronous nature of such tools increases the chances of achieving the group’s goals, as individual members can work on the project when it is convenient for them (Bates, 1995).

While there are distinct advantages to using the new technologies mentioned, there are also significant practical and philosophical problems. On a practical level, new technology can increase the scope for copyright infringement and plagiarism and may involve extra investment. Electronic documents can easily be copied. This is a serious issue, but not a new one. Such duplication happens already through unauthorised photocopying and scanning. These copies are just as easy to circulate as electronic ones, and impossible to track. Copyright can be infringed now by photocopying, emailing PDF files and copying CDs and DVDs. The copyright argument is not strong enough to suppress useful new technologies for learning. The technology is not the cause of copyright infringement, but rather the attitude of the user. Only addressing the actions of those copying materials can reduce piracy. An issue that requires attention is the legal consequence of students using university networks for copyright infringement. Regarding plagiarism, students can and do copy and paste things from websites, which will only be made worse by collaborative student websites. Ideas discussed on or taken from social networking sites will be virtually impossible to reference properly due to the transitory nature of such sites. Ideas can be stolen or borrowed without any credit being given to the sources and “new technologies currently make it easier to fake getting an education for those less interested in actually getting one” (Robins & Webster, 2002, p309). Again, this is not directly the fault of the technology, but rather down to the attitudes of the students. Books are just as easy to plagiarise as internet sites. While developments in technology can increase plagiarism, they can also fight it using software such as Turnitin (http://www.iparadigms.com) to check assessments for duplicated material. Increased use of internet based technologies may also lead to increased costs in the form of new hardware, software and staff training. Faster internet connections may be required to allow collaborative technologies to be used and new software may need to be purchased. On the other hand, much of the new software is web based or open source and therefore less software is needed on the university’s computers. The storage of files and information will also be decentralised through student’s internet connections, websites and peer to peer networking. University printing costs fall if documents are given electronically, but may rise for students depending whether they prefer to print or read off the screen. The emerging technology of epaper (http://www.epaper.org.uk/) could be used to keep printing costs down for students. Just because the technology exists, it does not mean that educators will be able or willing to use it (Robins & Webster, 2002). Installing a blog or wiki is likely to require training or help from the ICT support department. Training or extra support staff will be needed to make the most of these new ways of working.

As well as practical problems with copyright, plagiarism and costs, there are philosophical problems with moving towards a post-modern School 2.0 environment. A quantum jump in technology such as this will leave people with poor IT skills behind. While some may benefit from training with new systems, many will just not be willing to change their methods to accommodate such a huge change from feeding students, to working with students using the latest technology. While some may not want to use the new technology, others may not want to change the format of education itself to a more collaborative, heterarchical structure. A change to student created and distributed content means the educators losing their status and being relegated to facilitators instead of being expert professors (Robins & Webster, 2002). Foucault (1979, cited in Robins & Webster, 2002) describes how academic authority is a form of power, which is reduced by more democratic forms of education. This is an important objection to School 2.0 and post-modernism in general. The concepts of heterarchy and collaboration appeal to some people, but not to others. While collaborative educational technologies accelerate this deskilling of academics, Gergen (2001) argues that it is increasing anyway with standards imposed by governing bodies such as the British Psychological Society and government imposed curricula restricting the freedom of academics to teach in their preferred ways. University is increasingly operating on a business model, where information is a commodity (Bates, 1995). Students already use many of the tools mentioned to assist their learning, without any input from their institutions. The combination of financial pressures and the widespread use of Web 2.0 tools by students point towards a different future for education. As new generations enter university, they will be more comfortable with the social and collaborative applications available to them and these students will be the lecturers of the future. The tools are already being used but it is up to the institutions to decide whether to ignore them or incorporate them into their teaching programmes.

Current educational systems are lagging behind technology, but new web technologies may provide ways of updating communication and access to resources. The use of such tools points towards a post-modern School 2.0 where collaboration and technology change the format of education. There are many areas where technology can improve education, but also new practical and philosophical problems to be addressed. Whether the powers that be want it to or not, the way people learn using the new tools available on the internet is changing education. All that remains is to decide whether to ignore it, or join the move towards School 2.0 and reap the benefits.

References

Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning? EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 32-44.

Bates, T. (1995). Technology, open learning, and distance education. London: Routledge.

Cooper, A. (1999). The inmates are running the asylum. Indianapolis, IN: Sams.

Craik, F. I. (2002). Levels of processing: Past, present and future? Memory, 10(5-6), 305-318.

Freedman, T. (2007). Coming of Age: An introduction to the new world wide web. Retrieved 15th April, from http://www.ictineducation.org.

Freire, P. (1995). Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Gergen, K. J. (2001). Social construction in context. London: Sage.

Naidu, S. (Ed.). (2003). Learning & Teaching with Technology: Principles and Practices. London: Kogan Page.

O’Hear, S. (2006, June 20th). Web’s second phase puts users in control. Guardian.

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0. Retrieved 16th April, 2007, from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

Robins, K., & Webster, F. (2002). The virtual university? Knowledge, markets, and management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Warlick, D. (2007). More on School 2.0. Retrieved 16th April, 2007, from http://davidwarlick.com/2cents/2007/02/27/more-on-school-20/