#8 Blog Posting - Reflections on Blogging

Web 2.0 tools are vast, powerful, and here to stay. Educators can use these tools in educational settings to an extensive extent. The ability to organize information, have information sent to you through RSS feeds, and share that information with students and colleagues is revolutionary. A world of information, which can be selected by the teacher, is literally at the fingertips. No longer is the teacher the one solitary resource available to students; through Web 2.0 tools, collaboration is possible with numerous experts and the collective intelligence of the human population.

Unfortunately, there are number of obstacles that educators have to overcome in order to implement these Web 2.0 tools in the classroom. All of the tools are online tools, and where security and safety measures are in place, there will always be risk and danger when sending students into the global, predator-filled Internet. Some tools require users to sign-up using a valid email address, which can lead to spam and the selling of personal information. Furthermore, convincing administration that the tools are useful enough to put in the resources to ensure as much safety as possible is another difficult task. Where most of these tools are very easy to setup and use, some valuable instructional time may be lost setting up and training students to use these tools. A school funding, implementing, and maintaining the technology for these tools would be very expensive.

Technical problems are another issue. Web 2.0 allows for and promotes a lack of hard copy paperwork. But, if a server or hard drive crashes, potential lose of data will occur, depending on how much data, if any, was backed-up. The security of the Web 2.0 tools is also suspect, as computer hackers, which may even be some of the students in the course, could break into the servers and change information. In sharing files and information in these tools, great care must be exercised to follow copyright laws and not share copyrighted materials.

Despite these problems, Web 2.0 tools are ushering in a new generation of sharing and collaboration that will not stop. Educators need to get on board with these tools in order to enhance lessons and not be left behind or out of excellent educational resources. The web will continue to escalate with the emergence of Web 3.0 and beyond. Educators and school systems cannot afford to stay offline in a global communication era.

For more information see these websites:

http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/software-services-applications-internet-social/12384575-1.html

http://www.kn.pacbell.com/wired/fil/pages/listweb20s.html

#7 Blog Posting - Second Life

Second Life (SL) is a three dimensional (3D) virtual world that is designed to mirror and mimic the real world. There are numerous advantages to SL. Power (2007) describes some of these advantages: free and cheap access, excellent building potential, communication tools, large employee base for hire, creativity of the platform, integration of outside web tools, excellent and vast education potential. A building can be laid-out, designed, and virtually built so that executives and employees can walk through the building and make suggests and comments before any resources were spent on the building (Power). Educational locations, such as museums and art galleries, are available to visit and a teacher can take a class on a guided tour of these locations. As Werner (2008) points out, SL can be used for training purposes as well: emergency response and health care professionals can use SL to respond to virtual situations in real time. Also, SL can be used to model and train in various other ways, even microscopic germs (Werner). In SL, avatars can experience human mental and physical disabilities in order to better understand them (Werner). There are vast number of possibilities, advantages, and ways in which to use second life as an educator, businessperson, or for personal use.

However, there are also a lot of disadvantages. There is a learning curve to learn to move in SL and an even larger learning curve to learn to create (Werner 2008). There are technical limitations such as slow uploading and downloading speeds, since the program is on Linden Lab’s server grid, says Werner. Other disadvantages that Power (2007) points out are: time and costs to be trained on SL, numerous distractions via interesting games and graphics or other people, uninvited people, pranksters, spam, adult and violent behavior that would be unacceptable in a work or school environment, some communication tools are slow or limited by being totally public or private, resistance to use, and SL addiction.

From my own personal experiences with SL, I feel that SL has some intriguing possibilities, but also has significant flaws for educational use. When I first signed on to SL, I was not even out of the Orientation Island that I was first dropped into before another user started to flirt with me, uninvited, so, security is definitely an issue. After the initial novelty of being in a 3D world wore off, I was quite bored. The scenes created are fairly accurate, but they are not real and therefore, lack value to me. Also, the locations are not as awe inspiring as nature can be, are not exact replicas of the real place, and neither do the locations feel like visiting the real place that the SL page is designed to represent. I do not feel SL enhanced any meetings or group collaborations, and often, meetings were far less efficient when using SL due to cumbersome communication tools and distractions to the meeting. Furthermore, I did not feel more connected to my colleagues in SL then I did when chatting online, audio conferencing, or video conferencing.

The ability to create things is neat, but developing the skills needed to create something of value is quite an undertaking, and once something is created, it is useful only in SL and may not even bear a resemblance to creating that same object in real life. Creating a building of great architecture or artwork in SL is one thing, but creating that same object in the real world is a different matter. SL can help, but it is not the end target.

My largest problem with second life is that, as of now, underage students are not allowed access to the same virtual world as adults. I like this restriction for safety reasons because there is adult and violent behavior in SL, but this restriction makes using SL in a high school classroom nearly impossible or at least significantly less engaging; students would have to watch me navigate a SL location. SL is intriguing and can be used in the corporate world, but when dealing with minors in a school setting, SL has long way to go. Anyone want to create an education-only SL? That would be great.

References

Power, D. (2007, August 19). What are the advantages and disadvantages of using Second Life for decision support? Retrieved August 19, 2009, from http://dssresources.com/faq/index.php?action=artikel&id=138

Twerner1952. (2008, September 3). Advantages of Second Life for workplace learning [Video File]. Video posted to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7vhUWt2vh0

#6 Blog Posting - Communities of Practice

Social networking is vast and growing rapidly. Lenhart (2009) states that participation in social networking websites by adults “has more than quadrupled in the last four years – from 8% in 2005 to 35% [at the end of the 2008].” Social networking tools are useful for a vast number of reasons. For personally use, these tools allow for easy communication among friends and easy ways to keep in touch when separated by great distances. Users use social networks more for personal use than any other reason – users use them to connect to people they already met in some fashion (Lenhart).

However, social networking tools can also be put to a professional or business use. Through connecting with people, expertise in nearly any field is only a connection or two away. Businesses are using social networking tools to connect with their customers. A recent study showed “that when a company/brand is more active with its consumers through social media (the likes of Facebook and Twitter), it is more likely that the company will have financial success” (Fightmaster, 2009). This shows and means that there is money to made using social networking tools. However, social networking tools may not be for every company. Fightmaster describes some companies, like McDonald’s, that have a very low presence on social networking tools, but are still successful companies. Bonfield (2008) describes 6 reasons as to why companies might not want to jump into social networking: “You’re still trying to get a handle on your basic software infrastructure, your target audiences aren't using social networking tools, You don't have time to experiment with something that might not work, you're not willing to deal with technologies that don't work as well as they could, you're not ready to invest in gaining a real understanding of the medium, you want clear editorial control over your brand and message.” Businesses can see increased success while using social networks, but they need to be willing and able to expend the resources to do it.

References

Bonfield, B. (2008, January 8). Should your organization use social networking sites: Signs that a social networking site might work – or not work – for you. Retrieved August 20, 2009, from http://www.techsoup.org/learningcenter/internet/page7935.cfm

Fightmaster, M. (2009, July 22). Is the use of social networking the key to a company’s success? Retrieved August 20, 2009, from http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/07/22/is-the-use-of-social-networking-key-a-companys-success/

Lenhart, A. (2009, January 14). Adults and social network websites. Retrieved August 20, 2009, from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Adults-and-Social-Network-Websites.aspx

#5 Blog Posting - Social Media

Social Media allows for people to interact in nearly anyway they want. The possibilities of social media are endless. Social media tools, such as Web 2.0 tools, allow for people to connect and collaborate in a countless number of ways. Where there is a danger of security and safety with these tools, endless amounts of positive interaction can occur. Through using these and collaborating in an online manner, ideas can become more refined due to the amount of people collaborating and the amount of information being shared. However, as Geis (2009) points out, much of this information is unstructured, coming from various sources and in various forms, leaving the user to wade through and sort the information. Where Geis says this is not necessarily a bad thing, users are forced to work harder to reduce the uncertainty of information. However, help is on the way, says Geis. Researchers are improving and expanding on the algorithms that current search engines are operating under. They are developing algorithms called meaning-based computing, where the algorithm tries to figure out what the information actually means instead of searching for tags and keywords (Geis). Once this technology is refined, social media tools will be much more usable because the knowledge will be more easily managed.

Web 2.0 tools allow for sharing information and collaboration on a global scale. However, how is this global communication governed? Should this communication be governed? Who should govern this communication? Is a global institution needed? Is a global government needed?

In researching these questions, confusion, doubt, mistrust, and debate arise. The issue of Internet governance is an on-going debate and every-evolving issue. As of now, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a U.S. controlled organization, controls IP addresses and domain names (Blackenhorn, 2005). Therefore, ICANN has the power to have servers shut down anywhere in the world (Blackenhorn). However, this power residing with a mainly U.S. supported corporation is not welcomed by of other nations. Therefore, some of these countries are looking into ways of equalizing Internet control (Blackenhorn).

However, each country’s government has the ability to censor the content of the Internet in their country. The Chinese government is most known for censoring the Internet in their country, but other countries, including Malaysia and Singapore, also police Internet content for things such as pornography and other types of content (Ho, 2009). However, these content filters can be by-passed using special networks or proxy servers that can circumvent governmental controls (Zeller, 2006).

It will be interesting to watch what happens with the issues of Internet governance. Some schools of thought say that the each government should be able to control the Internet, others say that the Internet should be free from control and censorship, while others say that an independent global institution would best be suited for governing the Internet. However, some control is needed for the safety of citizens and each government should have some say over the control of the Internet. Governments should be allowed to control content to fit the moral character of the nation, but should not be able to influence other countries’ Internet access. Therefore, due to the global nature of the Internet and since it is easy for citizens to by-pass singular governmental controls, the only solution would be for a global institution, which represents all nations, to govern the Internet.

References

Blackenhorn, D. (2005, June 7). Should the Internet be governed?. Retrieved August 19, 2009, from http://mooreslore.corante.com/archives/2005/06/07/should_the_internet_be_governed.php

Geis, G. S. (2009, June 14). Automating contract law: How advances in knowledge-management technology can help transform the empirical study of contract law. Retrieved August 19, 2009, from http://legalworkshop.org/2009/06/14/automating-contract-law-how-advances-in-knowledge-management-technology-can-help-transform-the-empirical-study-of-contract-law

Ho, V. (2009, August 10, 2009). Malaysia to censor some Internet content. Retrieved August 19, 2009, from http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/aug2009/gb20090810_795144.htm?campaign_id=rss_topStories

Zeller, T. (2006, January 29). How to outwit the world’s Internet censors. Retrieved August 19, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/weekinreview/29basic.html

#4 Blog Posting - 21st Century Skills and Lifelong Learning

The goal of schools is to prepare students for their journey through life. However, in today’s technological world, technology and information never stop changing. Therefore, if people stop learning after school, they will be worlds behind in technology before they even have time to blink. Therefore, lifelong learning is essential to living a successful life. As Sharples (2000) describes, lifelong learning is a collaborative task. Everyone has his or her own collaborative group such as co-workers, friends, religious groups, and other various groups (Sharples). Sharples describes tools for lifelong learning: “memory aids, concept and topic maps, case archive and communication devices that are: highly portable, [able to be used anywhere]…individual [targeting individual learning styles and needs]…unobtrusive [so that the learning is paramount]…available anywhere [to collaborate with teachers, peers, and experts]…adaptable to the learner’s evolving skills and knowledge; persistent [so that the learner can continue to learn]…useful [technologically current]…intuitive [so that the learner can easily use them].” The tools Sharples describes are here and active in Web 2.0 tools, modern cell phones, iPods, and computers. Through using these tools, people can continue to learn their entire life.

The learning groups that Sharples described in his article are taking a new shape. A new way of forming groups has emerged through the implementation of the Internet. It is referred to as either Personal Learning Network or Professional Learning Network (PLN) (academicaesthetic, 2008). Essentially, a PLN is expanding upon the idea of the ‘offline’ groups that Sharples mentioned and goes online to the Internet to find group members, colleagues, and collaborators (academicaesthetic). With these online groups, collaboration reaches its maximum potential, and with it, so can individual performance. As Tobin (1998) points out, there are many ways a learning network can be useful: sorting through data to identify important information, share learning resources and opportunities, mentoring and helping to apply new skills to practical applications, and sharing wisdom and resources – both to others and from others.

Because of the Internet, the ability to communicate, collaborate, and expand ideas due to this collaboration is enormous. No longer are people restrained to resources they can walk or drive to. People can share information and receive free information and assistance from people all over the world. People can communicate and collaborate with the best experts in the field in which they are studying, and through this, can learn more than they ever thought they would or ever thought possible.

References

academicaesthetic. (2008, August 20). How 2(.0): Personal learning networks, 1/4 [Video File]. Video posted to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK8kqjNomAg

Sharples, M. (2000). The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning. Retrieved August 14, 2009, from http://www.eee.bham.ac.uk/sharplem/papers/handler%20comped.pdf

Tobin, D. R. (1998). Building your personal learning network. Retrieved August 14, 2009, from http://www.tobincls.com/learningnetwork.htm

#3 Blog Posting - Media Literacy

With the advent of Web 2.0 tools, group collaboration is easier then ever and has reached an all time high. As Lohr (2009) states, the main idea in this type of collaboration, which he calls open-innovation, is getting as many people together as possible. Through this collaboration, the best and most creative ideas will emerge. The publishers of James Surowiecki’s book, The Wisdom of Crowds (2004), have a Website on which the publishers have a Question and Answer session with the author:

There are four key qualities that make a crowd smart. It needs to be diverse, so that people are bringing different pieces of information to the table. It needs to be decentralized, so that no one at the top is dictating the crowd's answer. It needs a way of summarizing people's opinions into one collective verdict. And the people in the crowd need to be independent, so that they pay attention mostly to their own information, and not worrying about what everyone around them thinks. (In response to “Under what circumstances is the crowd smarter?”)

However, Lohr (2009) goes to describe recent research in this topic as well as some clarifications that need to be made: “But a look at recent cases and new research suggests that open-innovation models succeed only when carefully designed for a particular task and when the incentives are tailored to attract the most effective collaborators.”

Lohr (2009) goes on to reference a million dollar offer (the contest is now closed) Netflix made for the contestant that could improve movie recommendations 10%. As can be seen on the leaderboard section of Netflix’s website (http://www.netflixprize.com//leaderboard), there are two contestants that passed this mark. Netflix will be publishing the results very shortly. Both of these contestants are not one person, but groups. One of the contending groups, BellKor’s Pragmatic Chaos, consists of seven experts in the fields of statistics, machine learning, and computer engineering from four different countries. However, all of the members are experts in their fields and their fields are relevant to the goal of writing an algorithm to improve movie recommendations. This group is a combination of three groups.

The other group, The Ensemble, is also a merger of multiple other groups that banned together to compete with BellKor’s Pragmatic Chaos. This shows the amount of collaboration that occurred on part of the all of these groups. A rather large number of people, who once formed multiple groups, combined to make two groups. This would not have been possible without the Internet and modern tools (Lohr, 2009). This is but one example of how the Internet and Web 2.0 tools can help collaboration and the creation of new and meaningful ideas. Open-innovation and group work yields excellent results, but only if the group members are working hard towards a common goal and are educated in the subject matter. Web 2.0 tools assist the formation of groups with people from multiple countries and geographic locations that could never have collaborated meaningfully and easily before.

Lohr, S. (2009, July 18). The crowd is wise (when it’s focused). The New York Times. Retrieved August 10, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/technology/internet/19unboxed.html

The wisdom of crowds: Q & A with James Surowiecki. (2004). Retrieved August 10, 2009, from http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/Q&A.html

#2 Blog Posting - Learning with Web 2.0

Today’s learners are digital learners. These learners are accustomed to technology because they use it all the time whether it is a cell phone, computer, television, gaming system, or some other form of technology. Due to this familiarity, which is on the verge of dependency, today’s learners learn better using, to the point of need, technology in school lessons (mwesch, 2007). Unfortunately, many teachers are very far behind with implementing technology into lessons on a regular basis. 63% of teachers never allow their students to create something new using technology (bjnesbitt, 2007). In a world where students’ lives revolve around technology, this is unacceptable. Teachers can use these tools to enhance and expand upon students’ prior knowledge so that the tools can be used in an educational rich environment in any field.

Students want to collaborate. They want to be taught to think and to create. They need to be able to know how to find, analyze, critic, summarize, and share information (KnowclueKidd, 2009). Web 2.0 tools allow this to happen. These tools allow people to share and collaborate on opinions, photos, the playing of complex games, informational and how-to videos, sounds, creating radio and television shows, and presentations (NikPeachey, 2008). There also Web 2.0 tools designed for teachers. There are sites that work on developing vocabulary, sites that foster peer-teaching, sites that allow teachers to teach from their home in a studio capacity, sites that can create online classrooms, and even sites that can help make textbooks interactive (NikPeachey). There is an amazing amount of sites and tools available and waiting to be utilized. The task is now for the teacher to go out and use them.

Today’s students are charged with facing and solving tomorrow’s problems. Those same student’s do not feel that sitting in a room and taking a multiple choice test will prepare them for their task ahead. Some feel that the answers will involve technology, but, oftentimes, students do not use technology in class (mwesch, 2007). Technology is not going away. The point of school, above all, is to prepare students for the world. In order to prepare students for today’s technologically rich world, teachers must use technology in the classroom. Web 2.0 tools can help.

References

Bjnesbitt. (2007, November 28). A vision of K-12 students today [Video File]. Video posted to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A-ZVCjfWf8

KnowclueKidd. (2009, March 04). No future left behind [Video File]. Video posted to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kra_z9vMnHo

mwesch. (2007, October 12). A vision of students today [Video File]. Video posted to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCJ46vyR9o

NikPeachey. (2008, July 26). Web 2.0 for EFL/ESL teachers [Video File]. Video posted to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfpkVYXpvyE

#1 Blog Posting - Web 2.0

Term given to tools that allow people to share their ideas with other people (flexbeta, 2006). Such tools might be blogs, like you are reading now, the ever-popular YouTube, wikis, such as Wikipedia, and the list goes on and on. Web 2.0 focuses on the end-user and allows the public using the website to access, participate with, provide feedback to, and sometimes even edit information. In short, users add value to website (flexbeta). Web 2.0 is about connecting people to people. Web 2.0 tools allow people to share ideas, create ideas, and expand on others through conversation (et3rnul, 2007). From a business prospective, Web 2.0 tools are very useful. These tools provide services to others. The tools connect businesses to businesses and allow those businesses to work together in order to service their customers (explainingcomputer, 2008).

Web 2.0 is about sharing information, communicating, and collaborating just for the sake of creating and expanding ideas. I like that Web 2.0 tools are geared more towards servicing the public and allowing people to share ideas. Many of these tools are free and open to the public, putting the emphasis on communicating and collaborating and not trying to sell an idea or product. When first encountering Web 2.0 tools, I was a bit overwhelmed. The vast number of tools and the number of ideas is staggering. Once I was able to accept that I would not, and never will, know or use all of the Web 2.0 tools (which was a challenge in-and-of itself), I was able to start my journey into the world of Web 2.0. I have immediately fallen in love. The tools for sharing files, photos, and videos with people across the world are powerful. These tools can be used for nearly any reason – from the sharing and development of ideas for professional or social ends, all the way to sharing wedding pictures and videos with friends and family that live far away. Whatever the need, Web 2.0 tools can help.

References

et3rnul. (2007, March 12). Web 2.0 is here [Video File]. Video posted to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoWKkl5nA08

explainingcomputers. (2008, March 03). Explaining Web 2.0 [Video File]. Video posted to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BAXvFdMBWw

flexbeta. (2006, September 10). What is Web 2.0? [Video File]. Video posted to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LzQIUANnHc