That being said… simply presenting resources to students and families is not enough to engage all students to improve learning. Burbules et al (2006) note that “…differences in access to information and communication technologies, [ICT] and the educational and employment possibilities they open up, is often not itself a technological gap, but a gap of social and economic advantage and disadvantages,” (p. 88). Educators are similarly aware of “achievement gaps” that fall along racial and socio-economic lines and any new educational initiative must have the goal of engaging all students. Engaging and motivating students and families are made easier when people see the possibility of gain: socially, economically and politically.
Warschauer (2002) developed a grid to illustrate how ICT (information and communication technology) can be used to optimize effectiveness and to drive home the fact that simply purchasing new equipment, or letting parents/students know about a “cool new website” isn’t enough. The introduction of new technologies (or equipment) must be supported by ensuring relevance, (i.e., by answering “what’s in it for me?), providing ongoing support (i.e., training and education to use the new ICT wisely), and building in social/community support, (ie., “buy in”).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marzano, (2003), synthesized 35 years of research that indicates that school effectiveness is based on a “guaranteed and viable curriculum, challenging goals and effective feedback, parent and community involvement, a safe and orderly environment, and collegiality and professionalism,” (p. 15). Marzano states that learning is most effective when a “guaranteed and viable curriculum” is implemented with high expectations, pressure to achieve, and frequent monitoring, (p. 35). Feedback should be timely, specific, and individualized so that decisions can be made to reteach skills as needed. Web 2.0 facilitates an ongoing dialogue, visibility and accountability between teacher, student and parents. This allows everyone to know what is being learned and what needs to be retaught. Web 2.0 changes the dynamic from teacher-as-provider of curriculum, to a more equitable playing field of a shared learning community by transforming all users to a more equitable place of assuming shared responsibility.
Web 2.0 facilitates a teacher’s ability to include the following instructional strategies identified in the research as most effective.
Additionally, by using Web 2.0 for formative assessment, an ongoing online dialogue allows for:
Web 2.0 facilitates a teacher’s ability to include the following instructional strategies identified in the research as most effective.
· Identifying similarities and differences
· Summarizing and note taking
· Reinforcing effort and providing recognition
· Homework and practice
· Nonlinguistic representations
· Cooperative learning
· Setting objectives and providing feedback
· Generating and testing hypotheses
· Questions, cues, and advance organizers (Marzano 2003, p. 80).
Additionally, by using Web 2.0 for formative assessment, an ongoing online dialogue allows for:
· instructors to make adjustments, (i.e., reteaching when required, reassessing)
· students to chart their own progress
· parents to see assignments and reinforce learning at home and have frequent access to the teacher for input and questions.
Henderson and Berla, (1995) noted, “The most accurate predictor of a student’s achievement in school is the extent to which the student’s family is able to: Create a home environment that encourages learning, communicate high, yet reasonable, expectations for their children’s achievement and future careers, and become involved in their children’s education, ” (p. 236). Web 2.0 provides a focal point and an opportunity for ongoing dialogue, particularly if the Web 2.0 page is used for multiple classroom purposes.
While the socio-economic status of parents has been widely reported to impact academic achievement, the effect of the home environment, (as opposed to income and parental education), is dominant. As such, Marzano (2003) reports three ways the home environment can positively impact student achievement: The first area is “communication about school” which is optimized when parents have frequent and systematic discussions with their children about schoolwork, and provide encouragement and resources to assist them, (p 128). Second, is “supervision…the extent to which parents monitor and control their children’s behavior…” particularly with regards to homework, after-school activities, and time spent on television, (p. 129). (Nowadays, computers/video games/internet must be added to the list of activities that require parental supervision/monitoring). Third, and most important, is parenting style and parental expectations – and by far the most effective style is “authoritative” whereby parents show interest in their children’s lives, establish rules with input from the children, and show consistency and warmth, (p. 130). Marzano (2003) also noted that parental involvement positively impacts student achievement and is most effective when there is ongoing two-way communication with the school. Web 2.0 is a communication portal that can be updated daily and provide ongoing opportunities for information/feedback and updates.
According to DuFour and Eaker (2008), a safe, collegial, positive culture is created when individuals accept responsibility for the school culture they are part of and are allowed to engage in reflective, evaluative dialogue. A positive culture is reinforced when space is created to share stories that help foster the new culture. Celebration is an integral to provide encouragement, rewards and to keep the momentum alive. Culture also requires ongoing attention and commitment, (pp. 136, 1453, 148). Web 2.0 allows for the provision of the safe “space” to foster and maintain a positive school culture. It provides a means to nurture a safe classroom culture that honors achievement and effort while allowing for questions and discussions. As noted above by Warschauer, it isn’t enough to provide people with access to new technologies. There is a “complex array of factors encompassing physical, digital, human, and social resources and relationships.” He adds, “Content and language, literacy and education, and community and institutional structures must all be taken into account if meaningful access to new technologies is to be provided." Entire storerooms of unused technological materials that have been found in offices and schools throughout the country provide evidence of this point. As such, the benefit of the Web 2.0 portal is its simplicity.
Research indicates that health problems are far worse for low-income children including poorer vision, hearing and oral health than their wealthier counterparts. In addition, lead exposure has significant consequences, asthma is worse, exposure to smoking and alcohol use is more prevalent, as well as lower birth weight due to parental substance use. There are gaps in access and utilization of medical care. “Even with health insurance, low-wage work interferes with the utilization of medical care. Parents who are paid hourly wages lose income when they take their children to the doctors,” (Rothstein, 2004, p. 41). Web 2.0 could provide a one-stop resource for necessary health linkages, such as health/vision/dental clinics and free immunization, along with feedback and reviews from users. Low-income students have less access to after-school and summer enrichmnent programs. Web 2.0 allows for a continuation of learning to occur outside of regular school hours. It promotes inclusion because working parents can access the site at any time.
Burbules (in a 2011 classroom blog), posited an important question: “In a “Web 2.0” world, when anyone can be a knowledge provider, two changes occur. One is that the sheer volume of information and truth claims explodes, along with the number of claimants. Furthermore, some of the traditional criteria of judging credibility become harder to apply. Whom do we trust?” Another question could be: was knowledge ever trustworthy? With “collectivized” knowledge, (i.e., multiple contributors on something like Wikipedia), do we even know whom to trust? Is somebody trying to sell us something? But…wasn’t this a problem before Web 2.0? Weren’t there serious credibility issues regarding pharmaceutical “research?” Aren’t there ongoing problems when major oil drilling companies fund university “research” with large grants and gifts? This question of who is trustworthy, and what is reliable information goes much beyond the Web 2.0 page, and challenges educators to be more vigilant in teaching, encouraging, and practicing critical thinking and questioning skills. In this way, Web 2.0 provides a living lab to promote the skills to: analyze, interact, and question material? When multiple perspectives are so readily available, it becomes more obvious that there are multiple truths, however, a challenge is that not everyone will have the time nor inclination to “investigate” every claim properly. Baron (2009) writes that “there are always trust issues with text, and even the most wired users have some internet activity that they shun.” As educators, we must validate the reactions people have toward different technologies, and teach users to trust their instincts, and "question authority." We must also acknowledge that not everyone will want to jump on board at the same rate.
Additional challenges for Web 2.0 users:
· The internet is distracting: how do we maintain “on-task” behaviors, focus, and reduce distractibility with incoming emails, tweets? Or, is it a form of competency to learn to multi-task?
· How do we keep content appropriate? Since the Web 2.0 provides a community for learners, and we are all presumably on equal footing, how to we ensure that material is edited properly?
· There are privacy issues. If formative assessment data are being “shared,” students would need pseudonyms or numbers. Are there issues teachers must be sensitive to with regard to the same students “getting it” and other students being left behind? How does the Web 2.0 community include all?
- Maintaining family participation will require ongoing exchanges, and some of that may need to occur outside of the Web 2.0 page. It will not be enough for parents to look at the pages. We will want active engagement, and to do that, activities must not be too complicated or taxing for parents.
· Some students need individualized attention for diverse learning needs. Web 2.0 may inhibit users from engaging for fear of exposure, loss of privacy, embarrassment, or the perception of unfairness, (if they are receiving additional teacher support).
· Would participating in a Web 2.0 “community” stifle one’s individuality in favor of conformity and group-think?
· Web 2.0 may change the way we read and write? Baron (2009) notes that the new technology “channels what we do, but it also changes to meet the needs of writers and readers who play a role in modifying the direction that writing technology takes.” Will we soon be teaching students to be concise by giving them twitter assignments such as: “React to this essay in no more than 140 words?”
How do these problems relate to activities across different areas of life – not only in formal educational institutions per se, but also in informal contexts and activities of learning?
What about the “canon” – the shared body of knowledge that has traditionally defined our history and culture? Is the internet making us forgo that shared knowledge and culture in favor of more efficient means of information?
Will quality go down? Carr (2005) lambasts Wikipedia as “unreliable” at a factual level, “…and the writing is often appalling. I wouldn't depend on it as a source, and I certainly wouldn't recommend it to a student writing a research paper.” He notes that “The promoters of Web 2.0 venerate the amateur and distrust the professional.” Will Web 2.0 generate “information overload” and enable “quantity not quality?”
- The use of Web 2.0 challenges the traditional student/teacher dynamic (hierarchical, top/down), in favor of a more shared (i.e. level playing field) community of learning. Does the teacher give up too much control with regard to “directions” of lessons, sequencing of directions, etc? Does the role of the teacher change into one of “enabling learning” rather than “directing” learning?
- Web 2.0 has the potential of showing teachers the value of frequent dialogue/feedback/ (e.g., formative assessment) and how important the use of it is in day-to-day teaching because it provides evidence of student learning.
- The role of students will change. Web 2.0 allows for more students to chose between multiple platforms to display their work. Will they forgo traditional assignments infavor of multimedia displays? Will teachers accept innovative student works when they don’t comply with the assignment?
According to a 2005 study by Lenhard and Madden, 12 million youth, ages 12-17), which amounts to 57% of teenagers, were already engaged in creating content for the internet. This included creating blogs, working on personal web-pages for themselves, a friend, school or another organization, sharing content, (artwork, stories, photos, videos), or remixing online content into new original forms. Duffy, (2008), suggested that these activities were akin to Marzano’s (2006), “learning centered” or “student centered” designs and that Web 2.0 accommodated different learning styles and placed the “control of learning experience itself into the hands of the learner.” Duffy noted, “Students negotiate meanings and connections within Web 2.0 social spaces or idea networks, exchange bits of content, create new content, and collaborate in new ways.” Perhaps the frame is: Web 2.0 will allow educators to keep up with our students! Web 2.0 also has the potential to give students a forum for their own interests - for instance, a wiki on ecosystems made by the class would allow the students to explore more personal interests (i.e. dinosaurs, rocks/minerals, water conservation, etc).
Final Thoughts
Carr (2005) says that Web 2.0 is amoral: “It doesn't care whether its consequences are good or bad. It doesn't care whether it brings us to a higher consciousness or a lower one. It doesn't care whether it burnishes our culture or dulls it. It doesn't care whether it leads us into a golden age or a dark one.” In this sense, the challenge returns to the educator and remains as timeless as ever: engage in effective, inclusive practices that promote learning and a skill set that will serve students in the 21st century.
References
Baron, D. (2009), A better pencil: Readers, writers, and the digital revolution, Oxford University Press, US.
Burbules, N. C., Callister, T. A., Taaffe, C., (2006). Beyond the digital divide, Technology and Education: Issues in administration, policy and applications in k12 schools: Advances in educational administration, Vol. 8, 85-99, Elsevier Ltd.
Carr, N. (2005), The amorality of Web 2.0, Nicholas Carr’s Blog, October 03, 2005. Derived from: http://roughtype.com/archives/2005/10/the_amorality_o.php
Duffy, P., (2008). Engaging the youtube google-eyed generation: Strategies for using web 2.0 in teaching and learning , Electronic Journal e-Learning, Volume 6 Issue 2, (pp. 119 - 130).
Henderson, A., & Berla, N., (1995). A new generation of evidence: The family is critical to student achievement. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Education.
Marzano, R. J., (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Rothstein, R., (2004). Class and Schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform to close the black-white achievement gap. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Warschauer, M., (2002). Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide, First Monday, Volume 7, Number 7. Derived from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/967 /888
