Web 2.0 and Education by Dr Mohammed Abu Aish

Web 2.0 as a learning tool

Web 2.0 as a Learning Tool Mohammed Abu Aish Dec, 2010

Web 2.0 as a learning tool

There is nothing that brings controversy to the world of education than the concept of learning and the nature of knowledge. Although these terms seem intuitive to some readers, educators and researchers interpret them differently. These different interpretations greatly affect the ways of looking into the educational process, setting learning environments, assessing learning outcomes and conducting educational research. One of the main factors causing this long-term debate is the way we think about knowledge, learning and cognition. What is learning and what is the nature of knowledge?. There are many theories of learning that talks about the way we learn, use what we learn and teach what we learn. Although these theories significantly differ from each other when it comes to the “how we learn” question, they some times share a common starting point, that is, the “what” question of the nature of knowledge. This starting point as Sfard (1999) describes it, originates from a “Metaphorical” view of the nature of knowledge, rather than being based on evidence or theory. Sfard (1999) quotes: " The line, even in science, between serious theory and metaphor is a thin one if it can be drawn at all. There is no obvious point at which we may say, 'here the metaphors stop and the theories begin ". Sfard (1999) divided these metaphors for learning to two different views that she called, The Acquisition metaphor (AM) and the Participation Metaphor (PM) Anyone who looks at knowledge as a sort of commodity that people can acquire, share with others and transfer to other situations, belongs to the AM campaign even if he/she has different opinions about the process of acquiring this “commodity”. Sfard (1999) quotes:

Web 2.0 as a learning tool

The language of "knowledge acquisition" and "concept development" makes us think about the human mind as a container to be filled with certain materials and about the learner as becoming an owner of these materials. Many of the theories of learning are originating form an AM. Cognitive theorists, Constructivists, Interactionists, share this common starting point of thinking about learning and the nature of Knowledge. PM followers, on the other hand, think about learning in a completely different way. Instead of talking about knowledge as a static commodity that one can acquire, they talk about "Knowing" as a dynamic process of continuous action and meaning negotiation between participants of different communities of practice. In their view, Learning is Development Through Participation in Sociocultural Activities, legitimate Peripheral participation or apprenticeship in thinking (Lave & Wenger, 1991) (Sfard, 1999)

Web 2.0 as a learning tool: With the widespread of the Internet, new tools enabling collaboration and ability to create User-Generated Content started to emerge (Web 2.0 features). Many educators see Web 2.0 “affordances” as promising tools in the educational process to support Student Centered approaches to Learning. Others remain skeptical due to the explicit concerns about the validity and reliability of the content created by students, copyright issues and intellectual property and possibly and, implicitly, due to the anxiety of the way Web 2.0 may affect the authoritative control of the teachers on the learning processes. (Lee & McLoughlin, 2007).

Web 2.0 as a learning tool

In the following section, I will examine Wikispaces, one of the Web 2.0 applications, as a learning tool. First I will look at it from an AM perspective followed by another look from a PM perspective. Throughout the discussion, I will refer to a simple Wikispaces page I created to allow medical students to talk about Pediatric Croup. I just created the Wiki for the sake of this discussion and haven’t used it yet. Two of my friends joined and posted few lines for the purpose of this discussion. I believe that, as simple as it still is, it will serve the purpose of my arguments in this paper about using Wikispaces as a learning tool. The Wiki is simple, 3 pages only. One page is a general case of an infant coming with croup. The second page is a factual knowledge page about croup; the third page is resources page. Students joining the pediatric rotations will be invited to the Wiki, I will ask them to use the Wiki together for one week before joining me in the emergency room. Throughout the week, each student is expected to contribute to the knowledge database and the case discussion page. This is the link to the page http://abuaish.wikispaces.com/. Wikispaces as a learning tool from The Acquisition Metaphor Perspective: Learning and the nature of knowledge: The goal of learning is individual enrichment( Sfard, 1999). The Wiki will serve as a knowledge bank that students keep “depositing” and “withdrawing” data into it throughout the course, the ability of the Wiki to save what students add, makes the Wiki a valuable resource for the students at the end of the course. They can always access, use and refer back to, if they need to remember factual knowledge or review a difficult concept. The Wiki page will be similar to any textbook chapter students use to review

Web 2.0 as a learning tool

factual knowledge but, with a major advantage, this is a chapter they constructed themselves. The group discussion to solve the complex case is another affordance of the Wiki to support social, collaborative “contextual” learning. Learning occurs by different ways: the factual knowledge page is important to complete before the students start discussing the case since having Pre-existing knowledge helps students construct and match new advanced concepts to their preexisting schemas. The Wiki has many features to help students build this knowledge base together: the dynamic features of synchronous or asynchronous discussion, the students’ ability to add, comment, correct, and modify their comments and other students’ comments and posts. The importance of the case discussion page is to help students apply the factual knowledge in a complex real life scenario and helps students construct an organized approach to managing complex scenarios. Learning with the Wiki is an active process where students take control of their own learning (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000). Student: Students can use the course Wiki to upload and download contents (slides, tutorials) and recourses (Articles, websites or List of textbooks). The resources page have all the required information students need to learn about croup, but this is not enough guarantee that students will apply this knowledge when they encounter real life cases, The case discussion will reveal students acquisition of the appropriate concepts of “managing” the case rather than memorizing the facts only. From the AM perspective, students will use the wiki to construct their knowledge of the course content either individually or co-construct meaning socially with other

Web 2.0 as a learning tool

students through ongoing discussion in a synchronous or asynchronous way. Teacher: My objective as the instructor is that, students finish the course knowing more about croup than before the course and that they will be able to transfer this knowledge to the clinical settings when they come to work with me and encounter their first patient with croup. The Teacher can use the course Wiki to upload his/her slides and student guides, syllabus, tutorial and recourses list. This is a (static) use of the tool that allows students to access and download materials; the teacher role here is a traditional, direct “supplier” of knowledge. This feature is not different from any Web 1.0 application like Emails and websites. What is even more unique about web 2.0 is the ability of the teacher to act as a “facilitator” who scaffolds students during the construction of their knowledge.This can be done by posting general broad questions or themes in the wiki, like the case provided, to initiate the discussion among students and keeps providing some information that helps students” keep being on track” during the discussion. One of the great features of the Wikispaces is the ability of the instructor to track the changes and who made them. The Wiki discussion helps bring students’ previous knowledge, myths, wrong concepts to the surface, so, that the teacher modify his/her instruction based on students needs. There is good evidence that learning is enhanced when teachers pay attention to students’ previous knowledge and beliefs (Bransford et al., 2000). The teacher role in the dynamic case discussion part between students varies from one teacher to another, and is related to how the teacher views the importance of his involvement. Some teachers are still concerned with the product, i.e., the final material

Web 2.0 as a learning tool

constructed by the students on the wiki. This is what Scardamalia & Bereiter, (2001), named as teacher A model. A better model that can use the affordances of the wiki features is the teacher who observes the interactions of the students during the construction of knowledge to assure that learning is actually happening, namely, the teacher B and C models. The degree of the teacher’s involvement in the discussion is what differentiates teacher B and C. Teacher C lets the students assume more responsibility for their own learning. (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1991). Sheppard (2000) indicated that the tendency of expert tutors to use indirect forms of feedback when possible was influenced by their desire to maintain student motivation and selfconfidence while not ignoring student errors. Learning Outcomes: From the AM perspective, Forming a clear conceptual framework about croup to be able to correctly diagnose and treat actual patients with croup when encountered in the real life settings (i.e., Transfer of knowledge across contexts) would be the main desirable outcome. Currently, the usual way to check medical students’ abilities to form concepts is by the traditional end of rotation exams that are heavily based on factual knowledge. The application of new teaching methods such as Web 2.0 tools will help the instructors develop ongoing dynamic assessment strategies to assess students conceptual frameworks throughout the rotation instead of waiting till the end of the rotation to depend on student grades. (Sheppard, 2000). The best way to assess student’s acquisition of knowledge and their ability to transfer what they learned is by their ability to function in authentic real life (or real lifelike) situations. (Sheppard, 2000). This can be further assessed by monitoring students’

Web 2.0 as a learning tool

responses to the case discussion on the wiki, other strategies are: discussing what they learned from their discussion in the wiki when I meet them in the clinic, by asking them to present what they learned throughout the week to another group and, most importantly, by observing their behaviors when they encounter actual patients in the hospital. Wikispaces as a learning tool from The PM Perspective: Looking at learning from this metaphor, I may introduce some changes to the design of the Wiki. For example, I will leave the reference page blank for the students to upload what they value as good references about croup. Learning and the nature of knowledge: Learning is legitimate peripheral participation, knowing is a dynamic process embedded in action and not a static acquisition of knowledge in people’s heads Learning is a social phenomenon that occurs from participating into communities of practice. The goal of learning is community building; Students who become members in the course wiki form a community of practice where they negotiate meaning together to make sense of their world. Learning is collective, so, the discourse started between students on the wiki is continued in the clinic. Learning happens from the relationships of people in the community, the wiki features enable the social and collaborative learning essential in the communities of practice theory of learning. The wiki serve an important cultural tool to foster the practice. With all the web2.0 features of linking and uploading and sharing audio and video materials, the Wikispaces creates a context that is somewhat similar to what the students will see, later, in the clinic. Since learning from this perspective is situated in authentic, real life situation, and there is nothing as “decontexualized” learning, the importance of

Web 2.0 as a learning tool

authenticity cannot be ignored, having a video of a real baby is more authentic that describing a case in text. Of course many aspects are still missing for the student to become an expert participant, for example, the way to council parents or to calm a crying baby. These skills will be acquired through the live face-to-face practice in the hospital. Students: Junior Students are considered Peripheral participants in the community; a peripheral participant is an apprentice who negotiates his/her position and identity in the community. Throughout the wiki communications, students will learn how to talk about croup in medical terminology, they will negotiate what they will do when they face this patient in their clinic, i.e., they will establish together a practice. Teacher: The role of the teacher becomes the role of the expert participant who serves as a preserver of the practice and the discourse. The teacher sets the ground for the community and let them participate and negotiate meaning together to form and build on their practices and experiences. The teacher role is to empower students to fully participate in the community. The instructor will encourage student as to reflect on their comments, this type of dynamic assessment is important in this perspective as assessment is used to modify instruction rather than to classify students (Sheppard, 2000). Learning Outcomes: Outcome here is more about the activity rather than the product, so, from this perspective, action is more important than person, i.e. the group’s performance is more important than the individual performance, having said that, it is important that the instructor encourage calm students to participate more to establish their identity in the

Web 2.0 as a learning tool

community and improve the practice in general. (Wilson & Myers, 2000) The individual performance is not only about content produced but also about different practices, like: attitude towards others, communication and organizational skills, degree and level of participation. The idea of assessment is highly subjective in this metaphor. We should not think about what is learned in the Wiki as a separate context from the clinic based practice since learning is a collective and continuous process, so, when students become better participants in the medical community, the discourse continues (instead of talking about transfer) when they join me in the clinic. New competencies, or in more accurate terms, activities, become of interest from this metaphor: the ability to navigate and communicate using social media, the ability to find and share valuable recourses and variable types of discourses and identities students assume in the discussion is of interest to the observing instructor.

Should we keep looking at learning and Knowledge from one metaphor? Sfard (1999) presented the advantages and disadvantages of looking into learning from each metaphor. The AM has created few dilemmas over the last few decades. The attitude of the society towards knowledge is similar to the attitude towards material wealth. It is then Knowledge that will identify people’s identities and social positions. This resulted in educational systems based on competition rather than collaboration and rivalry rather than support and cooperation. Even from the philosophical point of view, the objectivity metaphor created a dilemma between philosophers, This foundational dilemma which

Web 2.0 as a learning tool

was later called (learning Paradox) is summarized by one question: How can we want to acquire a knowledge of something that is not yet known to us? (Sfard, 1999). The PM is somewhat librating in nature, its refusal of the objectification of knowledge as being independent of human beings. It does not identify any clear-cut distinction between internal and external boundaries of knowledge. The talk about discourse, shared activities, participation in the new metaphor may mark a change in the way people think about learning, it may, as Sfard (1999), puts it, mark the democratization of the learning process and will bring the message of togetherness, solidarity and collaboration. The new metaphor also brings hope to the learning process: The PM language does not allow for talk about permanence of either human possessions or human traits. The new metaphor promotes an interest in people in action rather than in people "as such. "Being" in action" means being in a constant flux. The awareness of the change that never stops means refraining from a permanent labeling. Actions can be clever or unsuccessful, but these adjectives do not apply to the actors. For the learner, all options are always open, even if he or she carries a history of failure. Thus, quite unlike the AM, the PM seems to bring a message of an everlasting hope: Today you act one way; tomorrow you may act differently. (Sfard, 1999). But, having said all of that, Sfard (1999) argued that one metaphor is not enough and that, we still need the AM mainly due to the inability of the PM to account well for notions like ,transfer and competence. Sfard (1999) qutes: “Whereas growing numbers of thinkers are ready to agree that the dependence of learning on context is much too great to allow for talk about universal cross-situational

Web 2.0 as a learning tool

invariants, nobody, not even the most zealous followers of the PM-based line of thought would deny that something does keep repeating itself as we move from situation to situation and from context to context.” The notions of Transfer and Competence are major reasons that AM dominate in my field, but, we cannot deny that, the messages “Communities of practices” theory and apprenticeship models brings to our field is a message all medical educators value. The PM metaphor brings the hope of collaboration to the medical communities and brings the hope that medical discourse and practices return to its old human values instead of the dominance of the selfish, business models of competition and rivalry among medical students and later physicians. All these values will make the PM perspective, hopefully, merge into the AM view to form a complementary view of looking into medical education in the new century.

Web 2.0 as a learning tool

13 References

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lee, M. J. W., & McLoughlin, C. (2007). Teaching and learning in the Web 2.0 era: Empowering students through learner-generated content. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 4(10), 21-34. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 37-68. Sfard (1999), A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13. Sheppard, L.A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29 (7), 4-14. Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409-426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wilson, B.G. & Myers, K.M., (2000) Situated cognition in theoretical and practical context. In D. H Jonassen & S. M Land, (Eds.) Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp.57-88) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.