Three Approaches to Web 2.0 (and Web 3.0) including a Marshall McLuhan Moment

Lately I have been thinking about what the term Web 2.0 really means. According to Wikipedia, Web 2.0 “allows users to interact and collaborate with each other in a social media dialogue as creators (prosumers) of user-generated content in a virtual community, in contrast to websites where users (consumers) are limited to the passive viewing of content that was created for them” (para. 1). The description of users as passive consumers refers to Web 1.0, the era when most people did not create content online; they simply used the Internet to research information so it travelled only one-way, from the computer to the person.

The following YouTube video posted by jleister titled, 3 Phases of Educational Technology, does an excellent job of explaining the progression of student and teacher technology use from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 by breaking it down into three parts. jleister emphasizes that all three phases are equally important in the learning process, and that during a single lesson, all three may be present.

Briefly:

  • Phase I – teachers use technology as one-way mediums for disseminating information, such as showing video clips or PowerPoint presentations to a passive student audience. The visuals help students to understand concepts more clearly. This use of technology maintains the teacher’s role as the disseminator of knowledge and controller of the structure and organization of the classroom.
  • Phase II – students begin to interact with the technology to acquire content knowledge instead of full reliance on textbooks or teacher lectures. They conduct online research, read, or view media that they search for themselves. However, the structure of the lessons may still mimic phase I.
  • Phase III – students become producers of media. They create images, presentations, audio, and/or texts, and what’s more–they share their creations with others and interactively review others’ work. jleister argues that we need to focus on modern skills of communication, collaboration, and creation during this phase and think of students as producers of information, not just consumers of it. I feel that this is the essence of Web 2.0.

Next, I found an excellent animated video titled, Evolution Web 1.0, to Web 2.0 to Web 3.0 by davidEPN. It highlights how Web 2.0 is moving into Web 3.0. Web 3.0 is:

  • The development of an intelligent, omnipresent web that is an extension or continuation of what we presently understand the web to be
  • Involved in a continuous learning process that anticipates users’ preferences, such as the recommendations that Amazon provides as you shop
  • Increasingly interconnected appliances including cars and phones that communicate with each other, becoming more and more present but less visible. They learn about our lives and make individualized recommendations in increasingly automatic ways
  • Web 3.0 opens the door to machines converting data into useful, meaningful information, otherwise known as the semantic web

Finally, I will refer to the thoughts of someone who was way ahead of his time. Marshall McLuhan, considered by many to be the father of media theory (and a great Canadian thinker, I might add!), contributed to our understanding of technology’s influence on us before we even knew it was happening in the 1960’s and ’70’s. In the following clip, marshall mcluhan on the media posted by matsutakneatche, McLuhan explains:

  • All media is an extension of human faculties: the wheel is an extension of the foot, the book is an extension of the eye, clothing is an extension of the skin, and electric circuitry is an extension of the nervous system
  • The extension of any one sense displaces the other senses and alters the way we think of ourselves and the world
  • The literate (book) world emphasized the visual, and made us detached and isolated from the other people since reading is a relatively private activity. McLuhan calls it “not involved”
  • The electric revolution and the information age is where “involvement is total”
  • The information explosion becomes the culture
  • Artists are the only ones who live in the present on the edge of change while most people live in the age just behind them because it is safer

Takeaways:

I am completely intrigued by each one of these videos and thinkers, but even more interested in what happens when we take them together in the context of Web 2.0, 3.0, and beyond. My thoughts are:

  • Perhaps after the information explosion (that McLuhan identified), the semantic web will begin to limit our access to information by bombarding us with only the ‘recommendations’ that have come about from the complex programming that goes into semantic systems. There will be a semantic culture if you will, that will develop from the interpretation of billions of tiny bits of information that users input into the web connecting everything, without even knowing it. And this semantic culture will not only be invisible, but will continue to evolve until what began as ‘recommendations’ will become automatic ‘decisions’ that are made for us.
  • After jleister’s phase III, we must consider students themselves to be learners as well as teachers in a never-ending learning cycle of researching, learning, synthesizing, creating, and reviewing. McLuhan’s term, “total involvement,” defines the role of schools as helping students develop their skills and understanding of this cycle. Furthermore, we will have to re-think what we refer to as curriculum, since the value that we place on particular ideas or knowledge isn’t half as important as how we interact with it. This draws upon McLuhan’s famous idea that “the medium is the message“. Instead of focusing on curriculum, we will have to focus on the learning cycle.
  • What does it mean to live in the present as opposed to the age that has just passed? I believe that technology has become a medium that extends our thinking and the way in which we connect ideas, learn, and think. Our concepts of time and collaboration have also changed through the immediacy of information and access, the range of people that we can collaborate with, and the permanent nature of what we share online. Perhaps living in the present means accepting that we will be forever less private and more connected with people, things, and places, even when we think that we aren’t.
  • Will there still be phase I and II learning in this world? Of course! If I know nothing about a particular topic and ask someone about it or look up an article online, then I am engaging in the first two phases. However, I believe that our notion of ‘baseline understanding’ of any given topic will change completely. After all, with so many more sources of information, the lines between opinion, educated opinion, and fact will become increasingly blurred. Baseline knowledge may decrease in importance while sound arguments based on a wide range of sources will become more important. Thus, phase III will become much more prevalent and may put ‘untouched’ baseline knowledge to the test.

I will definitely delve into the thoughts of McLuhan and the road to Web 3.0 in future posts. This topic is incredibly intriguing to me! What are your thoughts on our journey into the future? What about living in the past or present? And what of technology as extensions of ourselves? Please share!

(Image: Brains, by neil conway. 2009. Available under a Creative Commons Generic License.)

Glass Walls, Carpentry, and Design: Authentic Learning at High Tech High

The web is full of inspirational, mind-blowing ideas. This post is a follow-up to my last entry that examined the studio approach, used for years in post-secondary multimedia, design, and architecture schools to make learning truly authentic, deeply collaborative, and highly rigorous.

Today I watched the following video presented by The Pearson Foundation and the Mobile Learning Institute, highlighting the philosophy and structure of High Tech High (HTH) through the eyes of its CEO, Larry Rosenstock. Check out Project Based Learning at HTH:

This video is full of brilliant ideas! Here are some highlights and a few of my thoughts:

Full integration. Rosenstock speaks not only about the integration of students from varying socioeconomic backgrounds, cultures, and abilities, but the elimination of segregated classes that separate students who are said to “work with their hands” from those who “work with their heads”, schools from their communities, and academics from non-academics (in terms of subjects as well as students).

“There is no course here…[HTH has been said to be] a great liberal arts school in disguise.” Rosenstock’s background in carpentry taught him that everything (meaning every subject) can be learned through the process of design and conceptual work in all aspects of art, media, design, and technology. He argues that our understanding of the arts in the broadest sense should be combined to create fluid learning environments where students can build connections between all subject areas and will no longer think about subjects as entities separate from each other. At HTH it seems that students go to school to learn and grow, period.

Constant reflection and collaborative critique. The student voices in the video show a deep understanding of the process of learning and reflection for improvement. This important skill is echoed in Lloyd Rieber’s article, The Studio Experience: Educational Reform in Instructional Technology, which also describes an emphasis on constant reflection and peer/instructor critiques in the multimedia design program at the University of Georgia. I believe that all schools need to emphasize all types of reflection more.

A physical environment that “…doesn’t look like a school, [but like] a start-up, an incubator”. I am sure that the appearance of the school was the first thing that struck you when you watched the video. Student work oozes from every pore: floor-to-ceiling murals, objects hanging from the ceiling, an entire wall of screens displaying multimedia work, screens embedded inside life-size paintings of figures, and of course, the piece featuring interactive bicycle wheels. This fuels student reflection, motivation, and pride in their work. Furthermore, the walls are all made of glass. They physically enable fluid learning, sharing, self-regulation, curiosity, and non-stop collaborative engagement throughout the school—for students and teachers alike.

“If you treat kids with respect and enter them into the adult world, they will behave like adults…suspicion invites treachery.” The hundreds of student-created pieces in the hallways are free of vandalism because of the respect that students and staff feel for their work and their learning community. Rosenstock speaks of students rising to the high expectations of adults and peers while engaging in shared learning, focused on their passions. With meaningful projects and constant collaboration with peers, the level of student-student and student-teacher respect is elevated to the highest degree.

The most memorable and meaningful learning experiences involve: projects, mentors, community involvement, risk of failure, recognition for success, and public exhibition. “Rigor is being in the company of a passionate adult who is rigorously pursuing inquiry in their subject matter and is inviting students along as a peer in adult discourse”. Later on, Rosenstock also refers to social change as a catalyst for meaningful learning that leverages existing resources to improve peoples’ lives.

We can measure your effectiveness as a teacher through “the sophistication of your kids’ work. If your kids are producing work that is worth doing and has lasting value, and learning that’s worth learning, you’re a good teacher”. This is an incredibly powerful statement that not only tells us what good teaching is, but what good learning should lead to.

Real-world engagement. “I want kids behaving like an actress, behaving like a scientist, behaving like a documentary film maker, behaving like a journalist, not just studying it, but being like it, because what is adolescence, but trying on new roles and sampling new identities?” Rosenstock emphasizes that it’s not about training students for specific occupations, but immersing them in rich, real experiences.

(Image: i made you…,  by tinney. 2006. Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.)

And by the way, the High Tech High website features some amazing resources, including excellent examples of digital portfolios by students and staff, student-produced videos, and much more.

What are your thoughts on HTH and its approach to project based learning (and so much more)?

(Image: The Studio, by tinney. 2010. Available under a Creative Commons Attribution License.)

The Studio Model: Collaborative, Real-World Learning

I am currently in the process of re-designing a high school Innovative Technology (IT) course with a group of incredible teachers, and have been documenting highlights of my work here on TechPudding. My first post about the course re-design gave an overview of our move from basic how-tos of Microsoft Office applications, to a dynamic approach to helping students explore and examine technological change, ethical, social and psychological interactions with technology, and the application of an array of Web 2.0 tools (along with Office) in learning and productivity in the real world. We also decided to use the ISTE NETS (International Society for Technology in Education National Educational Technology Standards) for Students and Teachers to guide our re-design.

In today’s post, I will examine an incredible article that I just happened to stumble upon online (that’s the beauty of so much information at our fingertips!). I can’t wait to share it with my IT team members! The article is titled, The Studio Experience: Educational Reform in Instructional Technology by Lloyd P. Rieber. It describes a structure for education that truly mirrors the real-world workplace where designers work in teams to complete projects. With some adaptation, I believe that we can learn from it in designing our course.

The article outlines the ‘studio approach’, an approach used in graduate studies courses teaching multimedia design for educational purposes at the University of Georgia. The following are highlights  that made me think hard about how to structure not only our IT course, but our school in general.

The big idea that the studio model rests on is constructivism and in particular, three  ideas: (1) Learning is an active process in which individuals construct meaning. (2) Learning is a social and collaborative activity. (3) Learning happens through the construction of artifacts that are shared and critiqued by peers. Furthermore, to support constructivist learning, scaffolding helps us move from simple to complex concepts with different levels of structure and support (Rieber, para. 3). The idea of constructivism is not new to teachers, but it is a challenge for many to apply it in their teaching. I appreciate the emphasis on on-going critiques (a.k.a. reflections) of learning in all classes.

Rieber states, “Tools, such a computer authoring languages, are often taught according to the tool’s structure, not in how it is actually used in a design project. This is akin to learning English by studying a dictionary” (para. 4). I appreciate this comparison with learning from a dictionary because it points out our lack of context and application in the real world. He also acknowledges that when tools are taught through their structure, they are usually taught according to an “ideal sequence” (para. 4), without taking into account individual student differences in learning processes and task approach. This often leads to instructors having to re-teach material to students because they do not understand how to apply learning in different situations outside of the “ideal”.

Rieber also states that the “one-course/one-instructor model” isolates students and faculty in an artificial way, and teachers usually focus on a few tools that they are most comfortable with. Instead, students should collaborate and critique each other’s work in an on-going process of learning while faculty should share their expertise by sharing instructional duties and tasks (para. 4-5).

Students in the course learn concepts of design while developing technical skills in various software tools in a social setting (in both formal and informal collaborations). Students from all levels work and learn together. Mentorship teams are established and students and instructors use online learning management systems, email, and online resources to aid learning 24 hours a day (para. 6).

Student work in the course consists of projects, some of which have prescribed components, and others of which are determined by the students. Students share their work daily in design critiques with others, while documenting their own reflections related to their work and the theory and literature that they study simultaneously. A significant portion of student assessment is tied to personal reflections as well as evaluation criteria that students themselves create in conjunction with faculty (para. 7).

The final project in the course consists of real-world client services projects. They are posted on an online job board and students apply to the ones that they would like to work on. Team leaders then comb through the applications and decide which students to ‘hire’ for the jobs. Students can also be involved as “consultants” or “contractors” to other teams while working on their own projects (para. 9). 

There are several forms of assessment and evaluation of student work in the course:

  • Studio Showcase – a professional conference where all major projects are showcased to peers and the wider university and professional community, generating excitement and motivation
  • Comprehensive Exams – not written tests, but participation in online discussions as well as an oral exam about theory, literature, and practice involving faculty, professionals, and peers (para. 11-12)

In the re-conceptualization of their program, the multimedia design students and faculty at the University of Georgia learned some important lessons. One lesson was that change takes time, and both students and faculty members had to be patient and open-minded to a highly interactive and collaborative way of working and learning together (para. 16).

Also, it was vital that students became mentors and tutors to other students as well as faculty members so that instructors didn’t have to feel as if they had to know everything. They therefore required each student to contribute at least 10 hours to a volunteer position of their choice. Many chose to volunteer right in the design studio to help other students learn. Some also chose to lead online discussions, workshops, or seminars for other students based on their own expertise and passions (para. 18).

I would like to point out that this article was written in 2000, and the studio model is commonly used in post-secondary level art, design, and architecture schools. This shows that we are woefully far behind in making learning relevant, rigorous, and collaborative for our students.

The Studio Model in High School IT Class

The work of the multimedia design faculty at the University of Georgia is exceptional, and can be applied to high school classes. Here is how I might structure our IT class.

  • Teachers should teach collaboratively. We can begin by timetabling so that groups of teachers can share classes and teach to their strengths. We can start with our Multimedia, Design, and IT teachers. We can exchange classes for periods of time or teach them in combined groups, and focus on different aspects of the technologies, while engaging in professional learning together.
  • Students should be required to support other students in their learning in the areas of their strengths. They can choose between different types of support, from answering questions on an online discussion board, to providing just-in-time help in class, to planning a formal mini-workshop, to creating instructional videos or hand-outs.
  • Students should engage in regular personal reflections, peer critiques/discussions, and beta tests on peers. In a high school class, this process requires guidance because students have been taught for so long that what they do only matters to their teacher in order to receive a mark. I believe that we need some sort of reflection daily, and structured processes to help students and teachers become comfortable with it.
  • Client services projects can be conducted throughout the duration of a course. Students can select from a bank of projects submitted by the community, as well as school clubs, athletics, events, or celebrations. Students must stay in contact with their clients, manage their time based on timelines, submit drafts, and reflect on their progress for different jobs. Furthermore, students can apply for these jobs and the teacher and client can help to place them in the appropriate teams. The idea of also having contracted or consultant students is also a great way for peers to learn from each other while engaged in their own projects.
  • We need a few formal celebrations and showcases of student work to the wider school and professional community. If we can contact some professionals in the field and have them guide our learning and then critique the final products, that would be incredibly meaningful for students and staff.
  • The idea of an oral exam is intriguing. Not all students might be comfortable with this so perhaps we can structure them more and give students time to develop their answers. Then, with their regular practice of peer critiques, they can perhaps select one of a few ways to participate in an informal ‘defense’ of their learning and development through the course. This would be a wonderful culminating experience for students and their peers.

What do you think of the studio experience in your classroom? How might you adopt characteristics of the studio model?

Reference:
Rieber, L. P. (2000). The studio experience: Educational reform in instructional technology. In D. G. Brown (Ed.), Teaching with technology: Seventy-five professors from eight universities tell their stories (pp. 195-196). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.
(Image: Brainstorm at INDEX: Views, by @boetter. 2005. Available under a Creative Commons License.)