annotated bibliography - fuhry

18
Erica Fuhry | EdTech 504 |Summer 2014 Selected Research on Web 2.0 Technologies’ Roots in Social and Emerging Theories of Learning: An Annotated Bibliography Introduction The creativity and interactivity afforded by Web 2.0 technologies holds promise for new education systems based on increased learner participation, collaboration, and knowledge construction. “Internet-based technological tools, such as computer-mediated communication, social networking, and shared accumulation and indexing of bibliographic resources, have substantially leveraged social mobility, adaptability, and interactivity, supporting the development of loosely coupled virtual communities for emergent creative collaboration” (Zhang, 2009, p. 276). These digital and networked media hold immense creative potential. Social learning theories, situated learning, social constructivism, and connectivism all define learners, teachers, and knowledge in ways that promote the use of networked learning tools in the classroom. Learners are just as important as their learning communities. In all cases, information that is learned (or made) is just as important as the relationships created in the process. Emerging theories of learning contend that knowledge is situated, interdependent, and should arise from necessity. Our K-12 students are utilizing Web 2.0 resources more and more for personal, “informal” learning objectives. Therefore, many considerations of Web 2.0 tools’ benefits look for a balance of directed and open-ended educational approaches to leverage students’ natural proclivity towards these technologies. Although many fans and advocates are quick to jump directly to methods and pedagogy, it is important to situate networked learning in the context of various social and emerging learning theories. The articles provided in this annotated bibliography connect to each other to achieve that aim.

Upload: lafuriosa

Post on 21-Jul-2016

132 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

DESCRIPTION

Selected Research on Web 2.0 Technologies’ Roots in Social and Emerging Theories of Learning: An Annotated Bibliography

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Annotated Bibliography - Fuhry

Erica Fuhry | EdTech 504 |Summer 2014

Selected Research on Web 2.0 Technologies’ Roots in Social and Emerging Theories of Learning: An Annotated Bibliography

Introduction

The creativity and interactivity afforded by Web 2.0 technologies holds promise for new education systems based on increased learner participation, collaboration, and knowledge construction. “Internet-based technological tools, such as computer-mediated communication, social networking, and shared accumulation and indexing of bibliographic resources, have substantially leveraged social mobility, adaptability, and interactivity, supporting the development of loosely coupled virtual communities for emergent creative collaboration” (Zhang, 2009, p. 276). These digital and networked media hold immense creative potential. Social learning theories, situated learning, social constructivism, and connectivism all define learners, teachers, and knowledge in ways that promote the use of networked learning tools in the classroom. Learners are just as important as their learning communities. In all cases, information that is learned (or made) is just as important as the relationships created in the process. Emerging theories of learning contend that knowledge is situated, interdependent, and should arise from necessity. Our K-12 students are utilizing Web 2.0 resources more and more for personal, “informal” learning objectives. Therefore, many considerations of Web 2.0 tools’ benefits look for a balance of directed and open-ended educational approaches to leverage students’ natural proclivity towards these technologies. Although many fans and advocates are quick to jump directly to methods and pedagogy, it is important to situate networked learning in the context of various social and emerging learning theories. The articles provided in this annotated bibliography connect to each other to achieve that aim.

Hill, J. R. (2012). Learning communities: Theoretical foundations for making connections. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments (pp. 268-285). New York, NY: Routledge.

In chapter 11 of our course textbook, Hill defines “learning community” according to many other researchers’ interpretations. We learn from Hannafin et al. (2003) how they can be directed (formal, objectivist, and authority-driven), informal (learner created/driven), or negotiated (somewhere in between). Hill then provides real-world examples of diverse learning communities that are successful as grassroots initiatives or purposeful, structured knowledge compendiums. A particularly salient part of this article lies in the breakdown of learning communities’ characteristics as they relate to established learning theories. For example, Vygotsky’s social constructivist theory (which is touched on in Kop and Hill’s discussion of Connectivism), Social Presence, Social Interdependence, Situated Learning, and Self-Regulation and Self-Directed Theories are all addressed. Learning theories that promote the individual are less represented in much of the literature surrounding Web 2.0 and networked learning, but

Page 2: Annotated Bibliography - Fuhry

Erica Fuhry | EdTech 504 |Summer 2014

are definitely relevant to a discussion of learner success and self-actualization. (Robertson’s study of blogs (2011) referenced in this chapter appears to be a worthy read to help provide a balanced consideration of social and self-directed learning.)

Hill appears to value learning communities for their collaborative, scaffolded, context- and process-driven, and socially motivating nature. She points out that there are certainly issues and challenges associated with building a learning community, and that the development of a successful one takes time, attention, and purposeful interaction. Issues of logistics, adequate support, sense of presence, content, and technical issues can be addressed with some of the strategies that are offered in the final part of this article. Many of these solutions are directly tied to the aforementioned learning theories. Safety, shared goals and values, established rules and roles, relationship-building, authentic situations, and sensitivity to comfort zones are all ideals for a well built and nurtured learning community. Although not directly referenced in the article, using learning communities as structure for knowledge acquisition is in line with the constructivist, constructionist, and connectivist ideologies mentioned in other articles. Learning communities described in this chapter also call to mind social media groups, RSS feeds and blogs, and online discussion boards that are increasingly popular Web 2.0 classroom tools.

Hsi, S. (2007). Conceptualizing learning from the everyday activities of digital kids. International Journal of Science Education, 29(12), 1509-1529.

The article begins with a vignette of two “millennial” adolescents’ engagement in digital technologies and online environments in out‐of‐school learning contexts. It gives examples of complex activities and relationships whereby child is both creator and consumer. To describe, study, and support this kind of informal learning, the author proposes a digital fluency framework from a practice‐oriented (vs. knowledge‐centered) perspective which organizes skills requiring digital tools to “gather, design, evaluate, critique, own, synthesize, and develop artifacts”. These actions appear in line with constructivist learning theory. In this framework, digital fluency involves building on one’s own skills and knowledge, taking on different identities and multiple roles, voluntarily participating in a dynamic and virtual context, co-constructing a social reality and establishing norms for participation, taking ownership of media creations (or “remixes”) and online expressions, “two-way literacies” of cultural production and consumption, multi-tasking, working on complex problems, and being a part of distributed teams. In this way, digital fluency is socially constructivist.

To study how children take part in the “new cultural world” of digital learning environments, Hsi encourages us look to studies of play that consider cognitive, language, and social developments. As interesting as that proposition is, I wonder if analyses of play are relevant for the entire span of a K-12 audience. The author also looks to socio-cultural views of learning (e.g., activity theory, situated learning, and distributed cognition) to investigate trends in social networking, game play, identity formation, and

Page 3: Annotated Bibliography - Fuhry

Erica Fuhry | EdTech 504 |Summer 2014

collaborative practices. This section of the article is valuable to me in its overview of learning, discourse practices, cultural analysis, and childhood development that are embedded in the use of blogs, messaging, online communities, games, and profile development. It would have been helpful if there was most discourse surrounding these topics.

Although it is less relevant to my research, in this article we also learn of new specific methods and tools for qualitatively studying and quantitatively measuring digital fluency. One of these includes cooperative inquiry research methods that engage children as data collectors and artifact curators, offering a more authentic perspective of their own fluency. I can see the value in this is an evaluation and reflection tool for a networked community. Nevertheless, Hsi points out there are many challenges and barriers to formal research, including methodological limitations and ideological fragmentation from multiple disciplines’ definition of learning.

The penultimate section on implications for educational practices is important in its distinction between students using digital tools for leisure versus school-related tasks. Teacher conceptions and behaviors with technology must be reassessed to curb potential tension. Students’ transfer from informal to formal contexts should be studied and supported to enhance out-of-school learning. Right now there is some muddiness to the boundaries of learning spaces and control over technology. Hsi suggests general ways to address these to link digital practices across settings and contexts, however they are not particularly new or elaborate ideas. First and foremost, the author is calling for more coordinated research efforts to inform how learning is achieved through the use of digital technology in informal, interest-driven activities. It is a motivating and well-reasoned “call to arms”; however it still leaves me searching for more information and case studies of substance. This article has encouraged me to learn more about formal versus informal learning with networked technologies, and consider how Web 2.0 technologies can blur the distinction.

Hill, J. R., Song, L., & West, R. E. (2009). Social learning theory and web-based learning environments: A review of research and discussion of implications. The American Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 88-103. doi: 10.1080/08923640902857713

This article roots the design, development, and implementation of Web-based learning environments (called WBLEs) in the constructs of social learning theories. The article specifically focuses on formal learning environments and WBLEs that are interactive and community-building. This context would be perfect for the “learning communities” previously discussed in Hill’s publication Learning communities: Theoretical foundations for making connections (2012). Here the authors, who are referenced quite often in literature in this field, begin by delineating the factors of teaching and learning that are consistent with social learning: context, culture and community, and learner characteristics. Ways to maximize success with these various social learning

Page 4: Annotated Bibliography - Fuhry

Erica Fuhry | EdTech 504 |Summer 2014

“constructs” are summarized in Table 1, followed by brief discussions of other authors’ supporting studies.

Taken in context, interaction (with human or content), group size, and the creation and use of resources are all critical to the building of support, encouragement, and shared experiences in WBLEs. The authors emphasize the value of modeling as well as peer support in the development of online discussion. Instructors and learners must also adopt strategies to use resources effectively. There must also be careful attention to the role gender and ethnicity in perpetuating an online community, but first and foremost we should seek to integrate collaborative group activities, as supported by research (Hiltz et al., 2000).

A WBLE doesn’t exist without constant attention. The authors’ overall message is that online learning must be purposeful and well-planned. This article also discusses social learning theories’ view of learner characteristics in terms of personal epistemological beliefs, individual learning styles, self-efficacy, and motivation. The authors make reference to a study (Tsai and Chuang, 2005) in which students with constructivist beliefs showed preference for Internet-based learning environments that featured reflection and inquiry learning. Even though, as other authors have mentioned, online communities align with constructivist ideologies, educators must take into account a diversity of students’ cognitive styles.

The article concludes with a section on implications for research and practice. For example, Hill et al. assert that research is needed to study learners’ individual characteristics such as prior knowledge, epistemological beliefs, cultural background, and self-regulation skills. In terms of WBLEs in practice, social interaction needs to take precedence. While the authors allude to some studies that tackle issues of group work and communication, they feel there is a need for further studies to develop effective strategies for promoting collaboration and to address potential pitfalls on the reliance of written communication online. In essence, they are asking for other researchers to methodologically put the rhetoric of social learning theory to the test. The authors maintain that waiting for these studies before actively designing these kinds of learning experience is unrealistic. Research and development should go hand in hand. For example, as social learning theories purport that self-efficacy and motivation is context-dependent and directly tied to learning, it is implied that WBLE designers and implementers must seek to maximize these individual characteristics with methods that they believe would be the most beneficial.

Although this article briefly touches base on some epistemological elements of social learning perspectives, I feel its biggest value lies in its featured case studies as they relate to specific learning contexts, culture and community, and learner characteristics. These would be great launching pads for further inquiry.

Page 5: Annotated Bibliography - Fuhry

Erica Fuhry | EdTech 504 |Summer 2014

Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past?. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3), 1-13.

This paper discusses connectivism as a theory appropriate for the modern era, highlighting its innovative features, such as distributed knowledge, and its relationship with other learning theories. The authors begin with a helpful overview of connectivism, pointing to the necessity of learning communities, called nodes. Both cognitive and affective domains are engaged in the acquisition of knowledge, which is comprised of constantly changing information. Seeking out and filtering extraneous information are important parts of the cyclical and interdisciplinary learning process. Learning, itself, is the network; knowledge is not rooted in logic or language.

The authors then propose connectivism as a developmental theory, suggesting that Siemens’ connectivist model (http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm (a reference referred to quite often)) and Downes’ “theory of distributed knowledge” require further studies to support their philosophical domain. By citing others’ analyses and critiques, they suggest that traditional theories (behaviorism (objectivism), cognitivism (pragmatism), and constructivism (interpretivism)) already cover all the bases. Not only that, but Kerr (2007a) discusses overlap with Vygotsky’s social constructivism, Papert’s constructionism, Clark’s embodied active cognition, and Lave and Wenger’s “communities of practice”. I believe these “pre-connectivist” theories all have something unique to contribute to a discussion of Web 2.0 technologies, and will use this section as a launching pad for further inquiry.

There appears to be much debate about the validity of connectivism as a stand-alone theory. Some of this debate comes from connectivism’s treatment of higher-order thinking and pattern recognition. Nevertheless, connectivism addresses modern learners’ needs, information growth, and advancing technologies through its pedagogy and curriculum, which Verhagen (2006) views as more relevant than its role as a theory.

The section “Teaching in a Connected Environment” is quite salient for my focus. It discusses the changing roles of students, teachers, and learning contexts. Some critics are concerned about critical engagement and diverse perspectives in online communities. The online environment is the most significant application for connectivism; however I would be interested to find out how this theory (or developing model) is applied to face-to-face learning experiences. They authors remind us that Downes’ and Siemens’ networks are both internal and external, reminding us that knowledge is internally (cognitively) and externally (socially) developed.

In the conclusion we finally hear the opinions of Kop and Hill, whereby they deliver a powerful reminder that educators must follow the trends of their students less they be replaced by new “experts”. The authors believe that connectivism has useful pedagogical implications. The possibilities afforded by digital technologies in conjunction with learners’ increasing autonomy are leading to a new paradigm for learning. Nevertheless, the message is that connectivism is merely a player in this new epistemology. Ultimately the authors’ implication is similar to Hill et al.’s article’s conclusion, which encourages

Page 6: Annotated Bibliography - Fuhry

Erica Fuhry | EdTech 504 |Summer 2014

practitioners to continue creating innovative pedagogy without waiting to ground it in new, established theory. Although the authors value the tenets of connectivism, the majority of the article discusses its validity as a new theory versus demonstrating its applicability to real-world practice. The following article (Transue, 2013) helps bridge theory to practice.

Transue, B. M. (2013). Connectivism and information literacy: Moving from learning theory to pedagogical practice. Public Services Quarterly, 9(3), 185-195. doi:10.1080/15228959.2013.815501

This article is directed towards librarian educators as they adapt to new learning theories and technologies and their corresponding pedagogical practices. Knowledge as networked relationships (with humans and digital products) is the principle of connectivism, and is also a critical feature of ACRL (Association for College and Research Libraries) standards. I found Transue’s brief summary of others’ (Anderson and Dron, Bell, and Downes) observations that connectivism is a “third-generation learning theory [for a] web 2.0 environment” insightful, and would be interested to find out more about these authors’ purported deficiencies in established learning theories. For example, cognitive-behaviorist theories are less relevant because of their pre-web applications, and constructivist theory limits information to a “thing” to be gained through experience (rather than a relationship). Unlike Kop and Hill’s article, this publication seems to consider connectivism a trustworthy, established, and exemplar learning theory worthy of significant pedagogical application.

The author discusses information literacy, which is a component of Hsi’s definition of digital fluency as described earlier (minus the “design and develop” action tasks). She encourages teachers and librarians to use all of Drexler’s (2010) proposed four domains of student networks (information management, contacts, synchronous communication, and RSS) to maximize the teaching of useful and transferable skills. She also offers helpful, practical strategies for doing so. For example, we should adapt to technology tools with which students are already familiar to improve their transliteracy (information + digital) instruction, such as by showing them how to use Google and Wikipedia in an academic way that does not discredit their merit. Teachers should also encourage students to expand their personal learning networks to librarians, who in turn should be synchronously available to assist students’ in their information quests. In the connectivist theory, I believe it is important that students have a broad, but reliable network of knowledge experts that they can access by managing and maintaining personal networks. Transue agrees, and also underscores the importance of students’ participation in the network. Students must be taught and encouraged to synthesize, create, publish and provide feedback to “complete the cycle”.

Many of the suggested applications of Drexler’s model of student domains are slightly outside of the scope of elementary education and are more appropriate for adult learning, however the framework is adaptable. It would be a good structure to flesh out a

Page 7: Annotated Bibliography - Fuhry

Erica Fuhry | EdTech 504 |Summer 2014

connectivist-style research project (similar to the Biology example in the article). I am not convinced it would be a model appropriate for all types of learning, however, particularly as it lacks impetus and direction for collaboration, creation, and high-order thinking.

Chen, B., & Bryer, T. (2012). Investigating instructional strategies for using social media in formal and informal learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(1), 87-104. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ979641.pdf

The authors believe that, despite their popularity, a low percentage of students and instructors use social media for educational purposes. Their qualitative study explores the use of social media among faculty in the discipline of public administration by considering the responses of eight instructors via a phone interview. The participants’ reflections about their experiences and perceptions of using social media for teaching and learning are interesting, however the sample size of the experiment is rather small, and the audience is not in line with the focus on my research. Nevertheless, this article is very valuable in its qualitative empirical support for social learning theories as well as some anecdotal examples of how social media can be used to connect formal and informal learning. For example, according to the interview responses, social media allows instructors to break down the limitation of course management systems, enable collaborative interactions, connect textbook knowledge to real-world problems, and facilitated personalized constructive learning (p. 97).

The authors trace the value of social media as learning tool back to the notion of social learning (see annotation for Hill et al.’s article), which has its roots in Vygotsky’s social constructivism. (Many other authors in this field have made similar reference to this theoretical foundation, which features teacher-as-facilitator, collaboration, problem-solving, and learner autonomy.) The authors give equal attention to the role of connectivism theory (as reviewed in the two previous annotations), whereby learning is not internal and individual but rather interconnected and pluralistic. They feel that even though there is limited use of social media by students and teachers, research has supported the connectivism theory and should be adopted for teaching.

The authors claim that social networks have little no integration into formal learning environments. I was surprised by this claim, especially considering the publication date of the article, but understand their perspective considering they seem to have been specifically looking at the temporary and limited nature of course management systems in higher education. Nevertheless, their mission to blur lines between formal and informal education is in line with my research (and related to the discussion brought up in Hsi’s article found in an earlier annotation). In the authors’ opinion, learning can be achieved if informal social networks are facilitated, learner-centered, and agenda-driven. Like the authors of the following annotation (Williams et al., 2011), they believe that boundaries must be erected to manage the free reign of social activity.

Page 8: Annotated Bibliography - Fuhry

Erica Fuhry | EdTech 504 |Summer 2014

In a similar way to other articles in this bibliography, this paper concludes with a call for institutional support to not only allow but promote the use of social media. It also calls for more systematic studies to prove the benefits of these technologies. The authors point to a gap between well-supported theory and the lack of research to support students’ networked learning. However, besides encouraging us to use technologies to infuse social practices into learning activities, Chen and Bryer do not provide any direction or offer much in the way of concrete examples.

Williams, R., Karousou, R., & Mackness, J. (2011). Emergent learning and learning ecologies in Web 2.0. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 39-59.

The authors present emergent learning as part of the learning networks and systems that comprise the Web 2.0’s learning ecology. Emergent learning is “learning in which actor and system co-evolve” (p. 40), and is struggling to take root in technology-driven arenas that are still shaped by traditional teaching modes and expectations, prescriptive outcomes, and conventional hierarchies. A learner-centered environment, where students determine the learning process and destination, is open-ended, collaborative, and self-organized (e.g social networks, personal learning environments (PLEs), and some communities of practice).

We learn that the internet provides a perfect environment for emergent social behavior, but must still explore whether this leads to emergent learning. Part of the issue lies in whether or not knowledge and behaviors generated by Web 2.0 tools can be validated and self-correcting. Also, the authors assert that emergence is not a panacea; an inclusive learning ecology must balance prescriptive learning with managed emergence. (A helpful comparison of the two ideas is found in Figure 1 (p. 43)). The process of designing for emergent learning should focus on philosophy versus practice, and should be flexible to allow for an organic response. What follows are a few examples of this kind of balanced emergent learning in practice. It would be helpful to learn more about the initial design of these experiences, however, from an Instructional Design perspective. How did the course developers initiate these open-ended tasks, courses, and projects? How do the authors propose to plan for unstructured, self-organized, and self-managed learning?

The authors also explore whether and how we can integrate emergent and prescriptive learning. To answer this they look at an analytic framework based on complexity theory, communities of practice, and connectivism. They also provide overviews of case studies that incorporate these ideologies. This article values the potential for social networking media to increase emergent learning in our pluralistic learning ecologies (versus controlled, predictable learning environments), but it also cautions us to balance openness with constraint. As educators we need to be comfortable with unpredictability and a dynamic sense of control, but also maintain responsibility for safe and productive learning to take place.

Page 9: Annotated Bibliography - Fuhry

Erica Fuhry | EdTech 504 |Summer 2014

Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now?. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246-259. doi:10.3102/0013189X09336671

This article is written with strong support of Web 2.0 technologies for teaching and learning. It discusses how the internet has evolved over time (in terms of both access and nature), and how students are using it in different contexts for diverse purposes. As mentioned earlier, Transue’s article (2013) made a similar brief observation of the internet’s timeline, from Web 1.0’s “classical” cognitive perspective of acquiring knowledge from others to Web 2.0’s participatory constructivist and connectivist approach. I appreciate how the authors suggest that the modern internet promotes users, knowledge, and all their interconnections. “Knowledge is decentralized, accessible, and co-constructed by and among a broad base of users” (p. 247). These characteristics of knowledge are in line with the theoretical foundations that Hill (2012) delineates in her article about learning communities: Social Constructivist Theory, Social Presence, Social Interdependence, and Situated Learning.

The authors discuss how Web 2.0 is currently in use by students and teacher. How does the internet work as an information repository and communication tool for learning in present day? We can value the Web for its interconnections, content creation and remixing, and interactivity. It holds great potential. Like other literature on educational social media, however, Greenhow et al. point to the disconnect between how students are using classroom in their lives and how teachers are incorporating it into their classrooms. Educators must revise their role to include modeling and facilitating 21st century skills, which are more social and require higher-order thinking skills. Grounded in sociocultural activity and situated learning theories, a “learning ecology” perspective (see annotation for Williams et al. (2011)) might help bridge learning and teaching with the Web 2.0. In these theories, and along the lines of Connectivism, learning is located in contexts and relationships rather than merely in individuals’ minds. Therefore learning can formally and informally cross boundaries. Hsi’s article left me intrigued about blurring school and home boundaries of networked technology use, and this article equally calls for research and practice that prioritizes bridging youth's formal and informal learning with participatory media. At the same time the authors point out some potential ethical issues to be wary of in designing research tools and methods to study this kind of context transfer.

The themes of learner participation (e.g. inquiry) and creativity as well as online identity formation are rooted in this analysis. The benefits of self-expression, belonging, and interest-driven opportunities entice students to use the internet in the first place. Like many other authors, Greenhow et al. call for a strong research focus on Web 2.0 use in and outside the classroom. They believe questions should focus on what learners do with these new technologies, issues of equity in and access to these experiences, and building theory and corollary practice and policies. As in other discussions presented in this bibliography, the authors point to the lack of modeling by instructors as a primary reason

Page 10: Annotated Bibliography - Fuhry

Erica Fuhry | EdTech 504 |Summer 2014

for our education system’s low level of Web 2.0 integration. They imply that educators should build up their social scholarship online to help students, improve their practice, develop their own identities, and share scholarship with a wider audience.

The final section of the article is very helpful in that it names a number of valuable Web 2.0 tools that are still in use today (in the year 2014), and notes their specific merits. Aligning theoretical ideas, acclaim, and evidence gives more credence than does hypothetical beliefs, suppositions, or generalizations alone.

Zhang, J. (2009). Comments on Greenhow, Robelia, and Hughes: Toward a creative social web for learners and teachers. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 274-279. doi:10.3102/0013189X09336674

This article responds to the previous article by looking at the strengths and weaknesses of Web 2.0 in supporting students’ collaborative creativity in their knowledge creation and the use of the Web for supporting teacher learning and innovation. The author views learning as a social act, involving assimilating and building on a community's knowledge and adopting diverse points of view (i.e. cross-fertilization (Sternberg, 2003) of different domains and cultures). Going beyond a simple repository or information, the current Web’s features support collaborative creation, sharing, connecting, and remixing. One limitation, however, is that this knowledge is temporary in time and space. It is not easily available for ‘indexing, tracing, monitoring, integrating, and advancing ideas” (Zhang, 2009, p. 275). For example, Web 2.0 tools like social bookmarking and Wikis are great for knowledge sharing (in accordance with a community-of-practice framework), but are less apt to advance knowledge.

Zhang does echo Greenhow et al.’s (2009) observation that Web 2.0 technologies can foster creativity as well as identity formation. For example, there are ample opportunities to share artistic expressions and personal feelings. However, he feels there is a general trend of deficiency in depth and progressiveness in current internet contributions that use these technologies. There is also an issue of quality control in the knowledge being disseminated on the Web, and the advancement of knowledge through popularity versus progress and higher-level ideas. Another challenge is the conflict between the chaotic, open-ended Web and the rigidly organized structure and tradition of schooling. In her publication (previously annotated in this collection) Hsi (2007) points to similar challenges in this arena, more specifically in terms of teacher adoption of these kinds of technology. This critique is important because it helps us remember that the traditional (what he calls formal) ways of schooling were based on practices deemed most appropriate by the ruling learning theories of the day. This model of formal education is clearly in a time of redefinition and redevelopment, and perhaps some of this “formality” will be shed in the process.

The overall message is that, yes, the internet is participatory and collaborative, but it is not yet very creative in terms of information innovation. Expanding on the suggestions of

Page 11: Annotated Bibliography - Fuhry

Erica Fuhry | EdTech 504 |Summer 2014

Greenhow et al., Zhang is calling for design-based research that focused on: 1) reflective and integrated representation of community knowledge, 2) progressive inquiry, 3) progress-focused review and feedback, and 4) social and cognitive scaffolding of emergent collaboration and collectively evolved inquiry. He is also suggesting ways teachers can use Web 2.0 tools for professional development, collaboration, and innovation (an area left out in Greenhow et al.’s discussion (2009)). Zhang does a good job of highlighting the Web 2.0 strengths found in Greenhow et al.’s literature, while pointing out several areas of weakness that may have been overlooked by those authors. Nevertheless, these weaknesses are certainly not strong enough to deter an educating practitioner from incorporating Web 2.0 tools in their repertoire.