As I was winding through the Okanagan wine country this summer pondering my banner question, it all seemed pretty simple.  Go online, be it Google or ERIC, find the appropriate articles, annotate and then continue.  I should have known that being in a program that focuses on “cutting edge” technologies makes finding appropriate and up-to-date articles challenging.  In my somewhat evolving field study, I’m focusing on a few particular ESL students in my regular Socials 10 class.  I want to see whether using Web 2.0 technologies makes their transition into a regular classroom more integrative, inclusive, communicative and successful.  However, finding articles that focus on this group has been difficult.  I’m sure I’m not the first to have thought of this, but I may be one of the first to create an action plan around this focus group.  I have found relevant articles about technology and ESL students, and many on Web 2.0, however none that relate both topics.  Arrghhh.

These particular students have been with me in full ESL classes for the past 2 years and were very willing to speak up and participate.  Now in a different environment, they have understandably gone back into their shells.  I have heard from their other regular class teachers of the same behaviour.  I’m hoping that creating an online environment can help create a more collaborative and more importantly, inclusive environment for these students.  My search will continue…but if anyone reads this blog and knows of some research around this, please let me know.

     “I think, therefore I am,” dates back to the seventeenth century and the Cartesian view of learning.  Our individual ideas and knowledge gives us substance and an identity.  Jump forward to the 21^st century, surrounded by wikis and blogs, are our thoughts really ours or are they an amalgamation of dozens, hundreds or even thousands of contributors?  What kind of identity does that give us and are we really learning?  As educators, we teach students during their formative years; a time when they learn about themselves, build their identity and hopefully become responsible citizens.  By immersing our students into this Web 2.0 craze, are we doing them an injustice by overloading them with unaccredited information and random venues to voice their uninformed opinions?   Are we using wikis and blogs merely as gimmicks and time fillers?  No.  The contrary is true. 

     “We participate, therefore we are.” (Brown and Adler, 2008)  No longer the “gate keepers” of knowledge, it would be extremely naïve of net-generation educators to believe that learning was still solely controlled and transferred from the teacher to the student.  Web 2.0 encompasses far more than just wikis and blogs, but for this paper, they will be the focus.  This new interactive medium has moved us away from an elitist delivery of education.  It is now truly open to all and accessible by hundreds of millions.  Why would any educator not want to utilize that?  If we want to foster and build global citizens who participate and have a voice, does this social software not create such valuable opportunities?  In a public education system often financially constrained, wikis and blogs are able to push ahead the aims of collaborative learning that Learning Management Systems (Blackboard, Desire2Learn, WebCT etc) weren’t able to fully achieve.  However, it is even more vital today that educators must still be critical practitioners since it is clear that online social learning is far from perfect.  In order to “harness the collective intelligence”, teachers themselves need to be information literate, or have  “a set of skills needed to find, retrieve, analyze and use information” in an educationally sound way.   (Brown and Bussert, 2006)  I truly believe that wikis and blogs are not just a trend and that they have a valuable place in our constructivist education; there are, however, limits and concerns to this revolutionary learning and teaching tool. 

     We cannot deny that the Internet has transformed how we communicate, research and think. In the past few years, there have been many articles supporting and questioning the merit of what Tim O’Reilly coined as Web 2.0.  Michael Gorman, a former president of the American Library Association, stated that collaborative online services such as wikis, was ushering in “a world in which everyone is an expert in a world devoid of expertise.” Gorman questioned the scholarly authority and validity of online content since anyone could publish anything.  However, what is scholarly authority and validity?  “Authority was conferred by the hurdles jumped by the scholar, as seen in degrees and tenure status.” (Jensen, 2007)  Quality information was once scarce, hard to locate, and only the connected or scholarly had access to it. 

“The costliness of publishing became an invisible constraint that drove nearly all of our decisions.  It became the scholar’s job to be a selector and interpreter of difficult-to-find primary and secondary sources; it was the scholarly publisher’s job to identify the best scholars with the best perspective and the best access to the scarce resource.” (Jensen, 2007) 

Today, students doing a research project no longer go to the library and read the Encyclopedia Britannica or other publications, but head straight to Wikipedia.  With wikis, there is a democratization of authority, since this group participation engine allows anyone to modify information.  Does this make it less credible?  I don’t think so.  Authority now may be measured through folksonomy or using tags like in De.li.cious or Technorati. “Social software is a kind of software, that users can contribute their content, and therefore this content gets richer, or more accurate and more people can use it.” (Kesim and Agaoglu, 2007)  In addition, Gorman didn’t mention how most scholarly publications can currently be found online and that those who contribute to Wikipedia have access to that scarce commodity now.  The success of Wikipedia shows us the power of the masses, but still in a controlled way.  The site does reserve the right to edit or delete content as they have a group of entrusted members who do quality control.  Teachers should follow a similar model if they want to utilize this tool for classes.  They must have full administrative rights over their class wiki and be able to edit and delete content as they see fit to foster a community of respectful collaborators.  In my experience of incorporating a class wiki for the entire year, students found using it to be a great way to communicate and collaborate during projects.  It was extremely successful as long as the teacher moderated and provided criteria and guidelines.

     “Writing for a global audience is a powerful stimulus for questioning personal identity, representing oneself through writing, and understanding audience.” (Alexander, 2008)  Blogs allow students to grapple with the world audience everyday.  Is it not one of our goals as teachers to try to foster global citizens?  In order for blogs to work in the classroom, however, the teacher needs to be aware of safety issues and the different responses to blog use.  “Problems with blogging for learning can include haphazard contributions to blogs, minimal communication between students through their blogs and poor or inadequate quality reflection on the course materials as evidenced in blog content.” (Kerawalla et al, 2008)  As blogging becomes part of the 21^st century psyche, more research about blogging behaviour has been done to characterize student use.  According to Kerwalla’s article, there are five main types of users:

1. Blogging avoidance – students could not find use for blogging and were happy with their pre-existing learning approaches.
2. Resource network building – regarded audience as potentially valuable resource of ideas, constructive criticism and links to further resources.
3. Support network building – used blogs to build support network as a social and exclusive community.
4. Self-sufficient blogging – used blog mainly for themselves and their audience was not of great importance to them.
5. Anxious, self-conscious blogging just to complete the suggested course activities – thought they would be penalized for not blogging and felt their inexperience as learners and users of technology and their lack of confidence would be revealed to others.(Kerawalla et al, 2008)

     The research revealed interesting results as I could categorize my own students into those groups.  A blogs’ success is not measured by all students becoming life-long bloggers, but instead, it is another outlet for students to express themselves.  In order to create a classroom that addresses multiple intelligences, incorporating this powerful medium has more advantages than disadvantages.  Once again, my class experience was a lot more mixed with blogs than with wikis.  I definitely had a group of Grade 12 boys who were “blog avoiders”.  These particular students didn’t want to be labeled as a “blogger”.  Whereas feedback by the other students showed that they found it useful, but would have liked a bigger audience.  One student received an outside comment and felt very proud of that small response.  There are so many blogs out there, and unless the teacher makes it available to many or publicizes them, it could be one of the limitations of this social software.  If we want our students to participate with a global audience, we must be able to support that and set it up properly for it to work.

     “The model of the 21^st century incorporates more participation, collaboration, and flexibility in creating, adaptation, and use of learning materials.” (Rogers, Chan & Brady, 2007) This paper tried to address some of the disadvantages of wikis and blogs, but also wanted to highlight the immense potential they have for the educator and the student.  I don’t think that having students contribute to these online resources is wasting space or merely jumping on the blogwagon in the cyberworld.  Students are becoming more responsible for their own learning, and through this technology, teachers are guiding them to become more active participants in the collaborative online global community.  I plan to continue to use both wikis and blogs in a number of my classes in the upcoming year. 

References

Akbulut, Yavuz; Kiyici, Mubin. (2007). Instructional use of Weblogs. Online Submission, Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education–TOJDE v8 n3 p6-15 Jul 2007.10 pp. Retrieved June 21, 2007. ERIC databases.

Alexander, Bryan (2008). Web 2.0 and Emergent Multiliteracies. Theary Into Practice, 47:2, 150-160. Retrieved June 21, 2008.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405840801992371

Brown, Nicole E., Bussert, Kaila. (2006). Information Literacy 2.0: Empowering Students Through Personal Engagement. The American University of Cairo.

Jensen, Michael. (June 15, 2007). The New Metrics of Scholarly Authority. Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 53, Issue 41. Retrieved June 21, 2007. ERIC databases.

Kerawalla, Lucinda, Minocha, Shailey, Kirkup, Gill and Conole, Grainne (2008). Characterising the different blogging behaviours of students on an online distance learning course.  Learning, Media and Technology, 33:1, 21-33.  Retrieved June 21, 2008.

http://dx.doi.org.10.1080/17439880701868838

Kesim, Eren, Agaoglu, Esmahan (2007). A Paradigm Shift in Distance Education: Web 2.0 and Social Software. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education. Vol.8, Number 3, Article 4.

Michael Gorman vs. Web 2.0 . Chronicle of Higher Education, v53 n44 pB4 Jul 2007. Retrieved June 21, 2008.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ771754&site=ehost-live 

Rogers, Clint, Liddle, Stephen, Chan, Peter (July 2007). Web 2.0 Learning Platform: Harnessing Collective Intelligence. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education. Vol.8, Number 3, Article 1. 

Seely Brown, John, Adler, Richard P. (2008). Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0. Educause Review. Vol.43, Number 1. Retrieved June 21, 2008.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

This issue that intrigues me the most is how to harness, or if we should harness and censor, the power of Web 2.0. There continues to be a lot of debate, both for and against the use of sites such as Facebook and other popular social networking addresses.  Web 2.0 goes beyond just those sites, but because of their popularity and exposure, I have found a number of interesting articles and webpages that provide a lot of insight into Facebook and cyberbullying.  I have taken quotes from one particular article to get a more focused discussion on this issue.

Facebook:

“The site quickly grew, first to other universities and later to high schools. By last summer, it was used by more than 30,000 educational institutions in the US, Canada, and other English-speaking countries, with roughly eight million users.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6639417.stm)

Positives:

“Although most people associate Facebook with social activities, the site can be very useful in mobilising interest around political and policy issues.

For example, six weeks ago, Amber MacArthur, a Canadian television reporter, launched a new group called Canadians for Net Neutrality. Today the group has more than 1,100 participants, sharing ideas and concerns about whether Canadian Internet service providers are treating content and applications in an equitable manner.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6639417.stm)

I agree with the power of this medium when used positively and productively.  Being the Grad Sponsor this year and for the past 3, the council has found using Facebook a key way to help them organize events and to increase grad enthusiasm and spirit.  Students have been creating groups on Facebook in order to organize study sessions, club activities and general reminders.  However, like most things, put in the wrong hands with the wrong intensions, this tool can powerfully mobilize negative events as well.

Ban works: http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/contentbe/EPIC_shim.php?story=194268

Negatives:

“The recent backlash against Facebook has generally centred around two concerns - derogatory comments and workplace productivity - ironically missing the real sources of concern such as the privacy impact of posting deeply personal information.

Many Facebook users openly comment about issues of concern. That naturally includes students posting thoughts about fellow students and teachers or about supervisors at their part-time jobs.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6639417.stm)

Students are now being taught in Planning classes and by their counselors about the negative effects pictures and comments on Facebook can have on their future.  Whether it is post-secondary admissions or prospective employers, students are being warned that if they post it, there is a way to see it. Students in elementary schools and in Grade 8 are given lessons on cyberbullying, however, these situations are still occurring.  It is not exclusive to Facebook as Youtube or just texting from a cell phone is contributing to this trend.  Teachers are trying to educate students, but unfortunately it doesn’t encourage all students to act responsibly.  Is it then the role of the school to eliminate that behaviour in the school?  Can it be eliminated?  In our school district, they have tried to block Facebook, however students quickly found a different way into the site.  Is it not the role of the teacher to ensure students stay on task and are on appropriate sites?  Is that expectation realistic?  In a class of 30, a teacher can only monitor so many computers at one time without creating a “big brother” environment.  There are programs that can “watch” which sites students are on, but once again, students know how to get around that as well.  Are we fighting a losing battle?  Whether students use these sites inappropriately at school or at home, they’re still doing so in spite of being “educated” otherwise.  How can we harness this?  How can we “educate” more effectively?

Ban questionable:

http://blog.mastermaq.ca/2007/5/4/why-the-facebook-ban-will-be-lifted-within-two-years/

To censor or to create a “teachable moment”?

“It is certainly appropriate to take action against cyber-bullying, however students exercising legitimate free speech should not be punished simply because the speech occurs in a semi-private online forum rather than in a semi-private discussion on school grounds out of earshot of school officials.

In fact, educators should seize these opportunities to teach students about both the benefits and drawbacks of social media, while encouraging them to use the tools in positive ways.”

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6639417.stm)

As the article suggests, it is once again on the educator to encourage positive use of such a medium.  I believe that parents fit into the “educator” role as much, if not more, than the teacher.  Freedom of speech has always been integral in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, however, it is often debated and at the center of misuse and abuse. 

Student avoids expulsion:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/03/11/4970876-cp.html

Websites focusing on cyberbullying:

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/04/cyberbullying-the-problem-and-kids-we-ignore-part-2/

http://www.bullying.org/public/frameset.cfm

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/us/12florida.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1214010422-rjXtVB/7Ou6qNXnreH9LSA

http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/222482

My verdict?

I am still undecided with regards to this.  I am an advocate of utilizing technology and creating more diverse learning environments, however, I have first hand experienced the negative effects of Facebook in mobilizing a Grad prank.  I believe as educators, we need to put our heads together and have more discussions, but knee jerk reactions such as banning sites obviously isn’t the solution since the internet isn’t so simple.  Students have already shown us where there is a will, there is a way around bans.