Web 2.0

Web 2.0Charles Gibson Educational Technology /EDUC 7101Walden UniversityIntroduction2Speaker Introduction

Charles GibsonEducational Technology Student @ Walden UniversitySubstitute TeacherMaster in Business Administration and Bachelor in Information Technology.

Good morning, my name is Charles Gibson and I will be the speaker for todays Web 2.0 presentation. I am an Education Technology student at Walden University. I am a substitute teacher and have an MBA and B.S. in Information Technology. Web 2.0 is a great innovation that combines internet tools with social media; which is what we will be discussing in todays presentation. 3Method/MediaNarrated Microsoft PowerPoint

The Web 2.0 Presentation to the Board of Directors will be presented using narrated Microsoft PowerPoint 4Learning Community / Innovation

The need to implement social networking and multimedia applications into education is the primary basis that gave rise to the Web 2.0 innovation. The Web 2.0/Education 2.0 innovation that gave many users the ability to interchange in groups came in the mid 2000s and was viewed by educational institutes as an opportunity to enhance learning.

Web 2.0 is a solution that took the internet to another level. To be specific, the traditional use of the internet was that one user sent out information to one or many other users. Web 2.0 implemented innovative tools that allowed several users to interact with each other at the same time. This is where Web 2.0 was successful in creating social media applications

The intended audience for the Web 2.0 innovation is broad. Education institutions (K-12, college, military, etc.) are only a portion of their client base. Medical facilities, businesses and journalist are other entities that have benefited from Web 2.0. Problems that exist within integrating the technology into education include: concerns of loosing "traditional skills", decreased verbal skills and the ideas that technology would become more of a distraction than a benefit.

Web 2.0 has a broad market. Marketing and distribution will occur electronically; since Web 2.0 is a variety of internet based programs. There are two types of program production; which are open and closed ended programs. Specific programs that Web 2.0 offer are: wiki/blogs, instant messaging software, document sharing, social networking and media tools and blackboard software.

5Timeline

The development process of Web 2.0 does show that the school system does have a need for the innovation based off the development, research and commercialization of the product. However, understanding the stages that Web 2.0 grew into over the years is important also. Now, lets look at the timeline to get an understanding of the specific applications that the board should adopt.

In the 1980s, Blackboard and Teleconferencing came into web technology, that was followed up in the 19090s by Google, wikis and blogs.

Facebook is one of the most popular social media sites that is currently being used. With Face books popularity, is there a way to use the innovation for education? Lets take a closer look at each of the innovations on the timeline. 6Blackboard

The first innovation that we will look at urging the board of directors to adopt is blackboard. Blackboard is a course management system that is already in use by colleges. Blackboard is a website that organizes courses, announcements and gives the teacher tools to facilitate work and instruction. For example, if a English II teacher wanted to use blackboard to organize a lesson, the teacher could use the module to display the subject matter and assignments that the sophomore students will cover. It also would give the educator a place to input announcements and a class chat room to were discussions can take place over the course content. Though there is no stage to blackboard because the innovation is not yet adopted by the system, the board should understand how important this innovation is. 7Google

Google is an innovation that initial stage started in 1996, when two college students were in search of a dissertation theme. Google is actually the initiator of the Web 2.0 idea. The two students, Page and Brin, then continue to build on the innovation and the company took off. The stages in Google continued throughout the 2000s with the addition of upgraded wikis, blogs, Gmail and many other Web 2.0 processes. So how can Google contribute to regular learning in K-12 education? The search engine itself is an outstanding tool to help students with research; which is the main argument that should be understood by the board of directors. 8Wiki / Blog

A blog can also be referred to as a web log that allows the educator and student to post updated research information and links to a self created webpage. The blog is very beneficial to the school system because it is an open web page that allows educators and students to edit the pages at will. The blog stage is not currently used either, but should be adopted by the school system. For example, if a junior high school art teacher wants to teach students new art concepts, the teacher could break the learners up into learning teams. The teacher could the assign each group an art theme and have the students create a blog that explains the art concept, displays their research links and allows the other groups and teacher to review and leave comments.

9Facebook

Facebook is the newest innovation that stage originated in the 2000s. Though facebook is considered to be mainly a personal Web 2.0 based social media application, many businesses and organizations do use the innovation. So why not use this social media tool in education. For example, if a teacher is wanting to teach a business class on Facebook, the teacher could post their lecture on the instructors personal page. The students could go to the page, review the lecture and comment right there on the page. From their, the assignments can simply be submitted by messaging the instructor. 10S-Curve

The S-curve contains data retrieved from the perceptions, interest and use: teachers and Web 2.0 tools in education (2011) evaluation of the usage of these innovative tools among teachers in their classroom. In 2004, Web 2.0 was identified in a conference. By 2008, the study showed that 53.9% of secondary educators were inclined to using Web 2.0 in their classroom activities. By 2010, 72.4% is the average Web 2.0 usage in the classroom among all ages and categories of teachers. This average was based off the following Web 2.0 applications: Blogs, collaborative writing tools, podcast, social bookmarking, social photo tools, social networking site, social video tools, thinking tools, virtual worlds and wikis.

11Perceived Attributes / Change Agents

So who are the key change agents in the education system that should be a part of the push for Web 2.0 initiatives? The key change agents are the faculty, support staff, teaching staff, students and parents. 12Innovators

Since the innovators are the top 2.5%, the curriculum and design instructors at the board of education should be the innovators. The justification is that these professionals would be the start of designing an instructional outline for merging the technologies into the K through 12 classroom. 13Early Adopters

The early adopters are the personnel that implement the ideas derived from the innovators on a local scale (Rogers, 2003). The early adopters would have to be the teachers because the educator would have to use the Web 2.0 ideas to teach the students.14Laggards

The laggards are a group of people that hold to the traditional way of conducting business. The laggards are the last group to adapt a new way of doing things (Rogers, 2003, p. 284). Generation Y teachers would be the most resistant to implementing Web 2.0 innovations into their lesson plans. The best strategy for the laggards is to get then to have an open mind and educate the laggards on why it is important to implement the technologies of tomorrow. 15Web 2.0 Meeting Critical Mass

Critical mass is the point where an innovation is so frequently implemented that in a sense the innovation becomes self reliant (Rogers, 2003, p.343). Compatibility & Triability are the two attributes that will help meet in reaching critical mass in Web 2.0. Understanding the past experience with the internet & education with current and future needs are important. The analysis drawn from web compatibility can help the innovator set up a trial run of their ideas for Web 2.0 in K-12 education. The results from the trialibility will give administrators a clear picture of weather Web 2.0 will be able to sustain itself or not.

The board of directors should know that Web 2.0 itself is inexpensive and is already a part of most students daily use. All Web 2.0 is a web innovation that promotes social media communications among many users at the same time. The decentralized approach differs from centralized by taking away opinions of leaders in the field (Rogers, 2003, p. 395). The best way to implement Web 2.0 in the K-12 education system is for innovators to sit down with each other and implement an appropriate curriculum design for the technology. 16Championing InnovationFinal Remarks to The Board of Directors

The Board of Directors have heard a considerable amount of professional reasoning as to why it would be beneficial to adopt Web 2.0 as a part of the K through 12 learning curriculum. The board needs to understand that technology is a part of tomorrow and implementing it into education is only an asset to both the student and educator. Lets look at blackboard for example. Blackboard is already in use by colleges, so imagine the impact that the innovation would have on K through 12 students. Blogs are another strong example of how education can be implemented using a web page that is editable by both the student and teacher. Would not this form of social media benefit educators by allowing the fast access to educational tools. I would urge the laggards to embrace technology simply because despite the outlook, technology is dominating our tomorrow. 18ReferencesHung-Ling, T. (2010). A Predictive Study of Wiki Interaction: Can Attitude toward Wiki Predict Wiki Interaction in High-Context Cultures Groups?. Journal Of Educational Technology Development & Exchange, 3(1), 57-68.NAMDEV, D. (2012). ICT AND WEB TECHNOLOGY BASED INNOVATIONS IN EDUCATION SECTOR. Turkish Online Journal Of Distance Education (TOJDE), 13(4), 256-268. Noss, R. (2012). Education 2.0? Designing the web for teaching and learning. TLRP. Retrieved from http://www.tlrp.org/pub/documents/TELcomm.pdfRogers, E. M.(2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

ReferencesSaettler, P. (2004). The evolution of American educational technology. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Steve Chi-Yin, Y., Yaoyuneyong, G., & Yuen, P. K. (2011). Perceptions, Interest, and Use: Teachers and Web 2.0 Tools in Education. International Journal Of Technology In Teaching & Learning, 7(2), 109-123. Web 2.0 in the classroom. (2012). YouTube. Retrieved February 4, 2013, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es0GOgyHr0IWeb 2.0 in the classroom. (2008). YouTube. Retrieved February 4, 2013, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue1FeMBfKec