Social software and collaborative learning: Difference between revisions
(Created page with '== Introduction == This wiki explores the relationship between social software social software and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_learning collaborative learn…') |
|||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Introduction == | == Introduction == | ||
This wiki explores the relationship between social software [[social software]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_learning | This wiki explores the relationship between social software [[social software]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_learning collaborative learning]. | ||
collaborative learning]. | |||
;[[User:Adambinet2260| Adam Binet]] | ;[[User:Adambinet2260| Adam Binet]] | ||
Line 11: | Line 9: | ||
== Social Software == | == Social Software == | ||
[[Social software]], known more popularly as [[Web 2.0]] consists of an array of online tools and technologies that allows users to | [[Social software]], known more popularly as [[Web 2.0]] consists of an array of online tools and technologies that allows users to | ||
interact and share information, files, and resources with one another ([http://mcs.open.ac.uk/sm577/publications.html Minocha],2009). Social software includes tools such as: [[Wikis]], video-sharing websites (e.g.,[http://www.youtube.com YouTube]), [[blogs]], [[social networking]] sites (e.g. [http://www.facebook.com Facebook]), and [[instant messaging]]. These tools and services have added increased possibilities for online learning opportunities ([http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a913340251 Capuruco] & [http://www.eng.uwo.ca/people/lcapretz/publications.html Capretz], 2009). [[Social software]] and [[Web 2.0]] sites have marked a movement away from the initial function of the [[Internet]] as a one-way, static business tool to a rich experience made ‘by the people for the people’, allowing two-way communication and sharing ([http://www.lkl.ac.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=165 Selwyn] & [http://www.futurelab.org.uk/about-us/meet-the-team/futurelab-staff/lyndsay-grant Grant], 2009). Learning and educating using [[social software]] and [[Web 2.0]] technology have moved in a direction that fosters a single student’s work, but also group and partner collaboration, in a new learning atmosphere ([http://online-journals.org/i-jet/article/view/251/234 Dorninger & Schrack], 2008). Hughes ([http://www.ioe.ac.uk/study/CPEN_18.html 2009]) states that compared to simple communication tools such as [[e-mail]], [[Web 2.0]] has an intrinsic networking effect that allows individuals to connect and share with other like-minded people quickly and effectively. Furthermore, it invites a user to create or extend a whole new identity online ([http://www.ioe.ac.uk/study/CPEN_18.html Hughes]). | |||
interact and share information, files, and resources with one another ([http://mcs.open.ac.uk/sm577/publications.html Minocha], 2009). | |||
Social software includes tools such as: [[Wikis]], video-sharing websites (e.g.,YouTube), [[blogs]], [[social networking]] sites (e.g. | |||
Facebook), and instant messaging. These tools and services have added increased possibilities for online learning opportunities | |||
([http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a913340251 Capuruco] & | |||
[http://www.eng.uwo.ca/people/lcapretz/publications.html Capretz], 2009). [[Social software]] and [[Web 2.0]] sites have marked a | |||
movement away from the initial function of the Internet as a one-way, static business tool to a rich experience made ‘by the people for | |||
the people’, allowing two-way communication and sharing | |||
([http://www.lkl.ac.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=165 Selwyn] & | |||
[http://www.futurelab.org.uk/about-us/meet-the-team/futurelab-staff/lyndsay-grant Grant], 2009). Learning and educating using [[social | |||
software]] and [[Web 2.0]] technology have moved in a direction that fosters a single student’s work, but also group and partner | |||
collaboration, in a new learning atmosphere ([http://online-journals.org/i-jet/article/view/251/234 Dorninger & Schrack], 2008). Hughes | |||
([http://www.ioe.ac.uk/study/CPEN_18.html 2009]) states that compared to simple communication tools such as e-mail, [[Web 2.0]] has an | |||
intrinsic networking effect that allows individuals to connect and share with other like-minded people quickly and effectively. | |||
Furthermore, it invites a user to create or extend a whole new identity online ([http://www.ioe.ac.uk/study/CPEN_18.html Hughes]). | |||
== Learning using social software == | == Learning using social software == | ||
Learning using [[social software]] and [[Web 2.0]] technology have moved in a direction that fosters a single student’s work, but also | Learning using [[social software]] and [[Web 2.0]] technology have moved in a direction that fosters a single student’s work, but also group and partner collaboration, in a new learning atmosphere ([http://online-journals.org/i-jet/article/view/251/234 Dorninger & Schrack], 2008). Hughes (2009) found that, compared to simple communication tools such as e-mail, [[Web 2.0]] has an intrinsic networking effect that allows individuals to connect and share with other like-minded people quickly and effectively. Furthermore, it invites a user to create or extend a whole new identity online ([http://www.ioe.ac.uk/study/CPEN_18.html Hughes]). | ||
group and partner collaboration, in a new learning atmosphere ([http://online-journals.org/i-jet/article/view/251/234 Dorninger & | |||
Schrack], 2008). Hughes (2009) found that, compared to simple communication tools such as e-mail, [[Web 2.0]] has an intrinsic | |||
networking effect that allows individuals to connect and share with other like-minded people quickly and effectively. Furthermore, it | |||
invites a user to create or extend a whole new identity online ([http://www.ioe.ac.uk/study/CPEN_18.html Hughes]). | |||
== Collaborative learning == | == Collaborative learning == | ||
[[Collaborative learning]] has proven to lead to higher grades than learners achieve in other conditions and the means by which they | [[Collaborative learning]] has proven to lead to higher grades than learners achieve in other conditions and the means by which they | ||
learn is more constructive ([http://en.scientificcommons.org/39241791 Dewiyanti, Brand-Gruwel, Jochems & Broers] 2007). [Li, Dong and Huang ([http://www.ifets.info/journals/12_4/7.pdf 2009]) argued that collaborative learning leads to higher student performance and improved retention of the learned information for longer periods. According to Johnson, Johnson and Smith ([http://academicadvising.studentservices.dal.ca/Files/Cooperative%20Learning.pdf 1998]), several different criteria must exist for | |||
learn is more constructive ([http://en.scientificcommons.org/39241791 Dewiyanti, Brand-Gruwel, Jochems & Broers] 2007). [Li, Dong and | collaborative learning to be occurring: Students must know their individual success rests on the success of the group as a whole; | ||
individual effort within the group is assessed, holding them more accountable; students teach and learn from one another while employing leadership skills; and the group must work as a cohesive unit being both critical and constructive to help achieve the greatest good for the group. | |||
Huang ([http://www.ifets.info/journals/12_4/7.pdf 2009]) argued that collaborative learning leads to higher student performance and | |||
improved retention of the learned information for longer periods. According to Johnson, Johnson and Smith | |||
([http://academicadvising.studentservices.dal.ca/Files/Cooperative%20Learning.pdf 1998]), several different criteria must exist for | |||
collaborative learning to be occurring: Students must know their individual success rests on the success of the group as a whole; | |||
individual effort within the group is assessed, holding them more accountable; students teach and learn from one another while employing | |||
leadership skills; and the group must work as a cohesive unit being both critical and constructive to help achieve the greatest good for | |||
the group. | |||
== Social software and collaborative learning == | == Social software and collaborative learning == | ||
Crichton and Kopp ([http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/502/233 2008]) argue that social software provides the opportunity | Crichton and Kopp ([http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/502/233 2008]) argue that social software provides the opportunity for sustained collaborative learning, expression, reflection, and a rich community of practice. In addition, [[Web 2.0]] applications have the potential to enhance students’ future careers and can be used by teachers to supplement effective classroom practices. ([http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/502/233 Crichton & Kopp]). The capacity for [[social software]] and [[Web 2.0]] applications to result in collaborative learning depends upon how the technology is used ([http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/workspace.cfm?wpid=4245 Thorpe], 2002). Kok ([http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Oct_09/article02.htm 2009]) posits that one of the most representative tools of the [[Web 2.0]] is the [[Wiki]]. Frydenberg ([http://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no2/frydenberg0608.htm 2008]) states that because students and faculty can both post information to the Wiki, the role of the instructor changes from being the single authority to being a partner with the students in their own learning. This [[social software]] is an enabler of social interaction, collaboration and information sharing, promoting the growth of communities as user groups ([http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Oct_09/article02.htm Kok]). | ||
for sustained collaborative learning, expression, reflection, and a rich community of practice. In addition, [[Web 2.0]] applications | |||
have the potential to enhance students’ future careers and can be used by teachers to supplement effective classroom practices. | |||
([http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/502/233 Crichton & Kopp]). The capacity for [[social software]] and [[Web 2.0]] | |||
applications to result in collaborative learning depends upon how the technology is used | |||
([http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/workspace.cfm?wpid=4245 Thorpe], 2002). Kok ([http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Oct_09/article02.htm 2009]) | |||
posits that one of the most representative tools of the [[Web 2.0]] is the [[Wiki]]. Frydenberg | |||
([http://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no2/frydenberg0608.htm 2008]) states that because students and faculty can both post information to the | |||
Wiki, the role of the instructor changes from being the single authority to being a partner with the students in their own learning. | |||
This [[social software]] is an enabler of social interaction, collaboration and information sharing, promoting the growth of communities | |||
as user groups ([http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Oct_09/article02.htm Kok]). | |||
==Cautionary uses of social software and web 2.0 == | ==Cautionary uses of social software and web 2.0 == | ||
Koh and Hill ([http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/477/905 2009]) argue that there are several areas which need to be further | Koh and Hill ([http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/477/905 2009]) argue that there are several areas which need to be further researched with regards to students using online environments for successful learning: students need help and assistance with communicating feelings and opinions honestly; time and effort must be put forth in helping students forge communities online which have a rich dialogue and are supportive; and teacher planning must be focused on group work. Finally, teachers must be adept at catching problems with group communication early and have a process to deal with it. As Hughes states, it is also erroneous for educators to assume that [[social software]] alone will close the divide and disparity which exists between struggling and excelled learners (2009). Teachers need to improve their practice and expand their knowledge regarding what students find challenging, as well as beneficial, about group work in online settings ([http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/477/905 Koh & Hill], 2009). A large part of the predicament with the technological advancements is the desire to adopt them immediately without critical analysis ([http://jolt.merlot.org/05012.htm Lozano-Nieto, Guijarro & Berjano], 2006). When using social software for educational ends, it must be acknowledged that it has not been developed specifically for learning ([http://itdl.org/Journal/Feb_08/article01.htm Dalsgaard & Mathiasen], 2008). According to Henry and Meadows ([http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/179/177 2008]), to ensure student success, the use and further development of software and technology must be handled wisely and coupled with a sense of a collaborative community. Technology, in itself, is not a solution to educational woes nor is the investment in technology ([http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/27/25 Abrami, et al.], 2006); research and training have to be a large part of an overall reforming of how technology is implemented in teaching. | ||
researched with regards to students using online environments for successful learning: students need help and assistance with | |||
communicating feelings and opinions honestly; time and effort must be put forth in helping students forge communities online which have | |||
a rich dialogue and are supportive; and teacher planning must be focused on group work. Finally, teachers must be adept at catching | |||
problems with group communication early and have a process to deal with it. As Hughes states, it is also erroneous for educators to | |||
assume that [[social software]] alone will close the divide and disparity which exists between struggling and excelled learners (2009). | |||
Teachers need to improve their practice and expand their knowledge regarding what students find challenging, as well as beneficial, | |||
about group work in online settings ([http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/477/905 Koh & Hill], 2009). A large part of the | |||
predicament with the technological advancements is the desire to adopt them immediately without critical analysis | |||
Dron ([http://www.ifets.info/journals/10_3/5.pdf 2007]) argues that self-organizing communities do not necessarily lead to learning | |||
environments which are valuable or effective. Educators challenge themselves to create “pedagogically sound” learning environments | |||
online ([http://www.ifets.info/journals/10_3/5.pdf 2007]). When using Web 2.0 applications for educational purposes, as Abrami et al. ([http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/27/25 2006]) argue, teachers must keep several things in mind in order to make the learning meaningful ; instructional practices must differ online from that of face-to-face instruction; when deployed in an appropriate way, technology may be helpful in the analytical and higher-order thinking skills of students; the teacher should present the technology to the students as a challenge and allow them to be the ones who make and alter the technology, in a hands-on approach to learning. | |||
Dron ([http://www.ifets.info/journals/10_3/5.pdf 2007]) argues that self-organizing communities do not necessarily lead to learning | |||
environments which are valuable or effective. Educators challenge themselves to create “pedagogically sound” learning environments | |||
online ([http://www.ifets.info/journals/10_3/5.pdf 2007]). When using Web 2.0 applications for educational purposes, as Abrami et al. | |||
([http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/27/25 2006]) argue, teachers must keep several things in mind in order to make the | |||
learning meaningful ; instructional practices must differ online from that of face-to-face instruction; when deployed in an appropriate | |||
way, technology may be helpful in the analytical and higher-order thinking skills of students; the teacher should present the technology | |||
to the students as a challenge and allow them to be the ones who make and alter the technology, in a hands-on approach to learning. | |||
== References == | == References == | ||
Abrami, P., Bernard, R., Wade, A., Schmid, R., Borokhovski, E., Tamin, R., Surkes, M., Lowerison, G., Zhang, D., Nicolaidou, I., Newman, | Abrami, P., Bernard, R., Wade, A., Schmid, R., Borokhovski, E., Tamin, R., Surkes, M., Lowerison, G., Zhang, D., Nicolaidou, I., Newman, S., Wozney, L., & Peretiatkowicz, A. (2008). A review of e-Learning in Canada: A rough sketch of the evidence, gaps and promising directions. ''Canadian Journal Of Learning And Technology, 32''(3). Retrieved February 2, 2010, from | ||
S., Wozney, L., & Peretiatkowicz, A. (2008). A | |||
[http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/27/25 1] | [http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/27/25 1] | ||
Ashcraft, D., Treadwell, T. & Kumar, V. (2008). Collaborative online learning: A constructivist example. MERLOT Journal of Online | Ashcraft, D., Treadwell, T. & Kumar, V. (2008). Collaborative online learning: A constructivist example. ''MERLOT Journal of Online | ||
Learning and Teaching, 4''(1). Retrieved February 3, 2010, from [http://jolt.merlot.org/05012.htm 2] | |||
Learning and Teaching, 4(1). Retrieved February 3, 2010, from [http://jolt.merlot.org/05012.htm 2] | |||
Choy, S. O., & Ng, K. C. (2007). Implementing wiki software for supplementing online learning. ''Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 23''(2), 209-226. Retrieved January 29, 2010 from [http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet23/choy.html 3] | |||
Crichton, S., & Kopp, G. (2009). The value of eJournals to support ePortfolio development for assessment in teacher education. ''Canadian Journal Of Learning And Technology, 34''(3). Retrieved February 6, 2010, from [http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/502/233 4] | |||
Capuruco, R., & Capretz, L. (2009). Building social-aware software applications for the interactive learning age. ''Interactive Learning Environments, 17''(3), 241 - 255. | |||
Dalsgaard, C., & Mathiasen, H. (2008). Self-organized learning environments and university students’ use of social software: A systems theoretical perspective. ''International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 5''(2). Retrieved January 30, 2010 from [http://itdl.org/Journal/Feb_08/article01.htm 5] | |||
Dewiyanti, S., Brand-Gruwel, S., Jochems, W., & Broers, N. (2007). Students, experiences with collaborative learning in asynchronous computer-supported collaborative learning environments. ''Computers in Human Behavior, 23''(1), 496-514. | |||
[http:// | Dorninger, C., & Schrack, C. (2008). Future learning strategy and ePortfolios in education. ''International Journal Of Emerging | ||
Technologies In Learning (IJET), 3'' (1), 11-14. Retrieved January 26, 2010 from [http://online-journals.org/i-jet/article/view/251/234 6] | |||
Dron, Jon. (2007). Designing the undesignable: Social software and control. ''Educational Technology & Society, 10'' (1). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from [http://www.ifets.info/journals/10_3/5.pdf 7] | |||
Frydenberg, M. (2008). Wikis as a tool for collaborative course management. ''MERLOT Journal | |||
of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(''2). Retrieved February 1, 2010 from [http://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no2/frydenberg0608.htm 8] | |||
[http://www. | Henry, J., & Meadows, J. (2009). An absolutely riveting online course: Nine principles for excellence in web-based teaching. ''Canadian Journal Of Learning And Technology, 34''(1). Retrieved February 3, 2010, from [http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/179/177 9] | ||
Hughes, Gwenyth. (2009). Social software: new opportunities for challenging social inequalities in learning?'' Learning, Media and | |||
Technology | Technology, 34''(4), 291 – 305. | ||
Järvelä, S., Näykki, P., Laru, J., & Luokkanen, T. (2007). Structuring and regulating collaborative learning in higher education. ''Educational Technology & Society, 10''(4), 71-79. Retrieved January 29, 2010 from [http://www.ifets.info/journals/10_4/8.pdf 10] | |||
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., Smith, K., (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works? ''Change, 30(''4), 26-35. | |||
Koh, M. H., & Hill, J. R. (2009). Student perceptions of group work in an online course: Benefits and challenges. ''The Journal of Distance Education, 23''(9), 69-92. Retrieved January 28, 2010 from [http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/477/905 11] | |||
Kok, A. (2009). Understanding the wiki technology. ''International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 6''(10). Retrieved January 29, 201- from [http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Oct_09/article02.htm 12] | |||
Li, Y., Dong, M., & Huang, R. (2009). Toward a semantic forum for active collaborative learning. ''Educational Technology & Society, 12''(4). Retrieved February 2, 2010, from [http://www.ifets.info/journals/12_4/7.pdf 13] | |||
Lozano-Nieto, A., Guijarro, E. & Berjano, E. (2006). Critical assessments of the world wide web as an information resource in higher education: Benefits, threats, and recommendations. ''MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2''(1). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from [http://jolt.merlot.org/05012.htm 14] | |||
Minocha, S. (2009). A case study-based investigation of students' experiences with social software tools. ''New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 15''(3), 245-265. | |||
Rivera, B., & Rowland, G. (2008). Powerful e-learning: A preliminary study of learner experiences. ''MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4''(1). Retrieved February 3, 2010, from [http://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no1/rowland0308.htm 15] | |||
Selwyn, N., & Grant, L. (2009). Researching the realities of social software use - an introduction. ''Learning, Media and Technology, 34''(2), 79-86. | |||
Thorpe, M. (2002). Rethinking learner support: the challenge of collaborative online learning. ''Open Learning, 17''(2), 105-119. | |||
[[category:Learning approaches and technology trends]] | [[category:Learning approaches and technology trends]] |
Latest revision as of 16:59, 25 February 2010
Introduction
This wiki explores the relationship between social software social software and collaborative learning.
- Memorial University of Newfoundland
Social Software
Social software, known more popularly as Web 2.0 consists of an array of online tools and technologies that allows users to interact and share information, files, and resources with one another (Minocha,2009). Social software includes tools such as: Wikis, video-sharing websites (e.g.,YouTube), blogs, social networking sites (e.g. Facebook), and instant messaging. These tools and services have added increased possibilities for online learning opportunities (Capuruco & Capretz, 2009). Social software and Web 2.0 sites have marked a movement away from the initial function of the Internet as a one-way, static business tool to a rich experience made ‘by the people for the people’, allowing two-way communication and sharing (Selwyn & Grant, 2009). Learning and educating using social software and Web 2.0 technology have moved in a direction that fosters a single student’s work, but also group and partner collaboration, in a new learning atmosphere (Dorninger & Schrack, 2008). Hughes (2009) states that compared to simple communication tools such as e-mail, Web 2.0 has an intrinsic networking effect that allows individuals to connect and share with other like-minded people quickly and effectively. Furthermore, it invites a user to create or extend a whole new identity online (Hughes).
Learning using social software
Learning using social software and Web 2.0 technology have moved in a direction that fosters a single student’s work, but also group and partner collaboration, in a new learning atmosphere (Dorninger & Schrack, 2008). Hughes (2009) found that, compared to simple communication tools such as e-mail, Web 2.0 has an intrinsic networking effect that allows individuals to connect and share with other like-minded people quickly and effectively. Furthermore, it invites a user to create or extend a whole new identity online (Hughes).
Collaborative learning
Collaborative learning has proven to lead to higher grades than learners achieve in other conditions and the means by which they learn is more constructive (Dewiyanti, Brand-Gruwel, Jochems & Broers 2007). [Li, Dong and Huang (2009) argued that collaborative learning leads to higher student performance and improved retention of the learned information for longer periods. According to Johnson, Johnson and Smith (1998), several different criteria must exist for collaborative learning to be occurring: Students must know their individual success rests on the success of the group as a whole; individual effort within the group is assessed, holding them more accountable; students teach and learn from one another while employing leadership skills; and the group must work as a cohesive unit being both critical and constructive to help achieve the greatest good for the group.
Social software and collaborative learning
Crichton and Kopp (2008) argue that social software provides the opportunity for sustained collaborative learning, expression, reflection, and a rich community of practice. In addition, Web 2.0 applications have the potential to enhance students’ future careers and can be used by teachers to supplement effective classroom practices. (Crichton & Kopp). The capacity for social software and Web 2.0 applications to result in collaborative learning depends upon how the technology is used (Thorpe, 2002). Kok (2009) posits that one of the most representative tools of the Web 2.0 is the Wiki. Frydenberg (2008) states that because students and faculty can both post information to the Wiki, the role of the instructor changes from being the single authority to being a partner with the students in their own learning. This social software is an enabler of social interaction, collaboration and information sharing, promoting the growth of communities as user groups (Kok).
Cautionary uses of social software and web 2.0
Koh and Hill (2009) argue that there are several areas which need to be further researched with regards to students using online environments for successful learning: students need help and assistance with communicating feelings and opinions honestly; time and effort must be put forth in helping students forge communities online which have a rich dialogue and are supportive; and teacher planning must be focused on group work. Finally, teachers must be adept at catching problems with group communication early and have a process to deal with it. As Hughes states, it is also erroneous for educators to assume that social software alone will close the divide and disparity which exists between struggling and excelled learners (2009). Teachers need to improve their practice and expand their knowledge regarding what students find challenging, as well as beneficial, about group work in online settings (Koh & Hill, 2009). A large part of the predicament with the technological advancements is the desire to adopt them immediately without critical analysis (Lozano-Nieto, Guijarro & Berjano, 2006). When using social software for educational ends, it must be acknowledged that it has not been developed specifically for learning (Dalsgaard & Mathiasen, 2008). According to Henry and Meadows (2008), to ensure student success, the use and further development of software and technology must be handled wisely and coupled with a sense of a collaborative community. Technology, in itself, is not a solution to educational woes nor is the investment in technology (Abrami, et al., 2006); research and training have to be a large part of an overall reforming of how technology is implemented in teaching.
Dron (2007) argues that self-organizing communities do not necessarily lead to learning
environments which are valuable or effective. Educators challenge themselves to create “pedagogically sound” learning environments
online (2007). When using Web 2.0 applications for educational purposes, as Abrami et al. (2006) argue, teachers must keep several things in mind in order to make the learning meaningful ; instructional practices must differ online from that of face-to-face instruction; when deployed in an appropriate way, technology may be helpful in the analytical and higher-order thinking skills of students; the teacher should present the technology to the students as a challenge and allow them to be the ones who make and alter the technology, in a hands-on approach to learning.
References
Abrami, P., Bernard, R., Wade, A., Schmid, R., Borokhovski, E., Tamin, R., Surkes, M., Lowerison, G., Zhang, D., Nicolaidou, I., Newman, S., Wozney, L., & Peretiatkowicz, A. (2008). A review of e-Learning in Canada: A rough sketch of the evidence, gaps and promising directions. Canadian Journal Of Learning And Technology, 32(3). Retrieved February 2, 2010, from 1
Ashcraft, D., Treadwell, T. & Kumar, V. (2008). Collaborative online learning: A constructivist example. MERLOT Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching, 4(1). Retrieved February 3, 2010, from 2
Choy, S. O., & Ng, K. C. (2007). Implementing wiki software for supplementing online learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 23(2), 209-226. Retrieved January 29, 2010 from 3
Crichton, S., & Kopp, G. (2009). The value of eJournals to support ePortfolio development for assessment in teacher education. Canadian Journal Of Learning And Technology, 34(3). Retrieved February 6, 2010, from 4
Capuruco, R., & Capretz, L. (2009). Building social-aware software applications for the interactive learning age. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(3), 241 - 255.
Dalsgaard, C., & Mathiasen, H. (2008). Self-organized learning environments and university students’ use of social software: A systems theoretical perspective. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 5(2). Retrieved January 30, 2010 from 5
Dewiyanti, S., Brand-Gruwel, S., Jochems, W., & Broers, N. (2007). Students, experiences with collaborative learning in asynchronous computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 496-514.
Dorninger, C., & Schrack, C. (2008). Future learning strategy and ePortfolios in education. International Journal Of Emerging
Technologies In Learning (IJET), 3 (1), 11-14. Retrieved January 26, 2010 from 6
Dron, Jon. (2007). Designing the undesignable: Social software and control. Educational Technology & Society, 10 (1). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from 7
Frydenberg, M. (2008). Wikis as a tool for collaborative course management. MERLOT Journal
of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(2). Retrieved February 1, 2010 from 8
Henry, J., & Meadows, J. (2009). An absolutely riveting online course: Nine principles for excellence in web-based teaching. Canadian Journal Of Learning And Technology, 34(1). Retrieved February 3, 2010, from 9
Hughes, Gwenyth. (2009). Social software: new opportunities for challenging social inequalities in learning? Learning, Media and
Technology, 34(4), 291 – 305.
Järvelä, S., Näykki, P., Laru, J., & Luokkanen, T. (2007). Structuring and regulating collaborative learning in higher education. Educational Technology & Society, 10(4), 71-79. Retrieved January 29, 2010 from 10
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., Smith, K., (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works? Change, 30(4), 26-35.
Koh, M. H., & Hill, J. R. (2009). Student perceptions of group work in an online course: Benefits and challenges. The Journal of Distance Education, 23(9), 69-92. Retrieved January 28, 2010 from 11
Kok, A. (2009). Understanding the wiki technology. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 6(10). Retrieved January 29, 201- from 12
Li, Y., Dong, M., & Huang, R. (2009). Toward a semantic forum for active collaborative learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4). Retrieved February 2, 2010, from 13
Lozano-Nieto, A., Guijarro, E. & Berjano, E. (2006). Critical assessments of the world wide web as an information resource in higher education: Benefits, threats, and recommendations. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2(1). Retrieved February 1, 2010, from 14
Minocha, S. (2009). A case study-based investigation of students' experiences with social software tools. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 15(3), 245-265.
Rivera, B., & Rowland, G. (2008). Powerful e-learning: A preliminary study of learner experiences. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(1). Retrieved February 3, 2010, from 15
Selwyn, N., & Grant, L. (2009). Researching the realities of social software use - an introduction. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 79-86.
Thorpe, M. (2002). Rethinking learner support: the challenge of collaborative online learning. Open Learning, 17(2), 105-119.