lacoolblog

Just another WordPress.com site

Addtl. Research December 3, 2011

Filed under: Uncategorized — LC @ 5:15 pm

Thomas, D.A., & Qing, L. (2008). From web 2.0 to teacher 2.0. Computers in the Schools, 25(3), 99-210.

  • “educators must grasp the nettle of this change and use its energy and momentum to shape the evolution of web-based & assisted teaching & learning” 200
  • “today’s students think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors…these “digital natives”, may challenge traditional education values, beliefs, and programs, they are likely to embrace and support exciting, technology-rich education innovation” -200
  • “Web 1.0 opened our eyes to other possibilities: a nonlinear, nonheirarchial, interdisciplinary presentation of information empowering students to decide where, when, and how they acquire information. “ 200
  • “web-based information and learning is that the web is neither hierarchical nor linear. Web-based pubclications and online education also differ from traditional education in their emphasis on interdisciplinary approaches, contextual settings, and student-centered learning”-201
  • …in reference to search engines “what these technologies do not do is recognize meaning (i.e. semantic relationships) or information presented in images, such as mathematical notations, proofs, graphics.  Consequently, there is no fast, reliable way to judge the valie of any online document, data, or resource based on text-based search engine results” 201
  • “web 2.0 is defined as a perceived ongoing transition of the World Wide Web from a collection of static websites to a full-fledged computing platform serving web applications to end users” oreilly 2005—206
  • “it is wifely accepted that web 2.0 represents a shift in the focus from information warehousing where users are passive consumers, to sites promoting and facilitating user participating. In web 1.0, users gain information through surfing, browsing, and consuming.  In web 2.0, the focus will be on connecting, collaborating, sharing, and developing. In this sort of environment, consumers become produces and produces become consumers”- 206
  • “In convergence (of learning  & web 20), education at all levels will become less textbook driven, less linear, less hierarchical, more interdisciplinary, and more collaborative in nature.  In other words, Education 2.0 will parallel in many ways the structure and functionality of Web 2.0” 208
  • “In web 2.0, online learning will emphasize a collaborative knowledge generation and promote the development of new ways of thinking, learning, and sharing. Learners will take center stage as creators and producers of knowledge. Traditional, authoritative printed material will no longer serve as the standard and channel for sharing information—learners will share their work through self-publishing in print, image, video, or audio media, and online syndication of learning materials in a do –it myself open source approach”-209

Wehrli, B. (2009). Technology as a fence and a bridge. Horace,

25(1).

  • Banning technology (headphones, etc) “we are essentially telling our students, what matters most to you—music, pop culture, your phone, socal networking—doesn’t belong in school –in banning the devices, we ban the conduit for the culture that matters to students. Schools have a choice—build against technology, or use it to revitalize education
  • Get notes from distrupting class…

 

Williams, P. (2008). Leading schools in the digital age: A clash of

cultures. School Leadership and Management, 28(3), 213-228. doi

:10.1080/13632430802145779

Advertisements
 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s