Carsten Ullrich
ABSTRACT
The term "Web 2.0" is used to describe applications that distinguish themselves from previous generations of software by a number of principles. Existing work shows that Web 2.0 applications can be successfully exploited for technology-enhance learning. However, in-depth analyses of the relationship between Web 2.0 technology on the one hand and teaching and learning on the other hand are still rare. In this article, we will analyze the technological principles of the Web 2.0 and describe their pedagogical implications on learning. We will furthermore show that Web 2.0 is not only well suited for learning but also for research on learning: the wealth of services that is available and their openness regarding API and data allow to assemble prototypes of technology-supported learning applications in amazingly small amount of time. These prototypes can be used to evaluate research hypotheses quickly. We will present two example prototypes and discuss the lessons we learned from building and using these prototypes.
- H. S. Al-Khalifa and H. C. Davis. Folksannotation: A semantic metadata tool for annotating learning resources using folksonomies and domain ontologies. Innovations in Information Technology, November 2006.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- B. Alexander. Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2):32--44, March/April 2006.Google Scholar
- C. Anderson. The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More. Hyperion, July 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. R. Anderson. The Architecture of Cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. R. Anderson, A. T. Corbett, K. R. Koedinger, and R. Pelletier. Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2):167--207, 1995.Google Scholar
- P. Anderson. What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. Technical report, JISC, 2007.Google Scholar
- H. Barrett. Electronic portfolios: Digital stories of lifelong and lifewide learning, 2005. Keynote at ePortfolio 2005. This is an electronic document. Date retrieved: August 28, 2006. http://www.eife-l.org/publications/eportfolio/proceedings/ep2005/presentations/barrett_Eifel2005.pdf.Google Scholar
- S. Bateman, C. Brooks, and G. Mccalla. Collaborative tagging approaches for ontological metadata in adaptive e-learning systems. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Applications of Semantic Web Technologies for E-Learning (SW-EL 2006), pages 3--12, Dublin, Ireland, 2006.Google Scholar
- T. Berners-Lee. Weaving the Web. Orion Business Books, 1999.Google Scholar
- T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler, and O. Lassila. The semantic web. Scientific American, 284(5):34--43, 2001.Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Birbeck and B. Adida. RDFa primer. W3C working draft, W3C, Oct. 2007. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xhtml-rdfa-primer-20071026/.Google Scholar
- J. S. Brown, A. Collins, and P. Duguid. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1):32--41, 1989.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. S. Bruner. On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1967.Google Scholar
- E. Brynjolfsson, Y. J. Hu, and D. Simester. Goodbye Pareto Principle, Hello Long Tail: The Effect of Search Costs on the Concentration of Product Sales. SSRN eLibrary, 2007.Google Scholar
- M. Caceres and A. van Kesteren. Widgets 1.0. W3C working draft, W3C, Oct. 2007. http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-widgets-20071013/.Google Scholar
- F. Carmagnola, F. Cena, and C. Gena. User modeling in the social web. In B. Apolloni, R. J. Howlett, and L. C. Jain, editors, Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems, 11th International Conference, KES 2007, XVII Italian Workshop on Neural Networks, Proceedings, Part III, volume 4694 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 745--752, Vietri sul Mare, Italy, 2007. Springer. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Collins, M. Hammond, and J. Wellington. Teaching and learning with multimedia. Routledge, London, 1997.Google Scholar
- A. Dash. Introducing the microcontent client, 2002. This is an electronic document. Date of publication: November 13, 2002. Date retrieved: November 1, 2007. http://www.anildash.com/magazine/2002/11/introducing_the.html.Google Scholar
- S. Downes. E-learning 2.0. eLearn, 2005(10):1, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- N. Henze and W. Nejdl. Adaptation in open corpus hypermedia. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12:325--350, 2001.Google Scholar
- R. Khare. Microformats: The next (small) thing on the semantic web? IEEE Internet Computing, 10(1):68--75, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Lawton. Web 2.0 creates security challenges. Computer, 40(10):13--16, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Lelouche. Intelligent tutoring systems from birth to now. Künstliche Intelligenz, 4:5--11, 1999.Google Scholar
- S. Mantyka. The Math Plague: How to Survive School Mathematics. MayT Consulting Cooperation, 2007.Google Scholar
- E. Melis, G. Goguadze, M. Homik, P. Libbrecht, C. Ullrich, and S. Winterstein. Semantic-aware components and services of ActiveMath. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(3):405--423, 2006.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. D. Merrill. Instructional transaction theory: Instructional design based on knowledge objects. In C. M. Reigeluth, editor, Instructional Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, volume 2, pages 397--424. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999.Google Scholar
- M. Niss. Mathematical competencies and the learning of mathematics: the danish KOM project. Technical report, IMFUFA, Roskilde University, 2002.Google Scholar
- R. Noss and N. Pachler. The Challenge of New Technologies: Doing Old Things in a New Way, or Doing New Things? In P. Mortimore, editor, Understanding Pedagogy and its impact on learning., pages 195--211. Sage, London, 1999.Google Scholar
- OECD, editor. Learning for Tomorrows World - First Results from PISA 2003. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Publishing, 2004.Google Scholar
- T. O'Reilly. What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the next generation of software, 2005. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html.Google Scholar
- S. Papert. Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. Basic Books, New York, NY, 1980. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Schulmeister. Grundlagen hypermedialer Lernsysteme. Oldenbourg, München, Germany, 2002. English version: http://www.izhd.uni-hamburg.de/paginae/Book/Frames/start_frame.html, last accessed 29.10.2007.Google Scholar
- M. Sharples, J. Taylor, and G. Vavoula. Towards a Theory of Mobile Learning. In Proceedings of mLearn 2005 Conference, Cape Town, South Africa, 2005. http://www.mlearn.org.za/CD/papers/Sharples-%20Theory%20of%20Mobile.pdf.Google Scholar
- A. Smith. Plagiarism and google generation under spotlight, 2006. This is an electronic document. Date of publication: June 19, 2006. Date retrieved: October 29, 2007. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/jun/19/news.highereducation.Google Scholar
- S. O. Tergan. Hypertext und Hypermedia: Konzeption, Lernmöglichkeiten, Lernprobleme und Perspektiven. In P. Klimsa and L. Issing, editors, Information und Lernen mit Multimedia und Internet - Lehrbuch für Studium und Praxis, pages 99--112. Beltz Verlag, Weinheim, 2002.Google Scholar
- M. D. Thang, V. Dimitrova, and K. Djemame. Personalised mashups: Opportunities and challenges for user modelling. In C. Conati, K. F. McCoy, and G. Paliouras, editors, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on User Modeling, volume 4511 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 415--419, Corfu, Greece, 2007. Springer. Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Ullrich. The learning-resource-type is dead, long live the learning-resource-type! Learning Objects and Learning Designs, 1(1):7--15, 2005.Google Scholar
- C. Ullrich. Course Generation as a Hierarchical Task Network Planning Problem. PhD thesis, Computer Science Department, Saarland University, Saarbrücken, 2007.Google Scholar
- M. van Harmelen. Personal learning environments. In ICALT '06: Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, pages 815--816, Washington, DC, USA, 2006. IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Vassileva. Dynamic Courseware Generation: at the Cross Point of CAL, ITS and Authoring. In Proceedings International Conference on Computers in Education, ICCE'95, pages 290--297, Singapore, 1995.Google Scholar
- L. S. Vygotsky. Mind in society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1978.Google Scholar
- X. Wu, L. Zhang, and Y. Yu. Exploring social annotations for the semantic web. In WWW '06: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 417--426, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Zhang. A cultural look at information and communication technologies in eastern education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3):301--314, June 2007.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
Why web 2.0 is good for learning and for research: principles and prototypes
Recommendations
Facilitating student-driven constructing of learning environments using Web 2.0 personal learning environments
Web 2.0 Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) are becoming a promising area of development in e-Learning. While enhancing students' control over the entire learning process including constructing learning environment appears to be an essential objective ...
Learning Management Systems and Learning 2.0
The unprecedented growth of Web 2.0 has affected learning and has made the growth of learning networks possible. Learning networks are shaped by communities to help their members acquire knowledge in specific areas and are the most notable feature of ...
Has Web 2.0 revitalized informal learning? The relationship between Web 2.0 and informal learning
Learning is becoming increasingly self-directed and often occurs away from schools and other formal educational settings. The development of a myriad of new technologies for learning has enabled people to learn anywhere and anytime. Web 2.0 technology ...
Comments