The use of technology for learning in school

ICT and Learning: Lessons from Australian Classrooms

Research into Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in schools is well into its third decade but there is still a pressing need to better understand how computer-based technologies are influencing learning opportunities, and how the local conditions of schooling impact on teachers’ attempts to integrate these technologies in their classrooms. In this article, we provide some insight into these questions through our research in six diverse public schools in the state of New South Wales (NSW), Australia. We observed classrooms and conducted interviews with teachers and other key stakeholders, such as principals and technology coordinators about the integration of ICT. Our goal was to describe and examine the ways in which teachers, in a range of settings, are utilising ICT in their classroom practices to mediate student’s learning experiences. Our findings indicate that ICT is largely being integrated in ways that support and supplement existing classroom practices. From our observations, we believe that successful integration of ICT requires fundamental shifts in the core activities of schools. These shifts include new teaching. The cases described in this article suggest some ways in which these shifts may be initiated and sustained.

As this entire task is based around Web2.0 and its features it is obviously important that we all have a good understanding of Web2.0. Not only what it is and what it can do but how we are using it in a productive and relevant way so as to assist high level learning and understanding for our students.

Using Blended Learning to Increase Learner Support and Improve Retention

Improving retention and identifying “at risk” learners are high profile issues in higher education, and a proposed solution is to provide good learner support. Blending of online learning with classroom sessions offers the potential to use a virtual learning environment to deliver learning activities, and to support learners using a distance learning model. Online tracking can also help to target “at risk” learners quickly. In an action research project to improve retention, a blended module with proactive tutor support was compared with a previous cohort of the module and with similar classroom-only modules where there was no focus on learner support. Learners were also interviewed and the tutor kept records of the learner contact time. The resulting improved coursework submission rate was attributed to learner motivation as a result of peer and tutor support. The total teaching time was no greater in this model, although the workload distribution changed, and the tutor needed to be highly skilled in e-learning.

Again this is of high importance for us to consider in our group project. We are blending Web2.0 technologies as well as learning environments to best ensure high levels of indapendant as well as group learning.

“Back to School with the Class of Web 2.0″ - Brian Benzinger A total collection of all the software of Web 2.0 With the start of the new school year, many teachers and students are seeking new products and technologies to help them through their upcoming academics. With the increase of teachers using blogs and wikis, and students networking and utilizing online tools, the demand for easier and more efficient ways of learning is on the rise. To me, the growing interest for web-based learning is amazing, which brought me to thinking; what if I were to consolidate some of the helpful online products and services that can help students, teachers and administrators alike? Well, I convinced myself. The following is a compilation of Web 2.0 products that I’ve personally researched and tested. These services are grouped into two main categories: “Tools”; and “Office ApplicationsR21;. Some more specific services include: organizers, grade books , research tools, document managers, diagrams, and more. There are going to be three parts to the “Back to School with the Class of Web 2.0″ series:

part one covering tools

http://www.solutionwatch.com/512/back-to-school-with-the-class-of-web-20-part-1/

part two covering office applications

http://www.solutionwatch.com/515/back-to-school-with-the-class-of-web-20-part-2/

part three, real cases of Web 2.0 used in classrooms around the world.

http://www.solutionwatch.com/519/back-to-school-with-the-class-of-web-20-part-

What Is Web 2.0

Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software

by Tim O'Reilly

09/30/2005

Read this article in:

Chinese

French

German

Italian

Japanese

Korean

Spanish

The bursting of the dot-com bubble in the fall of 2001 marked a turning point for the web. Many people concluded that the web was overhyped, when in fact bubbles and consequent shakeouts appear to be a common feature of all technological revolutions. Shakeouts typically mark the point at which an ascendant technology is ready to take its place at center stage. The pretenders are given the bum's rush, the real success stories show their strength, and there begins to be an understanding of what separates one from the other.

The concept of "Web 2.0" began with a conference brainstorming session between O'Reilly and MediaLive International. Dale Dougherty, web pioneer and O'Reilly VP, noted that far from having "crashed", the web was more important than ever, with exciting new applications and sites popping up with surprising regularity. What's more, the companies that had survived the collapse seemed to have some things in common. Could it be that the dot-com collapse marked some kind of turning point for the web, such that a call to action such as "Web 2.0" might make sense? We agreed that it did, and so the Web 2.0 Conference was born.

In the year and a half since, the term "Web 2.0" has clearly taken hold, with more than 9.5 million citations in Google. But there's still a huge amount of disagreement about just what Web 2.0 means, with some people decrying it as a meaningless marketing buzzword, and others accepting it as the new conventional wisdom.

This article is an attempt to clarify just what we mean by Web 2.0.

In our initial brainstorming, we formulated our sense of Web 2.0 by example:

Web 1.0 Web 2.0

DoubleClick --> Google AdSense

Ofoto --> Flickr

Akamai --> BitTorrent

mp3.com --> Napster

Britannica Online --> Wikipedia

personal websites --> blogging

evite --> upcoming.org and EVDB

domain name speculation --> search engine optimization

page views --> cost per click

screen scraping --> web services

publishing --> participation

content management systems --> wikis

directories (taxonomy) --> tagging ("folksonomy")

stickiness --> syndication

The list went on and on. But what was it that made us identify one application or approach as "Web 1.0" and another as "Web 2.0"? (The question is particularly urgent because the Web 2.0 meme has become so widespread that companies are now pasting it on as a marketing buzzword, with no real understanding of just what it means. The question is particularly difficult because many of those buzzword-addicted startups are definitely not Web 2.0, while some of the applications we identified as Web 2.0, like Napster and BitTorrent, are not even properly web applications!) We began trying to tease out the principles that are demonstrated in one way or another by the success stories of web 1.0 and by the most interesting of the new applications.

1. The Web As Platform

Like many important concepts, Web 2.0 doesn't have a hard boundary, but rather, a gravitational core. You can visualize Web 2.0 as a set of principles and practices that tie together a veritable solar system of sites that demonstrate some or all of those principles, at a varying distance from that core.

Figure 1 shows a "meme map" of Web 2.0 that was developed at a brainstorming session during FOO Camp, a conference at O'Reilly Media. It's very much a work in progress, but shows the many ideas that radiate out from the Web 2.0 core.

For example, at the first Web 2.0 conference, in October 2004, John Battelle and I listed a preliminary set of principles in our opening talk. The first of those principles was "The web as platform." Yet that was also a rallying cry of Web 1.0 darling Netscape, which went down in flames after a heated battle with Microsoft. What's more, two of our initial Web 1.0 exemplars, DoubleClick and Akamai, were both pioneers in treating the web as a platform. People don't often think of it as "web services", but in fact, ad serving was the first widely deployed web service, and the first widely deployed "mashup" (to use another term that has gained currency of late). Every banner ad is served as a seamless cooperation between two websites, delivering an integrated page to a reader on yet another computer. Akamai also treats the network as the platform, and at a deeper level of the stack, building a transparent caching and content delivery network that eases bandwidth congestion.

Nonetheless, these pioneers provided useful contrasts because later entrants have taken their solution to the same problem even further, understanding something deeper about the nature of the new platform. Both DoubleClick and Akamai were Web 2.0 pioneers, yet we can also see how it's possible to realize more of the possibilities by embracing additional Web 2.0 design patterns.

Let's drill down for a moment into each of these three cases, teasing out some of the essential elements of difference.

Netscape vs. Google

If Netscape was the standard bearer for Web 1.0, Google is most certainly the standard bearer for Web 2.0, if only because their respective IPOs were defining events for each era. So let's start with a comparison of these two companies and their positioning.

Netscape framed "the web as platform" in terms of the old software paradigm: their flagship product was the web browser, a desktop application, and their strategy was to use their dominance in the browser market to establish a market for high-priced server products. Control over standards for displaying content and applications in the browser would, in theory, give Netscape the kind of market power enjoyed by Microsoft in the PC market. Much like the "horseless carriage" framed the automobile as an extension of the familiar, Netscape promoted a "webtop" to replace the desktop, and planned to populate that webtop with information updates and applets pushed to the webtop by information providers who would purchase Netscape servers.

In the end, both web browsers and web servers turned out to be commodities, and value moved "up the stack" to services delivered over the web platform.

Google, by contrast, began its life as a native web application, never sold or packaged, but delivered as a service, with customers paying, directly or indirectly, for the use of that service. None of the trappings of the old software industry are present. No scheduled software releases, just continuous improvement. No licensing or sale, just usage. No porting to different platforms so that customers can run the software on their own equipment, just a massively scalable collection of commodity PCs running open source operating systems plus homegrown applications and utilities that no one outside the company ever gets to see.

At bottom, Google requires a competency that Netscape never needed: database management. Google isn't just a collection of software tools, it's a specialized database. Without the data, the tools are useless; without the software, the data is unmanageable. Software licensing and control over APIs--the lever of power in the previous era--is irrelevant because the software never need be distributed but only performed, and also because without the ability to collect and manage the data, the software is of little use. In fact, the value of the software is proportional to the scale and dynamism of the data it helps to manage.

Google's service is not a server--though it is delivered by a massive collection of internet servers--nor a browser--though it is experienced by the user within the browser. Nor does its flagship search service even host the content that it enables users to find. Much like a phone call, which happens not just on the phones at either end of the call, but on the network in between, Google happens in the space between browser and search engine and destination content server, as an enabler or middleman between the user and his or her online experience.

While both Netscape and Google could be described as software companies, it's clear that Netscape belonged to the same software world as Lotus, Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, and other companies that got their start in the 1980's software revolution, while Google's fellows are other internet applications like eBay, Amazon, Napster, and yes, DoubleClick and Akamai.

Student Teachers, Special Educational Needs and Inclusion Education: Reviewing the Potential for Problem-Based, E-Learning Pedagogy to Support Practice.

Northern Ireland has invested heavily in the use of technology enhanced learning at all levels of education. Alongside this, radical changes to the school curriculum and the planned move away from academic selection towards a more inclusive system are challenging those involved in Initial Teacher Education to find ways to improve teaching and learning for more inclusive classrooms. This study reviews a pilot program that integrated problem-based and blended e-learning pedagogy to support student teachers learning in the area of special needs and inclusion education. Findings indicate that using a carefully constructed blended program can effectively support key teaching and learning aspects of pre-service training and help develop skills in critical reflection. It also offers initial teacher educators in Northern Ireland insight into some of the most pressing problems experienced by student teachers during training, and provides a rationale for continued program development.

Inclusion is a large element of our project as it is a group project. However our design is more concered with including the parents of students as well as the students themselves.