Aah the Choices! Selecting the Right Web 2.0 Apps for your Class

In contrast to the absence of personal involvement in the selection of course management systems that are deployed campus-wide on many institutions of higher education, the decision to adopt some Web 2.0 technologies may largely rest on the initiative of individual instructors. No doubt, there is a lot more flexibility in the selection and integration of these technologies in the classroom. For those who are just getting started, the first hurdle is how to select (among the myriads of available choices), sound technologies that seamlessly fit the intended purpose. As with any new venture, there may be challenges along the way. One must therefore assume a high level of self reliance, motivation, and also be sufficiently committed to the process in order to assure a desirable outcome.

Consider these fundamental questions as you commit time and effort to learn and incorporate a new technology in the classroom; the selection process might just become a little easier:

1. What do I wish to accomplish?
2. How will the technology further my course objectives?
3. How is the technology currently being used in my discipline?
4. Are other instructors in my department using the technology?
5. How will the technology enhance a currently time-consuming task?
6. What is the learning curve for me and for my students?
7. What is the reliability and scalability of the technology?
8. What challenges/problems do I anticipate?
9. What level of support can I expect online, internally, or from the vendor on this technology?

What's in a Label? Distance Education vs. Distance Learning

It is generally acceptable to use terms "distance learning" and "distance education" interchangeably as they are deemed to mean the same thing. According to Webopedia, the online encyclopedia for computer technology, distance learning is defined as:

"A type of education, typically college-level, where students work on their own at home or at the office and communicate with faculty and other students via e-mail, electronic forums, videoconferencing, chat rooms, bulletin boards, instant messaging and other forms of computer-based communication".
Here's another definition from a business source:
"Distance education, also called distance learning, has existed for centuries. It involves obtaining knowledge outside of the traditional avenues of attendance at learned institutions. Some recent definitions have focused on it as a new development, involving advanced technology. A few have even sought to define it in terms of a single technology ¯ usually the one they are reviewing or marketing. (North 1993)
Other sources basically offer similar definitions.

It may be accurate to state that a majority of individuals involved in distance learning (or distance education) do not pause to consider which of these terms is the more fitting description of what they do as administrators, instructional designers, program coordinators, or students. I fall in that category. Until quite recently, I never thought much about the validity of the use of one term over the other. My awakening occurred at the beginning of my first fully online educational pursuit in, of all areas, a distance education administration program at a major public university. In the first few days, my colleagues and the instructors engaged in an interesting debate on this issue. In the end, the term "distance education" won over "distance learning". The rationale for this conclusion was that, since learning occurs within the individual, essentially, "there is no such thing as distance learning". Learning is an internal phenomenon not a process that is removed or separate (distant) from the learner. Sounds logical? You decide.
Apparently, I might not have learned the lesson well, or the awakening I mentioned earlier was only provisional, at best. I catch myself still using the terms distance education and distance learning liberally and interchangeably to this day. In the grand scheme of things, maybe it does not matter.

Revisiting Web 2.0: Narrowing the Technology Adoption Gap

In my previous post, I addressed the potential of Web 2.0 technologies to become the "great equalizers" when comparing technology adoption among early adopters and laggards in higher education. A number of issues have been documented on why technology is not adopted in the classroom. Among laggards, navigating through the myriads of Web 2.0 technologies might be a forboding task. A meaningful approach to help them along would be to select classroom activities and recommend technologies that would enhance their delivery or comprehension, for example. The idea is to bridge the disconnect between technology adoption and potential benefits and at the same time, frame the rationale for making the transition to teaching with technology. The pros and cons of selecting any technology should be discussed, such as the time required to update information. In the mind of the instructor, the relationship between effort and rewards is significant in determining the extent of personal commitment to changing existing teaching practices. Another option would be to form small cohorts of like (or unlike) minds to provide peer support, and a platform for exchanging ideas on concrete practices. Instructors appreciate the opportunity to share their expertise and to learn from each other; this strategy provides such an outlet. As part of this effort, Web 2.0 technologies should be employed to communicate, collaborate and interact with the technologies directly in order to further demonstrate their potential. Modeling technology use increases the possibility of its adoption in the classroom.

Web 2.0 Apps: Equalizers or Alienators in Higher Education?

Web 2.0 refers to Web technologies that aim to enhance creativity, collaboration and information sharing. When used appropriately, these technologies such as wikis, blogs, podcasts, social bookmarking services, and media depositories can readily promote closer web-based communities and social interaction without much of a learning curve, or increased investment in resources. Studies on technology adoption have classified technology users at different levels; on one extreme are the early adopters, and on the other, the laggards. While the characteristics of Web 2.0 applications can be formidable assets to anytime, anywhere learning, one wonders if their availability and ease of use has had a significant reduction in the number of those who would normally be considered technology laggards in higher education. In other words, has the rate of technology adoption changed among laggards as a result of the onslaught of Web 2.0?

Are some instructors missing the opportunity to move online learning (or learning in general) forward by failing to adopt Web 2.0 technologies? Naturally, instructors who have been generally less likely to adopt technology in their classes may still need a little nudging regardless of the ease in use of a technology. A proactive role of faculty development would be to demonstrate, with concrete examples, how Web 2.0 technologies can enhance teaching and learning. Furthermore, an emphasis on the capacity of such technologies to improve human contact and interaction might just earn them the role of the "great equalizers" when it comes to technology adoption in higher education.