Online learning is a force in higher education because this medium allows students to have access to education anytime, anywhere. This new breed of teaching is challenging traditional instruction in two ways. First, learning is moving from being synchronous to asynchronous. Second, higher education is beginning to shift from being teacher-centered to learner-centered. This article focused on the implications of these two changes. In addition, the authors (Repman, Zinskie and Downs, 2010) identified and offered solutions to problems inherent with the adoption of this new approach to teaching
The authors clearly defined the difference between distance learning, online learning and e-learning 2.0. They defined distance learning as being the expansive idea of teaching individuals at a distance, which has a long and varied history. Online learning was identified as the approach to teach courses through course management system (CMS) in a synchronous or asynchronous format. E-learning 2.0 was defined as a recent approach to teaching that incorporates Web 2.0 applications that are learner-centered.
Web 2.0 applications offer at least two powerful benefits. First, collaboration and connectivity are part of the fabric of Web 2.0 tools. Second, Web 2.0 tools allow students to become active creators of content rather than passive consumers of information. This second benefit moves teachers from the role of knowledge transmitter to a position of facilitation. The authors presented research (Craig, 2007) that questioned whether or not CMS could promote collaboration and creativity. The authors pointed out that there is a huge disconnect between the way individuals currently use the web and how CMS operate.
Unfortunately, the growth of online classes is not limited to a pure pursuit of increased learning and better teaching methods. One of the primary rationales for increasing the number of online courses was access and efficiency. Another reason given for the increase of online courses was a push for schools to do more for less.
Five Obstacles to Developing Robust E-Learning 2.0 Environments
The newfound focus on online education offers solutions for a changing educational setting. Currently, students have a plethora of options in pursuing higher education. In most cases, geography is no longer a barrier for students to attend the college of their choice. These new opportunities have allowed colleges to tap into new markets and see dramatic increases in enrollment. However, the authors presented five obstacles to developing robust e-learning 2.0 environments.
- As institutions pursue these new opportunities for growth, the mission and vision of the college must be used as a filter. A mere “top-down” approach that mandates online classes does not seem to work efficiently. Also, organizations should develop a means to assess these new courses in a meaningful way.
- There are several barriers to faculty teaching online courses in an effective manner. Sometimes, educators simply upload traditional materials to a CMS. This approach is often the result of a lack of time, support and skills.
- The current teaching core is comprised primarily of digital immigrants (e.g., Baby Boomers and Generation X). The student population is comprised of digital natives (e.g., Net Generation). This new generation embraces the ever-evolving nature of technology. Teachers need to embrace the reality that Web 2.0 technologies are, by nature, dynamic and constantly changing.
- CMS could actually serve as impedance to the growth of e-learning 2.0. CMS are used to replicate the traditional experience in a digital format, managing and formalizing instruction. A shift in approach must occur in online education for e-learning to succeed. Instruction must become more learner-centered and rely on collective intelligence. The Web 2.0 tools are in place, the push to embrace these tools is not thriving.
- The rapidly changing nature of Web 2.0 application is a major obstacle for faculty members, as was mentioned in #3 above. The apprehension over constantly changing technology is exacerbated by the recommendation that teachers immerse themselves in the technology before using it as a teaching tool.
Action Steps to Embrace E-Learning 2.0:
An increased awareness of available Web 2.0 applications must be the first step. Providing faculty members with overviews and updates of new technology is necessary. Also, the vision and mission of institutions might need to be tweaked to support E-Learning 2.0. The authors offered several recommendations that would facilitate the adoption of E-Learning 2.0.
- Early adopters should model Web 2.0 tools and require those tools be used to accomplish certain tasks.
- Important matters of institutional support should be discussed prior to the growth of online courses. Several issues should be addressed, such as ownership, policies, conduct, evaluation and office hours.
- Innovative ideas in e-learning 2.0 should become part of the faculty reward system, such as consideration for tenure. Revenue sharing is another aspect of the reward system that could be embraced by institutions.
- Institutions should provide a variety of opportunities for faculty members to train and develop skills. Teachers have a tendency to avoid admitting that they don’t understand new technologies, especially as it relates to their field of expertise.
How can educators improve by using ideas from this chapter?
Several of the implications from this chapter are aimed at administrators. Each of the four action steps provided direction for administrators to facilitate the adoption of e-learning 2.0. Administrators could require that certain tasks or professional development be accomplished through Web 2.0 technologies. This would expose the faculty to these tools. Institutional support should be addressed before dramatic changes are made to online courses. Administrators need to look for opportunities to reward innovative approaches in the e-learning 2.0 realm. A variety of training needs to be offered in order to arm teachers with necessary tools to be successful in the e-learning 2.0 environment.
What are future trends?
The authors ended the chapter by describing the combination of Web 2.0 tools with existing technologies. This might occur, but I think many of the CMS are so entrenched with traditional methods that their evolution will be slow and painful. In my opinion, an easier solution would be to add a few traditional elements to existing Web 2.0 tools. For example, I think Ning (before it started charging) provided an ideal setting for instruction. If a grade book and a roster were added to Ning, then it would be even more robust. However, I don’t think current CMSs (e.g., Blackboard) are going to suddenly become a hotbed for innovation and collaboration anytime soon.
Repman, J., Zinskie, C., & Downs, E. (2010). Fulfilling the Promise: Addressing Institutional Factors that Impede the Implementation of E-Learning 2.0. In Yang, H. H., & Yuen, S. C. (Eds.), Collective Intelligence and E-Learning 2.0: Implications of Web-Based Communities and Networking (pp. 44-60). Hershey, Pennsylvania: Information Science Reference. doi: 10.4018/978-1-60566-729-4.ch003
[…] Embracing E-Learning 2.0: Reading Reflection on Chapter 3 […]