Belajar Mengajar: ARTICLE REVIEW ABOUT WEB 2.0

ARTICLES REVIEW FOR WEB 2.0

Suriati Yunus

Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris

1.0 Introduction of Web 2.0

Definition web 2.0 based on article “Application of web 2.0 tools in IIT Libraries in India : A study (2014)” are “Web 2.0 is a second generation website that deals with the ability of people to exchange information online. Web 2.0 based technologies have provided more opportunities and opened up new ways of communicating and collaborating. The transition to Web 2.0 is based on interactive use of web”. Web 2.0 is application in keeping up-to-date with new information resouces and communication. For example Blogs, webpress.com, RSS Feed, Facebook and etc. Morange , Joel (2010) in Journal Application Of Web 2.0 tools in IIT Libraries in India: A study disscused about “ Web 2.0 and controversial point about the same as well as with virtual communities.”

Web 2.0 is technological change from Web 1.0. In a simple words, transition from web 1.0. Web 2.0 application concentrate on sharing content or create new content of their own. In this technology, anyone can publish their work with ease and let others comment on their work. This site gives user the free choice to interact and collaborate with each other in social media dialogues.

Jon Robb Wrote, “Web 2.0 is a system that breaks with the old model of centralized web site and moves the power of the web to the desktop.” Web 2.0 is defined as “the second generation of the world wide web in which content is user generated and dynamic.”

According to Tim O’Reilly (2006) “ Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as a platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on the new platform” . Tim Bernes-Lee (2006) defined that “Web 2.0 is a piece of jargon.”

Linda Young (2008) define Web 2.0 as “the second generation of the web, which enables people with no specialized technical knowledge to create their own websites, to self-publish, create and upload audio and video files, share photos and information and complete a variety of other tasks.”

Table 1 : Difference between web 1.0 and web 2.0

No	Web 1.0	Web 2.0
1	Tim Bernes-Lee (1989)	Darcy DiNucci (1999) (a consultant on electronics information design)
2	Read Only	Read and write
3	Static web pages	Dynamic web pages
4	Content published by the webmaster	Open content to be used and reuse, wiki
5	No user participation	Active user participation
6	Not often updated	(Usually) Frequently updated
7	Communication via email	Communication via Facebook, Instant messaging, Blog, Twitter, chatting.
8	Software on PC	Software on PC, Tablet mobile and laptop
9	Wire	Wireless
10	Directories (Taxonomy)	Tagging (Folksonomy)
11	Content Management System	Wiki
12	Britannica online	Wikipedia
13	Personal website	Blogging

2.0 Background

Teaching and learning always changing. We argued about quality method to be examined in order to be able to benefit new e-learning 2.0 scenarios. Kerres (2006) mentioned e-learning as “islands on the internet” which could become “gates” through the use of e-learning 2.0. The use of internet as a world of learning where content can be forward, changed and shared with others.

Downes (2007), who carried the term “e-learning 2.0” mentioned “learner centered”, “immersive learning”, “connected learning”, “mobile learning”, “workflow learning” and “game-based learning”. He sees a development of learning from standardized environment to personal environment.

Strictly speaking, this is about new model of learning where innovative variety of learning takes place. The rises of e-learning 2.0 refer to number of development, trend and point of view which required change from teaching to learning. Web 2.0 tools are used to develop learning result through collaboration and communicating where the entire internet is made up of different individually compile and cooperative tools which is learner’s reflection takes place in weblogs or podcasts, as well as collaborative works in wikis ( Kerres, 2006, P.6) . Van Harmelen (2006) said that learning is no longer the transfer and consumption of content and knowledge but also independent production.

3.0 Technological Knowledge

Web 2.0 tools allow users to create anything from text based web pages and online journals, to visual and performance art, videos, music. Web 2.0 become a library where user can find information for them. People become armchair expert for each other and use the device of their peers to find information they need ( Wellman & Gulia, 1999).

Web 2.0 technologies are designed to connect people without meet each other. According to Black (2007) essentially Web 2.0 demonstrates the following characteristics:

Based on article (Beverley A. Wood, 2013)

· User generated and/or user influenced content.

· Applications that use the web (versus the desktop) as a platform, in innovative ways.

· Leveraging of popular trends, including blogging, social tagging, wikis, and peer-to-peer sharing.

· Inclusion of emerging web technologies like Really Simple Syndication (RSS), Asynchronous JavaScript and XML (AJAX) programming, application programming interfaces (APIs), etc.

· Open source or sharable/editable frameworks in the form of user oriented “create your own” APIs (Black, 2007).

Blog are most popular of Web 2.0 technologies. The name is contraction of the word “web” and “log”- “Blog”. “Blogger” is a person who writes blogs. Blog was introduce since early 1990s and number of bloggers increasing day by day with post and commentators.

“ In 2008, premier blog search engine Technorati was tracking around 133 million blogs (Royal Pingdom, 2009). In 2010, Blog Pulse estimated the number of blogs at more than 152 million (Royal Pingdom, 2009)”

Blog have appealed widely to libraries and information profesionals where successfully used by Carribean information to address some of the historical challenges of disseminating knowledge and resources. Hence, organization can have feedback from members across the region almost instantaneously. Online users have move beyond email to communicate with peers where users be able to make and receive calls, send instant messages, send pictures and files, make video and conference calls. Tools like Skype. Communication tools facilitate multi-content communication while enabling wider and easier global access. Hariche et al (2011) observe:

“ In the ear of Web 2.0 and with widespread access to internet, the global village make use of real time communication technology to internet with countless audiences and individuals across the globe”

In the articles by Muhammad Yusuf Ali (2014) introduced about Library 2.0 that synchronous social interactions between library staff and users. The idea was generated by Micheal Casey and publish on his blog in 2006.

Based on the data findings of Andreou et al. (2008) in the journals Web 2.0 in Library and information science education: The Greek case by Emmanouel Garoufallou (2011) stated that:

“The Web 2.0 tools that students use least are social bookmarks (73.8 per cent), with RSS feeds (57.5 per cent) and wikis (47.6 per cent). At the opposite end of the spectrum, the most popular Web 2.0 application is Web games that used by 78.5 per cent, digital maps (63.3 per cent), blogs (60.7 per cent) and social media (59.6 per cent)”

4.0 Pedagogical knowledge

Web 2.0 is about self- learning in social network. From a learning-theoretical perspectives, by saying that a self-learner cannot be determined by its environment. Moreover, it is argued that learning does not function solely by putting forth external requirement- learning, as it is understood cannot be planned without learner (Halzkamp, 1993, p. 184) The concept of self-learning comes to be of enormous importance to e-learning 2.0- from an educational theoretical point of view, (Deitering, 1995, p. 45) discussed that “ self-directed learning is often understood to be a generic term for all forms of learning in which the learners can determine and be responsible for their learning processes, respectively, tasks, methods, and amount of time invested themselves” .

Snurb’s Blog (2005, 2006) discusses the use of wikis and Blogs in education. The challenge is how to use the online teaching technologies to enhance learning and teaching. Watson et al. (2008) give an opinion about open classroom which is using blogs, wikis and others technologies to create. At the same time, all the technology completely engages the students and provides value to society.

The University of Osnabruck carried out a research about the virtPresenter project and the user’s behavior. That research showed about 73% of the students watch the recording using main interface, 23% used embed-player from the blogs and wikis and 4% used Facebook.(Redecker, 2009) mentioned that the Asian Countries lead the higher usage of social computing with more than 50% followed by US about 30% and Europe about 20% to 25%.

According to Redecker (2009, p. 33) from the article of Emmanouel Garoufallou (2001, p. 206):

[. . .] blogs can be used: by institutions and teachers as an easy way to produce dynamic learning environments for course announcements, news and feedback to students, by students as digital portfolios to collect and present their work, among a group of learners, using their individual blogs, to build up a corpus of interrelated knowledge via posts and comments, enhancing collaboration and with the aim of linking, via syndication technologies, different groups of learners and teachers. Using blogs there are some educational benefits. For instance, blogging can enhance critical, analytical and creative thinking.

This statement approved that there are tools such as blogs that could assist the teaching in order to enhance pedagogical method of learning and increase collaboration, participation and creativity among teachers and students. Thompson (2007) said that Web 2.0 tools are used by teachers in innovation ways to facilitate a new kind of collaborative research.

Theories of connectivism (Siemens, 2005) help us understanding learning to making connections with ideas, facts, people and global communities. Pedagogical method are becoming outdated as student and teacher adopt technological devices to teach and learn. In this context, the researcher focuses on evaluating tools by student in order to include pedagogical design for effective learning. At the same time, focuses on evaluating the success of scaffolded pedagogy to teach informatics concept using social media such as mirco-blogging, multimedia sharing, social bookmarking and collaborative content creation.

The learning outcomes to be attained by graduates and clearly indicate a number of competencies that are aligned with the goal of learning for the 21^st century. 21^st century learning include graduate attributes, critical and analytical skills also digital literacies ( Catherine E. McLoughlin and Sultana Lubna Alam, 2004). Catherine E. et al (2014) discussed that “a taxanomy of update is presented, which is intended to be used a basis for developing and understanding of how user interact with updates, with the same emphasis on building a model of how to present them non-visually”. Based on that statement, taxanomy purely based on the bahavioural characteristics, not based on presentation semantics. It showed on huge theoretical consideration about how update may behave and back up with example. At the same time, it should inform the investigation on how users allocate attention to updates.

5.0 Theory Content Knowledge

Web 2.0 technologies provide new ways to collaborate, interact, communicate, co-creates, share ideas and knowledge (Hartshorne & Ajjan, 2009; Shihab, 2008). According Canole and McAndrew (2010), Web 2.0 is agood concept technology for pedagogy of socioconstructivist approaches. By using Web 2.0 technologies, student more active to receive information and also become a co-creators of knowledge through the exchange of information and experiences (Orehavocki, Bubas & Konecki, 2009)

Anderson and Maninger (2007) discussed that the goal of any technology program is to influence teachers’ abilities and intentions to teach with technology in their classrooms. At the same time, help teacher to better prepare for 21^st century classrooms. According to Norris, Masn and Lefrere (2004) successful organization when all the individu have skills, motivation and opportunity to be independent participate in order to use the tools right in their place. Nissen (2005) discussed that the main challenges is the complexity of such an undertaking when it requires new technical and theoretical understanding of knowledge flow, e-learning and collaboration design.

Problem and opportunity created by technology for organizational knowledge. Information workers now asked to build new knowledge from variety of media rich, but often been left on their own determine effective use of the tools, resources and material available (Kurtz & Snowden, 2003). This statement supported when information need to change overnight, but an organizational understanding of dynamic knowledge and how to support just-in-time learning (Nissen, 2005). Allee (2005) argued that building shared knowledge includes creating a learning environment where individuals are supported and build community, share expertise and recognize the experts in organization.

6.0 Research Gap

The important outcome was to use digital media to prepare student and teachers to explore the knowledge and the social interaction (Rheingold, 2008). Learning to use blogs and podcast was an essential element of the 21^st century approach to digital citizenship. This is show how social informatics was taught by applying the principle of pedagogy.

The student has to use and create content and engage in peer learning using Web 2.0 tools. Web 2.0 tools requires careful planning, a scaffold approach to ensure students feel confident using new media. But some student and teachers has the problem to adopt new environment of new learning technology.

Here the question was issued based on the article review :

1. What is the best predict teachers’ intentions to use Web 2.0 technologies in their future classroom?

2. What are teahers’ perception of the pedagogical knowledge benefit of using Web 2.0 technologies in future classrooms?

Table 2 : Matrix Table

Author	Year	Title of Article	Technology	Pedagogy	Content Knowledge	Oversea	Malaysia
N.S. Harinarayana & N. Vasantha Raju	2008	Web 2.0 features in university library web sites			X	X
Andy Brown • Caroline Jay • Alex Q. Chen . Simon Harper	2011	The uptake of Web 2.0 technologies, and its impact on visually disabled users	X			X
Efthimios Tambouris1*, Eleni Panopoulou1, Konstantinos Tarabanis1, Thomas Ryberg2, Lillian Buus2, Vassilios Peristeras3, Deirdre Lee3 and Lukasz Porwol3	2011	Enabling Problem Based Learning through Web 2.0 Technologies: PBL 2.0		X		x
Jaigris Hodson	2008	A tangled web: Public reason, web 2.0 and a new definition of acyion for participatory technologies	X	X	X	X
Matt Graham C. & Nory Jones	2011	Improving business performance with Web 2.0 technologies	X		X	X
Beverley A. Wood	2013	Using Web 2.0 technologies for communication, collaboration and community building: a Caribbean perspective	X			X
James R. Anderson III	2012	Web 2.0 tools as interventions for training and performance improvement		X	X	X
Anthony R. Cuttitta	2013	TALKING ABOUT TECHNOLOGY: A METAPHORIC ANALYSIS OF CLOUD COMPUTING AND WEB 2.0	X			X
Meredith Farkas	2011	Participatory technologies, pedagogy 2.0 and information literacy	X	X		X
Daniel Palacios-Marques	2013	What are the relationships among Web 2.0, market orientation and innovativeness?			X	x
Tianjun Fu	2012	CSI IN THE WEB 2.0 AGE: DATA COLLECTION, SELECTION, AND INVESTIGATION FOR KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY		X	X	X
Ayesha Sadaf, Timothy J. Newby & Peggy A. Ertmer	2013	Exploring factors that predict Preservice Teacher’s intentions to use Web 2.0 Technologies using decomposed theory of planned behavior	X	x	X	X
Colleen M. Carmean	2008	e-LEARNING DESIGN 2.0: EMERGENCE, CONNECTED NETWORKS AND THE CREATION OF SHARED KNOWLEDGE		X	X	X
Allison M. Johns	2009	WEB 2.0: AN EXAMINATION OF ITS EFFECTS UPON U.S. PUBLIC RELATIONS PRACTICES			X	X
Wanda L. Bryant	2014	EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY IN THE 21ST CENTURY EXPERIENCES OF ADULT ONLINE LEARNERS USING WEB 2.0	X	X		X
Yan Dang	2011	THEORY-INFORMED DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF WEB-BASED KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMs		X	X	X
Meira Levy		Teaching MBA Students the Use of Web2.0: The Knowledge Management Perspective		X	X	X
Marta L. Magnuson	2012	CONSTRUCTION AND REFLECTION: USING WEB 2.0 TO FOSTER ENGAGEMENT WITH TECHNOLOGY FOR INFORMATION LITERACY INSTRUCTION	X	X		X
Emmanouel Garoufallou	2011	Web 2.0 in library and information science education: the Greek case		X	X	X
James R. Anderson III	2012	WEB 2.0 TOOLS AS INTERVENTIONS FOR TRAINING AND PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT		X	X	X
Danielle C. Fahser-Herro	2010	EXPLORING STUDENT PRACTICES, TEACHER PERSPECTIVES, AND COMPLEX LEARNING WITH WEB 2.0 TECHNOLOGIES: A SOCIOCONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH	X	X		X
Albert L. Harris & Alan Rhea		Web 2.0 and Virtual World Technologies: A Growing Impact on IS Education	X	X	X	X
Muhammad Yousuf Ali	2014	Web 2.0 Usage in University Libraries in Karachi		X		X
Melissa L. Rethlefsen, Mary Plorun & J. Dale Prince	2009	Teaching Web 2.0 technologies using Web 2.0 technologies		X	X	X
Barbara A. Boksz	2012	An Examination of Teachers’ Integration of Web 2.0 Technologies in Secondary Classrooms: A Phenomenological Research Study	X	X		x
Dr. Shalini R. Lihitkar	2014	Applications of Web 2.0 tools in IIT Libraries in India: a Study	X			X
Ulf Daniel Ehlers	2009	Web 2.0 – e-learning 2.0 – quality 2.0? Quality for new learning cultures		X		X
Wei Yuan	2008	Building a Semantic Blog Support System for General Learning Objects on Web 2.0 Environment		X		X
Catherine E. McLoughlin & Sultana Lubna Alam		A Case Study Of Instructor Scaffolding Using Web 2.0 Tools To Teach Social Informatics		X		X

Diagram 1 : Conceptual Diagram.

$Description: C:\Users\Suriati Mohmad Yunus\Documents\conceptual diagram.jpg$

7.0 Propose Topic

Based on this article review, I would like to propose topic about web VLE-Frog. VLE-Frog is the one of Web 2.0 that was implemented at primary and secondary school in Malaysia. VLE-Frog is the blog that can use by teacher and student in their teaching and learning session. The topic is “Effectiveness use web VLE-Frog on the Year 4 student achievement in History Subject at Primary School”.

8.0 Conclusion

Many of Web 2.0 tools were introduced to meet the learning outcome in order to develop a critical understanding of digital tools such as contributing a forum, voting on ideas, uploading a question on Youtube and etc. Learning using Web 2.0 demanding time and self-motivation from participants that can increase knowledge. Strictly speaking, this is the independent self-learning. This course received by participant positively to increased their perceived knowledge. The courses are also spread apart to give participants more breathing room between new concepts and task, while they still continue the popular hands-on format.

9.0 REFERENCES

Ali M. Y. (2014) Web 2.0 usage in University Libraries in Karachi

A. Wood B. Using Web 2.0 technologies for communication, collaboration and community

building: a Caribbean Perspective.

Boksz A. (2012). An examination of teachers’ integration of Web 2.0 technologies in

secondary class: A phenomena logical research study

Brown A.et al. (2011) The uptake of Web 2.0 technologies, and its impact on visually

disabled users

C. Fahse-Herro D. (2010) Exploring Student Practices, Teacher Perspectives, and Complex

Learning with Web 2.0 Technologies: A Socio-Constructivist Approach.

Dang, Y. (2011). Theory-informed Design and Evaluation of Web-Based Knowledge

Management Systems.

Ethler U. D. (2009). Web 2.0 – e-learning 2.0-quality 2.0? Quality for new learning.

Fahse-Herro D. C (2010). Exploring student practices, teacher perspectives and

complex learning with Web 2.0 technologies: A socioconstructivist approach.

Farkas M. (2011) Participatory technologies, pedagogy 2.0 and information literacy.

Frydenberg, M. (2006). Principles and pedagogy: The two P’s of Podcasting in the

Information Technology classroom. In D. Colton, W.J. Tastle, M. Hensel &

A.A. Abdullat (Eds.), Proceedings of ISECON 2006, v23 (Dallas)

Fu T. (2011) CSI in the Web 2.0 Age : Data Collection, Selection and Investigation for

Knowledge Discovery.

Graham C. M. et al.(2011) Improving Business Performance with Web 2.0 Technologies.

Garoufallou E. (2011). Web 2.0 in Library and Information science education: The Greek Case

Hariss A. L. & Rhea A. Web 2.0 and virtual world technologies: A growing impact on IS

Education

Hodson J. (2008). A Tangled Web: Public Reason, Web 2.0 and A New Definition of Action for

Participatory Technologies.

Harinaraya N.S & Raju N. V. (2008). Web 2.0 features in University Library Web

sites.

Lihitkar S. R. (2014). Application of Web 2.0 tools in IIT Library in India: A study.

Levy, M. (n.d.). Teaching MBA Students the Use of Web2.0: The Knowledge Management

Perspective. Journal of Information Systems Education, Vol. 21(1), 1-14.

L. Bryant, W. (2014). Education and Technology in the 21^st Century Experiences of Adult

Online Learners using Web 2.0

L. Magnuson M. (2012) Construction and Reflection: Using Web 2.0 to Foster Engagement with Technology for Information Literacy Instruction.

Mcloughlin C. E. & Alam S. L. (2014) A case study of instructor scaffolding using

Web 2.0 tools to teach social informatics. Journal of Information System Education, Vol. 25 (2), Summer 2014

M. Jons, A. (2009) Web 2.0 : An Examination of Its Effects Upon U.S Public Relations

Practices.

Palacies-Marques D. et al (2013) What are the relationships among Web 2.0, market orientation

and innovativeness.

Protopsaltis A. et al. Using Game-Based Learning and Web 2.0 Technologies to Teach

Entrepreneurship to Secondary Education Students.

Rethlefsen M. L., Plorun M & Prince J. D. (2009). Teaching Web 2.0 technologies

using Web 2.0 technologies.

R. Anderson J. (2012) Web 2.0 Tools as Interventions For Training and Performance

Improvement.

Sims R. et al. (2008) E-Learning Design 2.0 : Emergence, Connected Networks and The creation

of Shared Knowledge.

Sadaf A. et al (2002) Exploring Factors that Predict Preservice Teachers’ Intentions to use Web

2.0 Technologies Using Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior.

Tambouris, E. et al (2012). Enabling Problem Based Learning through Web 2.0 Technologies:

PBL 2.0. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (4), 238–251.

Yuan W. (2008). Building a semantic blog support system for general learning object

on Web 2.0 environment.