Internet

INTRODUCTION: 

The Internet is the largest reservoir of knowledge ever known to this planet and has become the best opportunity for improving education since the printing press (Ellsworth, 1994). It is estimated a staggering quarter of Earth's population uses the Internet embracing almost every aspect of area of the human race either directly or indirectly (Graham, 1999), and the education system needs to be current and up-to-date with times in order to prepare students in becoming future citizens of the world (Wong, 2008). The potential of Internet in education are so numerous and vast, given the restrictions in this assignment it would be impossible to discuss all of them. Consequently, I shall confine the study to Web and Web 2.0 technology solely because it is by far the most popular of them all, that to many it is “synonymous with the internet” (Gillies & Cailliau, 2000, p.1).

The Web and its potential/affordances in Education: 

The Web is the largest educational enterprise ever invented, so much so, “it is an education in itself!” (Ellsworth, 1994, p.454). It is a rich and rewarding source of knowledge and a medium that empowers creativity and imagination (Sharples et al, 2009). It has brought with it new possibilities for teachers/instructors to creatively present effective course instruction to students and consequently promote higher order learning outcomes (Loong, 2006). As Alonso et al (2005, p.217; cited by Cramer et al, 2006) observed, “Computer-assisted teaching using the Internet has radically changed the teaching paradigm”. The Web, like a worldwide personal library, enables students, parents, educators and research scholars to find and retrieve, almost instantly new information, data, images and even software that is of interest to their subject matter (Ellsworth, 1994). Sometimes the material is simply not available except on the Internet (Stager, IARTV Seminars, 1996). Old constraints of time and space issues that educators face in community building are not relevant on the Internet (Karaliotas, 1997). A typical example being the chat sessions we have in this unit where my fellow students around the world participate.

The Web does not discriminate, and socially induced prejudices such as appearance, gender, race, and behaviours can fade away, because students learn that they are judged solely on what they say and how they say it (Ellsworth,1994). Beyond their capacity to blur class distinctions and workplace hierarchies, they also blur distinctions between production and consumption, labour and citizenship, and commercial and non-commercial enterprise (Tan and McWilliam, 2008). Kids who get hooked on the Web tend to excel in areas of mathematics and science, learn educational independence and intellectual autonomy, ask better questions, make better arguments, present themselves more positively over the Internet (Ellsworth, 1994) and are more likely to undertake more advanced uses of computers. Some research findings in potential/affordances of Web are:

• Halat (2009) studies the use of „Webquests‟ a web-based teaching learning environment in teaching geometry.
• Kennewell et al (2008) discuses the aspects of interactive learning and its possibilities in using technology. Affouf & Walsh (2007) discusses the effectiveness of web-based homework in education.
• Day and Lloyd (2007) discuss the affordances of online technology in teaching.
• Garcia et al (2008) claims that students with a wide variety of skills, preferences and learning styles could greatly benefit from Web-based education system because of its characteristics of being adaptive and personalized to learners‟ with diverse learning needs.
•  Idris (1999) noticed that students found the Web-based educational activities enjoyable, interesting and exciting and that those materials helped them to improve academically and critical promoted thinking.
•  English and Cudmore (2000) have found that, mathematical inquiry processes carried out in traditional classrooms could be enhanced by a Web-based delivery of discussion forums, and that it encourages creativity in seeking solutions.
•  Nagai et al (2000) observed that, students found three times more ways of solving the problem with the Web-based collaborative method, than with traditional method of learning.
• Several attempts have been made to categorize the medley of materials available on the Web in relation to their characteristics and function in implied teaching practices. Loong (2006) has created a topology of these Web objects to serve as a guide for teachers in the use of the Web, as shown in figure 1, and illustrates how these web objects can be integrated into Australian School Curriculum.

Fig 1: Topology of possible Web usage. (Loong, 2001) Web 2.0 technology and its potential in Education:

At the outset let us clarify the use of the term "Web 2.0‟. Although the phrase Web2.0 is at times contested, it is most commonly understood as a set of second-generation web-based communities and hosted services, such as social-networking sites, video-sharing sites, mashups, wikis and folksonomies, blogs which aim to facilitate collaboration and sharing among users (Tan and McWilliam, 2008). The effects of Web2.0 are already all-pervading in many aspects of life and fast spreading into education, as evidenced through the many familiar examples of highly-populated websites and e-communities that fall under the moniker of Web2.0, such as the, MySpace, YouTube, teachertube, Facebook, Twitter, Flicker, Linkedln, Nexopia, Bebo, Hi5, StudyVZ, Decayenne, Tagged, XING, Orkut, Xiaonei, Cyworld, Badoo and Skyrock among others (Tan and McWilliam, 2008). A detailed study of the potential of each of these in education would be beyond the scope of this study. Therefore, we restrict our study to an overall cursory glance keeping in mind its potential/affordances in general.

Potential/Affordances of Web2.0: 

I have regularly used Web2.0 sites as a teacher of Mathematics/Economics such as youtube, podcasting, WebCT and recently teachertube (which was introduced to me by my fellow student in one of our online discussions) in lesson plans, and found much interest and enthusiasm among students and colleagues. The affordances of Web2.0 in education are abundant and diverse, below we examine a few of them.
  It is the relatively low cost of entry, low technological barriers, the ability to create complex objects and environments, combined with the sophistication of its graphics and the rich immersive experience, that are identified as establishing Second Life (SL) as the most attractive proposition for educators (Warburton 2009).

  According to Tan and McWilliam (2008) students using Web2.0 technology benefit immensely in terms of "Cognitive playfulness‟ where students have a predisposition to curiosity, inventiveness, desire to play with novel ideas and innovations, greater capacity for learning, and view difficulties as „serious play‟ rather than hard work that can be done through routine thinking and doing.
  Results show that greater Virtual Lecture Hall (VLH) use is linked to higher academic scores and is highly favourable among students (Cramer et al, 2006).

•  Provides opportunities for social interaction between individuals and communities, where students can reach out and interact with and/or build knowledge communities (Kerawalla et al 2009), human–object interaction, and also intelligent interaction between artefacts (Warburton, 2009). I have personally benefited in this respect as a student and teacher through the exchange of hyperlinks/websites.
•  Web2.0 learning environments not only alleviates the feelings of isolation associated with distance learning but actually helps distance learners by supporting collaborative knowledge building activities and supports meaning-making through reflective learning (Kerawalla et al, 2009)
•  McCabe (2007) discusses the use of web-based assessment designed using Maple (a mathematical software).
•  Web2.0 makes possible (visualisation and contextualisation) of the production and reproduction of inaccessible content that may be historically lost, too distant, too costly, imaginary, futuristic or impossible to see by the human eye (Warburton, 2009).
•   McLoughlin, Lee and Chan (2006) detail the use of podcasts to promote metacognition and reflection in facilitating student learning.
•  Miller, Brown, & Robinson (2002) discuss the creation of "widgets‟ to promote learning using the web, especially amongst students with learning difficulties.
•  Provides opportunities for creation and ownership of the learning environment and objects within it that are both individual and owned. (Warburton, 2009).
•  Virtual learning environment (VLE) will enable educators to incorporate blogs, wikis and pod-casting, as well as other asynchronous and synchronous communication and collaboration tools, into their courses and opportunities to comment on their student‟s work (Kerawalla et al, 2009).

  Promotes a sense of belonging and purpose that coheres around groups, subcultures and geography (Warburton, 2009). Clark et al (2009) points out that Web2.0 offers „cultural resonance‟ to teenagers participating in it.
  3-D environments afford a collaborative learning experience and foster a sense of place, presence and community and students enjoyed discussions in Second Life (SL) because they could see their own and others‟ avatars (Edirisingha et al, 2009).
  Immersion in a 3-D environment where the augmented sense of presence, through virtual embodiment in the form of an avatar and extensive modes of communication, can impact on the affective, empathic and motivational aspects of the experience (Warburton, 2009).
 The Horizon Report of 2007 forecasts that 3-D environments will have „strong potential for teaching and learning‟, and that developments in open sources and standards will bring 3-D MUVEs (Multi-User Virtual Environments) „closer to the mainstream education year by year‟ (EDUCAUSE,2007,p. 25; Cited by Edirisingha et al, 2009).
Hanewald and White (2008) in their attempt to portray all the possible ways teachers can use web 2.0 technologies and maximise its potential in education have attempted a topology of its applications, as in figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Basic overview of Web 2.0 applications and examples
(Hanewald and White, 2008).

PROBLEMS AND MAXIMISING THE POTENTIAL OF

INTERNET IN EDUCATION.

There are also those who have legitimate reservations about
the use of the Web in education, questioning instead its appropriateness as an
educational tool in terms of the quality of information, the unstructured nature
of the Web, the ability to access relevant material located at one site, the
accessibility to undesirable material and the readiness of the school community
to use the Web in the classroom (Dye, 2000). Owston (1997) cautioned that the
Web is just a medium or a tool and Goos & Bennison (2006) researches the
prejudices and under-use of technology by teachers. Hodas (1993, p.1) claims
that a teacher often can be persuaded to use the new technology “only slightly if
at all” and finds “further that, even when the tools are used, classroom practicethe
look-and-feel of schools-remains fundamentally unchanged”. Karaliotas
(1997) points out that in spite all the growth in Internet yet the issues of "access‟
and "equity‟ still remain unsolved.

Wegner et al (1999) points to problems such as lack of technological expertise on the part of both teacher and student, student passivity, hardware limitations, resistance to change on the part of faculty, learner isolation, and „Student as worker‟ and the „teacher as coach‟ paradigms. The loss of face-to-face contact on the web would lead to loss of spontaneous interactions and difficulties in nurturing trust and confidence in the community (Moor & Zazkis, 2000). However, the increased time spent on forums and other Web based groups can lead to increase in articulation and expression.

The difficulties involved in discovery, evaluation, use and re-use of Web resources in teaching and learning has only made it more difficult to find relevant resources, thus creating the need for efficient and adept ways to search the Web (Friesen, 2001). Many organizations such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and Education Network Australia (EdNA) have begun laying in place structures or standards to help in the classification of educational Web material that is based on the international Dublin Core Metadata Element Sets (IEEE, 2002; Education Network Australia, 2000; as referenced by Loong, 2006). Meta data, is data about data, and is such that it describes the characteristics of a resource. Thus, metadata provides an efficient and reliable way of conducting search on the Web.

The W3 consortium, which is devoted to the suggestion of standards for the World Wide Web, recommended the use of Mathematical Markup Language (MathML) which is implemented by some of the commonly used browsers. The use of the text equivalent of a formula such as mod(x) for the modulus of „x‟ is the most basic level of mathematics on the Web and the practice is called ‘computerese’ (Hamper, 2002). More sophisticated possibilities involve plug-ins or other software packages that make use of Java applets to represent mathematical formulae and to create widgets to explore mathematical concepts (Miller, Brown, Robinson, 2002).

 The recent report of the Byron Review on „Safer Children in a Digital World‟ (Byron 2007; cited by Sharples et al, 2009) warn against the encroachment of a new medium (Internet) into children‟s lives and raises concern for safety of children; they criticize sensational accounts of the dangers but are concerned about what children might learn from the new medium and how they will be influenced; they both call for further monitoring and protected areas where children can engage with child-appropriate content while recognizing that children will continue to explore the adult world; and they demand further research into the effects of the medium on children‟s well-being.

A review of four major academic databases (Proquest Dissertations, Proquest Education, ERIC via EBSCOhost, ScienceDirect), indicates that school students are a strikingly under-researched and are under-
represented group of critical stakeholders in Internet/Web2.0 (Tan and McWilliam, 2008). Empirical studies of 3-D MUVEs for learning are in their early stages and we urgently need to identify affordances of these environments for learning and to develop pedagogical models to use in supporting and enhancing student learning (Edirisingha et al, 2009).

Plagiarism, copyrights, censorship, cyber bullying, viruses, hacking, complexity and diversity involved in Web2.0 technology, web quests, ineffective filters, and virtual learning environments are best suited only for adult learners (Jervis and Steeg, 2000) are other troubles raised in the use of internet in education. Also issues such as relationship between household income and use of computers, disparities in gender, age, school type/sector (public, private and catholic), level (primary and Secondary), region (Urban and Rural), and not last but the least, professional development, to mention a few of the ever growing problems that we face in the growth of internet in education (ABS). The problems we discussed above are only a few of the many existing and many more yet to come in time. However, let us be mindful as Barbour and Reeves (2009) tells us that in the same way that there are good and poor classroom teachers, there are likely good and poor virtual school learning experiences. Therefore, “we have a choice in the way technology is used and developed” (Karaliotas, 1997).

CONCLUSION: 

Australia is among the leading countries in terms of the proportion of Internet users in the population (ABS, 1999) and the current Federal Government has rightly dedicated $1 billion towards its “education revolution” programme (Jamieson-proctor & Finger, 2008). However, lest we forget, Wallace (2002, p.482) reminds us, “The Internet is not a magic bullet. It does not teach but requires careful planning and mediation to produce opportunities for students to learn.” It is important to remember that the Internet is not a "substitute‟ to the teacher but rather more a tool to complement traditional methods of information delivery, and the teachers role in it would be more as a "facilitator‟ and „guide‟ rather than a source of knowledge. It is appropriate to note that it is estimated that the amount of information in the world doubles every 900 days. Therefore, by the time a first-grader progresses through the traditional public educational system and is preparing for high school graduation, the information base will have quadrupled (Bitter and Pierson, 2005). In a world such as this the potential of Internet in education is enormous and like all things is bound to have problems in its use. However, as Gauthier (2009, p.39) aptly summarises it, “The key is to get the daily experts: teachers, tutors, principals, mentors, university professors, etc., talking and sharing their ideas and experiences.”

Bibliography

ABS: (Press Ctrl+Click to follow link) Australian bureau of statistics, Household use of information technology Australians embrace the internet, Household adoption of digital technologies. 

Affouf, M.,Walsh, T. P.(2007). An Assessment of Web-Based Homework in the Teaching of College Algebra. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education. 14 (4), 163-167. ProQuest Education Journals database. 

Barbour, Michael. K., & Reeves, Thomas. C (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature. Computers & Education 52 (2009) 402–416. Journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/ locate/compedu

 Bitter, G. Gary., Pierson, Mellisa E., (2005). Using Technology in the Classroom. Sixth Edition. Publisher: Pearson, printed in U.S.A. 

Clark, W., Logan, K., Luckin, R., Mee, A., & Oliver, M., (2009). Beyond Web 2.0: mapping the technology landscapes of young learners. Journal of Computer Assissted Learning (2009), 25, 56-69. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00305x 

Cramer, Kenneth M., Collins, Kandice R., Snider, Don., & Fawcett, Graham (2006). Virtual Lecture Hall For In-Class And Online Sections: A Comparison Of Utilization, Perception and Benefits. Journal of Research on Technology in Education; Summer 2006; 38, 4; ProQuest Education Journals pg. 371. 

Day, D. and Lloyd, M (2007). Affordances of online technologies: More than the properties of the technology. Journal: Australian Educational Computing.22 (2) 17-22.

Edirisingha, Palitha., Nie, Ming., Pluciennik, Mark., and Young, Ruth. Socialisation for learning at a distance in a 3-D multi-user virtual environment. British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 40 No 3 2009 458–479. Journal compilation © 2009 Becta. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 

Ellsworth, Jill. H. (1994). Education on the Internet. A Hands-on Book of Ideas, Resources, Projects, and Advice. Sams Publishing.

English, L. D. & Cudmore, D. H. (2000). Using extranets in fostering international communities of mathematical inquiry. Learning mathematics for a new century (pp.82-95). Virginia: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc.

Friesen, N. (2001) CanCore: Metadata for learning object repositories, N.A.Web 2001.Proceedings of the seventh International North American Web-based learning conference. 

Garcia, P., Schiaffino, S., & Amandi, A. (2008). An enhanced Bayesian model to detect students’ learning styles in Web-based courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2008), 24, 305-315, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00262x 

Gauthier, Karey. Rose. (2009). Change in Educational Policy and Practice Through Online Communities of Practice. Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Education, School of Education, Dominican University of California, San Rafael, CA. 

Gillies, James., & Cailliau, Robert (2000). How the web was born. The Story of the World Wide Web. Oxford University Press. 

Goos, M. & Bennison, A. (2006).Technology use in secondary school mathematics classrooms: A survey of Queensland teachers. Annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education. 

Graham, Graham. (1999). the internet. A philosophical inquiry. Publishers: Routledge, London and New York. 

Halat, E. (2009). Perspectives of Pre-Service Middle and Secondary Mathematics Teachers on the use of Webquests in teaching and learning geometry.The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education. 16(1) 27-37. ProQuest Education Journals. 

Hamper, S. (2002). Online learning: Using the Web to explore Mathematics. Mathematics~ making waves. Digitized by Monash University Library. Accessed 28 May 2009. 

Hanewald, R. & White, P. (2008).What how and why Web2.0? Australian Educational Computing. 23(2) 3-7.

Hodas, Steven., (1993). Technology Refusal and the Organizational Culture of Schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 1(10)Volume 1 Number 10 September 14, 1993 ISSN 1068-2341. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v1n10.html.

Idris, N. (1999). Use of the Internet for improving teaching and learning in mathematics. Proceedings of the International Conference & Exhibition on Education Superhighway 1999, Regional Centre for Education in Science and Mathematics, Penang, Malaysia.

Jacobson, Astrid R., Militello, Roberta.,. Baveye, Philippe C. (2009). Development of computer-assisted virtual field trips to support multidisciplinary learning. Computers & Education 52 (2009) 571–580

Jamieson-Proctor, Romina., and Finger, Glenn., (2008). ACT to Improve ICT Use for Learning: A synthesis of studies of Teacher Confidence in Using ICT in two Queensland schooling systems. Journal-Australian Educational Computing. Volume 23 Number 2-December 2008. Copyright Agency limited (CAL). Email: jamieson@usq.edu.au G.Finger@Griffith.edu.au

 

Kennewell, S.; Tanner, H.; Jones, S. & Beauchamp, G. (2008). Analyzing the use of interactive technology to implement interactive teaching. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 24, 61–73 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00244

Jervis, Alan., and Steeg, Torben., (2000). Growth in Internet connection and use in British secondary schools 1997-9: current practice in and implications for teaching and learning in design and technology. IDATER 2000 Loughborough University, Creative Commons Licence conditions: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/

Karaliotas, Yannis., (1997). LEARNING ON AND OVER THE INTERNET: Dynamics and Limitations Will New Technologies become the main vehicle for a learning society? [Up] [EDUCATION] [Interaction in the Learning Environment][Bookmarks] Kariolitus

Kerawalla, L., Minocha, S., Kirkup, G., & Conole, G (2008). An empirically grounded framework to guide blogging in higher education. Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, UK. Centre for Research in Computing, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, UK. 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell

Publishing Ltd Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2009), 25, 31–42 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00286.x 

Loong, E.Y; Barnes, A.; White, B (2002). Web mathematics in the curriculum: where, how and why? Proceedings of Australian Computers in Education Conference, Hobart. 

Loong, E.Y. (2002). Using the World Wide Web to teach secondary school mathematics, some examples. Journal: Australian mathematics teacher 58 (1): 23-29.

Loong, E.Y.(2001),Web mathematics anyone? International Education Journal.Vol,2(4): 216-222. 

Loong, Y (2006). Web-based Teaching Strategies for Secondary School Mathematics. A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The University of South Australia. 

McCabe, M. (2007). Assessment, Blending and Creativity: The ABC of Technology in Mathematics Teaching. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education. 14(1) 54-60. ProQuest Education Journals.

McLoughlin, C.; Lee, M. J.; Chan, A. (2006). Using student generated podcasts to foster reflection and metacognition. Journal: Australian Educational Computing 21 (2) 34-41. McLoughlin, M. (2003). An Inventive Use of the WWW as a Teaching and Learning Tool in Mathematics: Structured Web Materials for Courses across the Mathematics Canon. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mathematical Association of America, Baltimore, MD 15 January 2003. 1-18. 

Miller, D.; Brown, A.; Robinson, L. (2002). Widgets on the web: Using computer based learning tools. Journal: Teaching Exceptional Children. 35:2.

Moor, J., & Zazkis, R. (2000). Learning mathematics in a virtual classroom: Reflection on experiment. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 19(2), 89-113.

Nagai, M., Okabe, Y., Nagata, J., & Akahori, K. (2000). A study on the effectiveness of a Web-based collaborative learning system on school mathematics: Through a practice of three junior high schools. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Computers in Education/International Conference on Computer- Assisted Instruction 2000. AACE-APC/National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. 

Ng’ambi, Dick., and Brown, Irwin ( 2009). Intended and unintended consequences of student use of an online questioning environment. British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 40 No 2 2009. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00899.x. 

Owston, R. (1997). The World Wide Web: A technology to enhance teaching and learning? Journal: Educational Researcher, 26(2), 27-33. 17 

Sharples, M., Graber, R. Harrison, C., & Logan, K. (2009). E-safety and Web 2.0 for children aged 11–16. Learning Sciences Research Institute, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. London Knowledge Lab, Institute of Education, London, UK. Journal compilation. Blackwell Publishing Ltd Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2009), 25, 70–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00304.xU

 Stager, Gary., (1996). Computing and the Internet in Schools: An International Perspective on Developments and Directions. IARTV Seminar Series, Melbourne, April and September 1996. 

Tan, Jennifer Pei-Ling and McWilliam, Erica L. (2008). Digital or Diligent? Web 2.0's challenge to formal schooling. In Proceedings Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) 2008 International Education Conference, Brisbane. QUT Digital Repository: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/

 

Wallace, Raven M. (2002). The Internet as a Site for Changing Practice: The Case of Ms: Owens. Research in Science Education 32: 465-487, 2002. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 

Warburton, Steven (2009). Second Life in higher education: Assessing the potential for and the barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 40 No 3 2009 414–426; Journal compilation © 2009 Becta. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 

Wegner, Scott. B., Holloway, Ken. C. (1999). The Effects of Internet-Based Instruction on Student Learning. JALN Volume 3, Issue 2 - November 1999

Wong, W. (2008). The Case for SMART CLASSROOMS. Community College Journal. 79(2) 31-35. ProQuest Education Journals.