Online learning and Web 2.0 : What is the right form of Web-Based Instruction?

When I started the discussion about Web 2.0 and its definition in my first EME 6414 class, I automatically reminded of the early Internet era when I studied Web-Based Instruction (WBI) in graduate school.

In late 1990, the ongoing agenda was what is the right WBI or WBT. Many IDers believed that a well-designed web-based instruction with as many as intercave components was the right one. The instructional material was mainly self-paced and supplemented by a course tutor using a bulletin board or email. The instructor was web-based material itself. However, it was expensive to develop and not so fun because there were no instructor and classmates to work together. Then, blended learning and collaborative learning were introduced, but educators still cared about the quality of instructional materials and they believed it was based on the level of interactivity.

However, in a corporate side, HR managers wanted a cost-effective solution, and the companies with a good video compressing technology started to introduce an e-learning solution enabling both video-instructor and virtual whiteboard. It could be synchronous or asynchronous. But, due to the slow network, only asynchronous VOD was prevalent. Many IDers blamed the video-instructor format saying that it was just an educational TV on the web. Who won? The cheaper and easier one (VOD format) remained in the market.

Now, the main focus as to the right WBI or online learning is on how we can make students engaged with whatever materials or technology students are using. It is not the material or technology but the person who is the focus as Rainie and Wellman mentioned in their book.  Overall course design rather than the instructional materials is important, and the more important thing is how people involved in the online learning effectively communicate with and learn from each other through interaction. Our online learning materials still look like Web 1.0 with very static, one-directional materials. However, with the Web 2.0 technology, students will not be isolated anymore and motivated to interact more in the cyberspace. It is still not so popular or broadly exercised even in a higher education, and there’s no standard way to do so. I want to find various ways to employ Web 2.0 philosophy and technologies into online learning and also want to move the discussion over the right online learning one step further from our 1990s discussion.      

Social Media in Education and Privacy Issue

I have the same privacy issue as Victoria as an instructor. How can we use our social media wisely? When I designed a social interaction through Instagram for my online course, I was looking for a way how to create a closed group first. However, if I want to create a somewhat closed group, the best way was to let classmates share their usernames and follow each other after searching each student on Instagram. What if there are more than 100 students in a class? The best way is to use hashtag. Then, we should set our account public instead of private to use hashtag. 

If we only think about networks or relationship among our classmates, we’d better create a closed network within LMS. However, if we want to extend our class discussion using web 2.0 philosophy and technology, we’d better go public with multiple hashtags. Then, should only talk about the serious, academic topics on our social media website? Should we just socialize in a very superficial level filtering all the sensitive information? If we meet f2f, it is just fine, but if we are all online students, we hope to be closer to our classmates using the web 2.0 technology without thinking about privacy. 

This is the big problem for me to solve. I want to study how to motivate online students to interact more and know each other better through web 2.0 technologies without or fewer privacy issues.