Author: Irina A. Malinina
Year of publication: 2016
Source: Show
Pages: 104-114
DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.2016.43.1.08
PDF: tner/201601/tner20160108.pdf

Web 2.0 provides resources and tools that make the learning process social and collaborative as they connect students with each other and help to move from the instructor-centred methods of teaching to more contextual learning and problem-solving techniques (J.West and M.West, 2009). The aim of the paper is to introduce findings on the project of implementing Web 2.0 resources for collaborative work in the National Research University Higher School of Economics. The main objectives of the project were to 1) single out Internet resources aimed at collaboration to suit the purposes of educational programme; 2) determine how much collaborative learning background students have and their attitudes to online and face-to-face collaboration; 3) analyse the students’ involvement in collaborative learning activities; 4) research the influence of web-related technologies on willingness to collaborate. The main methods used in the research were questionnaire, interview and observation as well as analyses of students’ work. The results revealed a positive attitude to Web 2.0 among the majority of the students. The offered Internet resources (Tricider.com, MeetingWords.com, TodaysMeet.com) improved communication and collaboration outside of the classroom, which is vital as increasingly less time is being allocated for studying a  foreign language. Besides, Web 2.0 resources make it easier for teachers to evaluate each student’s contribution to task achievement and ensure fair assessment of each student’s work.

REFERENCES:

  • Austin, J.E. (2000). Principles for Partnership. Journal of Leader to Leader. 18 (Fall), pp. 44-50.
  • Barr, R.B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learningA New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education, Change magazine, November/December, 13-25.
  • Beldarrain, Y. (2006) “Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration”. Distance education, 27(2), pp. 139-153.
  • Clarke, (2004). A. e-learning skills. Palgrave Macmillan, 258 p.
  • Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Crafts of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, N.J.: L.Erlbaum Associates, 453-494.
  • Gerben, C., (2010). “Putting 2.0 and Two Together: What Web 2.0 Can Teach Composition About Collaborative Learning.” Computers and Composition.
  • Grosseck, G. (2009). “To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher education?” in Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences Elsevier, pp. 478-482
  • http://www.drawastickman.com/(Access date: 20 September 2015).
  • http://www.meetingwords.com (Access date: 20 September 2015).
  • http://www.todaysmeet.com (Access date: 20 September 2015).
  • http://www.tricider.com/(Access date: 20 September 2015).
  • Johnson, R.T. & Johnson, D.W. (1986). Action Research: Cooperative Learning in the Science Classroom. Journal of Science and Children.
  • Kuswara, A.U. & Richards, D. (2011). Realising the Potential of Web 2.0 for Collaborative Learning Using Affordances. Journal of Universal Computer Science, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 311-331
  • Laal, M., Laal, M., & Khattami-Kermanshahi, Zh. (2012). 21st century learning; learning in collaboration. Journal of Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1696-1701.
  • Laal, M., Laal, M., & Khattami-Kermanshahi, Zh. (2013).What do we achieve from learning in collaboration? Journal of Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1427-1432
  • Leonard, P.E., & Leonard, L.J. (2001). The collaborative prescription: Remedy or reverie? International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(4); 383-399.
  • Lightner, S., Bober, M., and Willi, C. (2007) “Team-based activities to promote engaged learning”. College Teaching, 55(1), pp. 5-18.
  • Malinina, I. (2012) “Blended learning of the English language: combining online and face-to-face teaching” in Proceedings of London International conference on education (LICE-2012) Infonomics Society: London, UK, pp. 247-251.
  • Panitz, T. (1999). Collaborative versus Cooperative Learning: A Comparison of the Two Concepts Which Will Help Us Understand the Underlying Nature of Interactive Learning, 1999, 13p http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/pr/ted.html.
  • Peachey, N. (2012) Web 2.0 tools for teachers, 53 p.
  • Perkins, D.N. (1992). What Constructivism Demands of the Learners. In T.M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: a conversation (pp. 161-165). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  • Richardson,W. (2006) Blogs, wikis, podcasts and other powerful Web tools for classroom. Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  • Silberman, M.L. (1996). Active learning: 101 strategies to teach any subject. Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Allyn & Bacon Publishing.
  • Totten, S. (1991). Cooperative Learning: A Guide to Research. Sills, T., Digby, A. & Ross, P. (Eds.), New York; USA, Garland Publishing.
  • Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Wankel, C. (2010), Cutting Edge Social media Approaches to Business Education, Information Age publishing, 2010, pp. 1-5.
  • Welch, M. (1998). Collaboration: Staying on the bandwagon. Journal of Teacher Education; 49(1), pp. 26-38.
  • West, James A., West, Margaret L. (2009) Using wikis for online collaboration. The power of the read-write web. Wiley Imprint, 142 p.

Wiadomość do:

 

 

© 2017 Adam Marszałek Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Projekt i wykonanie Pollyart