Understanding Web 3.0

Last semester, I saw a course advertisement at a prestigious university (it shall remain nameless) for Web 3.0 and its implications on online businesses. In my mind, I had known that there will come a time when we will be discussing about a Web 3.0 but I never thought that it would be this soon. To better understand and grasp the concept of Web 3.0. I am looking at a few explanations/definitions and examples that may further clarify the concepts of Web 1.0, Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 (for myself). I will continue to further research on these concepts as I try to understand the present and future implications of Web 3.0 in education. Below are my simple (unscientific) understanding of the concepts.

Web 1.0 - consists of simple webpage designs with static pages and no interactivity or user input.

Example of Web 1.0

Shopping cart applications, which most ecommerce website owners employ in some shape or form, are considered to be a category of Web 1.0. The overall goal is to present products to potential customers, much as a catalog or a brochure does - only, with a website, you can also provide a method for anyone in the world to purchase products.

Web 2.0 - It is a combination of static and multimedia webpages that may contain one or several user interfaces,  allows users the possibility to add or generate multimedia content and has some degree of user interactivity with content.

Examples of Web 2.0

Wikipedia, YouTube, Facebook, LinkedIn...etc., are all staggering number of examples of Web 2.0 applications. For example, the perception exists that just because a website is built using a certain technology or because it employs Ajax in its interface, it is a Web 2.0 application. By definition Web 2.0 definition simply requires that users be able to interact with one another or contribute content.  Recently, I have heard rumblings and mumbling regarding Web 3.0. What is Web 3.0?

In Web 3.0, the IT experts are discussing about combining semantic markup and web services. Web 3.0 promises the potential for applications that can speak to each other directly, and for broader searches for information through simpler interfaces. According to Srmana Mitra, Web 3.0 = (Content, Community, Commerce, Context + Personalization + Vertical Search). See at http://www.sramanamitra.com/2007/02/14/web-30-4c-p-vs/ More to come as I explore Web 3.0 and its possible implication on education.

Twitter Web 2.0 tool

We will be presenting "Twitter" as a web 2.0 tool in EM 585 class. The aim will be to show Twitter as a microblogging tool that may help in making thinking visible and socially constructing knowledge in an educational setting . We will also try to show you some of the affordances and constraints of Twitter.

Podcasting

It seems that this is a new trend for educational technology and education in general in North America.
Here are a few links from TechEd 2007 conference in Ontario, CA. I will be adding more to podcasting as I find more information.

http://soul4real.wordpress.com/author/drcoop/

Here is more to read about podcasting by Dr. Cooper.

http://drcoop.pbwiki.com/

Learning Objects in Instructional System Design

What are Learning Objects?

According to Barritt (2002), there are many ways to define the size and function of a "Learning object" (LO). An LO can be as large as a course or as small as a specific piece of any content, for example, a definition. In fact, the size and shape of an object is open to the organization to define, as there is no industry or educational standard at this time.

However, for Barrit, an LO is based on a single learning or performance objective that is presented through content, practice, and assessment items. Content, practice items and assessment items are built out of text and media elements. The LOs can be stand alone instructional materials or they can be a series of LOs. These LOs, or building blocks of instruction may function like any other instructional object in that they are available for reuse by the authors or by the instructors and can be delivered to the performers just-in-time.

Here are some articles on LOs and RLOs. I believe that these are used mostly in the business world and higher education training centers.


Hannafin, M. J., Hill, J. R., McCarthy, J. E. (2000). "Designing resource-based learning and performance support systems," in D. A. Wiley, ed., The Instructional Use of Learning Objects. Retrieved August 14, 2006, from:
http://reusability.org/read/chapters/hannafin.doc

Merrill, M. David. (2000) "Components of Instruction: Toward a Theoretical Tool for Instructional Design." Instructional Science. Retrieved August 10, 2006 from:
http://www.id2.usu.edu/Papers/Components.PDF

Merrill, M. David & ID2 Research Team. (1996)."Instructional Transaction Theory: Instructional Design based on Knowledge Objects." Educational Technology, 36(3), 30-37. Retrieved August 5, 2006 from:
http://www.id2.usu.edu/Papers/FridgeKO.PDF

Merrill, M. David. (Undated). "A Knowledge Object and Mental Model Approach to a Physics Lesson." Educational Technology. Retrieved August 1, 2006 from:
http://www.id2.usu.edu/Papers/CatesRevision6.PDF

Merrill, M. David. (1998) "Knowledge Objects." CBT Solutions, March/April 1998. Retrieved July 10, 2006 from:
http://www.id2.usu.edu/Papers/KnowledgeObjects.PDF

Merrill, M. D. (2000). "Knowledge objects and mental models." In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version. Retrieved July 10, 2006, from: http://reusability.org/read/chapters/merrill.doc

Wiley, D. A. (2000). "Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy," in D. A. Wiley, ed., The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version. Retrieved July 18, 2006, from:
http://reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc

Wiley, D.A., ed. The Instructional Use of Learning Objects: Online Version. Retrieved July 15, 2006, from:
http://www.reusability.org/read/

Wiley, D.A. Learning Object Design and Sequencing Theory, June 2000. Retrieved July 14, 2006, from:
http://wiley.ed.usu.edu/docs/dissertation.pdf

Wiley, D.A. (2003) "Learning Objects: Difficulties and Opportunities." Retrieved July 10, 2006, from:
http://wiley.ed.usu.edu/docs/lo_do.pdf

Reusable Learning Objects (RLOs) in Instructional Design

Implications for Instructional design

Currently, I am researching Reusable Learning objects for my article. Looking at the faculty training experience and my internship, I have found that they are being used everywhere but at different levels of training. Following is a very general explanation and definition of RLOs.

Reusable learning objects (RLOs) are context independent, transportable and reusable pieces of instruction that are digitally managed and delivered. As such, they provide untold opportunities for easy access to tailored learning and are slowly being implemented in some larger corporations. Hodgins (2000)states that learning objects:

"represent a completely new conceptual model for the mass of content used in the context of learning. They are destined to forever change the shape and form of learning, and in so doing, it is anticipated that they will also usher in an unprecedented efficiency of learning content design, development, and delivery."

I have added all the references with a new post on LOs. The instructional objects are mostly called LOs or RLOs in computer science and business and the choice of a term refers to the way they are used in different instructional contexts.

A new model for the 21st Century

4C/ID Model

This is an instructional model by van Merriënboer (2002) and other researchers. The basic model appears to be based on Cognitive Load theory that Sweller and Van Merrienboer (1988) have researched before.

The 4C-ID model is characterized by four components:
(1) Learning Tasks, (2) Supportive Information,
(3) Procedural Information and (4) Part-Task Practice. The tasks are ordered by a task difficulty and each task offers at the beginning a lot of scaffolding (Vigotsky, 1930) which is reduced as the learner progresses.

According to Merrienboer et al., (2002), " the 4C/ID-model addresses at least three deficits in previous instructional design models.

First of all, the 4C/ID-model focuses on the integration and coordinated performance of task-specific constituent skills rather than on knowledge types, context or presentation-delivery media.

Secondly, in the paper, the model makes a critical distinction between supportive information and required just-in-time (JIT) information (the latter specifies the performance required, not only the type of knowledge required). And third, traditional models use either part-task or whole-task practice; the 4C/IDmodel recommends a mixture where part-task practice supports very complex, "whole-task" learning. "

Practical aspects of ID

SITUATED INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

I have been reflecting on the practical aspects of instructional design as it relates to real-world contexts and its implication on my particular internship. This online article by Brent Wilson on situated instructional design explains that implementation and design are ultimately inseparable. According to Wilson (1995), deciding upon a design solution and making decisions within that framework is a highly situated activity. The success of a given implementation will depend more on the local variables and context of where a designer is working than on the general variables contained in the ID model chosen to guide design. In this approach, all the stakeholder should be included in the design process. This process entails a great collaboration. In this article, the author also provides a general methodolgy for situated instructional design.

Read this article:
Wilson, B. G. (1995). Situated instructional design: Blurring the distinctions between theory and practice, design and implementation, curriculum and instruction.