Web 2.0, CMS, and Questions

As I've been reading the articles for this week, I can't help but notice that they take a rather utopian stance on Web 2.0 technologies, including course management systems (CMS).

Full disclosure: For another course, I've been reading a book titled, Brave New Classrooms, which takes the opposite approach - the authors included in this collection of essays take a very cautious if not a dystopian position on the adoption of technologies in the classroom. The chapter by Lockhard, "Manifesto for Democratic Education and the Internet," summarizes the tone of this book. To give an example, he states, "A 'virtual campus' is an educational scam in progress" (p. 290). Lockhard continues by noting that "electronic education is no less than a means of technological colonization in the service of capital" (p. 291). While he does temper these beliefs toward the end of the chapter, it is possible that these and similar views have caused me to question the ideas presented by the authors we read for this week.

In the article by Thompson, which compares and contrasts Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, he refers to the work of early filmmakers. He states, "It took time for filmmakers to move the actors off stage and into studios and even more time for them to begin making movies on location." Thompson is not alone in his connection to the movie industry. In a piece by Livingstone and Kemp, they too point to the connection between cinematographers who replicated existing work and in their case, 3D virtual worlds.

However, Thompson continues by arguing that "Web 2.0 applications will continue to evolve, making the process of change much more complicated." Which leads to my question: If the technologies that educators want to integrate into the curriculum are constantly morphing into new technologies, will it ever be possible to move beyond the fits and start stage?

Downes (2005) also talks about technology and education in his article on e-learning 2.0. Not only does he assert that "living and learning...will eventually merge" but he also notes that as a result of e-learning 2.0, there will be a "collapse of the distinction between teacher and student altogether." But, aren't teachers in that role because they possess a certain level of experience and expertise? By moving to a system where there is no distinction between students and teachers, why do we even need to bother with the teacher? Couldn't we just have the students "talk amongst themselves" as the "Saturday Night Live" character Linda Richmond (played by Mike Meyers) would say?

Moving on to CMS, I had a difficult time envisioning this application as one that would allow students to "experience deeper learning" (p. 27) as Carmean and Haefner (2002) contend. I suppose I still consider this tool to be a "system container" (p. 28). In their 2003 article on CMS tools, they boldly state, "As information literacy grows more significant in learning outcomes, the role of the library in course support increases" (p. 10). Does it? Not according to the OLCOS Roadmap 2012, which predicts that in 2012 "library services may be slow to find their place in open learning environments" (p. 115). The authors of this report also suggest that "traditional and current digital libraries will have a long way to go before they become part of 'the flow' of a new generation's learning landscape" (p. 106).

So, I suppose the overarching question for both educators and librarians is this: Do we roll with the punches and try to adopt the new technologies as they happen? Or, do we stop and take the time to assess how we can use these systems and applications most effectively (while hoping we don't get left behind in the process)? Or...