Hanson, Thackeray, Barnes, Neiger, and McIntyre (2008) provide a comprehensive article on the usefulness of Web 2.0 tools, and the necessity for health professionals to embrace technology reaching patients, colleagues, and the general public with health information. The authors provide a brief overview of recent media trends noting the explosion of social networking sites and the downward reality of print and radio media. With this introduction the authors turn to providing applications “for health education” (p. 160) and describe how the applications are applicable to the community of health professionals.
Strengths of the article. This author believes Hanson, Thackeray, Barnes, Neiger, and McIntyre (2008) do a very good job of describing Web 2.0 applications for the layperson. If a reader is not familiar with the tools and the benefits they provide, then the article will introduce the reader to the most common Web 2.0 applications. Hanson, Thackeray, Barnes, Neiger, and McIntyre (2008) also provide URLs to sites for additional information on particular types of Web 2.0 tools. Unless the reader categorizes themselves as a closet geek, the article provides useful information for the average person familiar with many of the Web 2.0 and social networking sites available today.
Weakness of the article. The abstract leads the reader to believe there is a significant portion dedicated to higher education applications for Web 2.0 tools. This is not the case. There is some discussion about introducing health profession students (doctors, nurses, practitioners) to the tools during their education, but it lacks concrete recommendations for implementing the tools into the classroom. However, the ease of the article and its content should allow a person to determine applicability in the learning environment.
Opinion of Web 2.0 tools. Get over it and get into the 21st century. Web 2.0 tools open up the classroom to possibilities beyond the traditional brick and mortar environment. The challenge is harnessing these capabilities and effectively incorporating the tools into the curriculum. Done haphazardly, and it could jaundice the student. Integrated successfully, and the student leaves the course with a positive outlook and functional ability to use the tools in future courses, or in the work environment. The adult educator must keep pace with technology, or risk losing relativity to future generations of adult learners.
References
Hanson, C., Thackeray, R., Barnes, M., Neiger, B., & McIntyre, E. (2008). Integrating web 2.0 in health education preparation and practice. American Journal of Health Education, 39(3), 157-166. Retrieved, July 5, 2010, from ERIC database.
I definitely agree that instructors must learn existing and emerging technologies. As teenagers and young adults participate in adult education they will expect their instructors to be versed in these technologies. As an older instructor I often feel challenged in this regard.
ReplyDeleteEveryone could open their ming to the endless possiblilites of using these tools. I still feel that once these applications are applied, then a group discussion in person to complete the interaction process. People have to have that connection or else they can never be fully productive with personable skills.
ReplyDeleteI agree that both instructors and learners should accept technological advancements and creative uses to incorporate these tools into the educational environment. They are a great asset if utilized properly. However, we can not lose sight of the fact that additional training maybe required and that teachers must ensure the learner finds this type of asset as a benefit and not a burden or it will only lead to more frustration and less education.
ReplyDeleteI also think it is critically important for instructors to understand the capabilities and limitations of Web 2.0 technologies. Jay’s excellent review highlights the significance of selecting the proper technology and then using it correctly to help students achieve the desired learning outcomes. While it might be tempting to use the most recent technology as a way of appearing high-tech, the instructor needs to ensure the technology is not inhibiting learning. Each class is unique and the instructor needs to continually assess or reflect on how well technology is or is not helping their students to achieve the desired learning outcomes. Student feedback is essential to evaluating the impact of technology.
ReplyDeleteBill, I concur with you and Misti. The key as an instructor - whether using Web 2.0 tools, a whiteboard, or overheads - is to integrate the level of technology appropriate to enhance the learning environment. Trying to find the right mix is often the challenge.
ReplyDeleteOkay, it's late so I'll butter the bread... Has anyone else made a connection between chapter 5, Designing Instruction by Gary J. Dean and what we have discovered through this blogging assignment?
ReplyDeleteFor now, let's forget about the student. From the comfort of my home I can: enhance self-awareness, acquire content knowledge, undertand the learning contexts and learn about adult learners. Now having done this, from the comfort of my own home, I can move to the second step and develop learning goals and objectives, leanring activities, and learner evaluations.
In this scenario, Web 2.0 have been used by the instructor and employed by the instructor in the development of instructional materials and then used by the student to complete course objectives and then used by the student for the rest of their lives. Yea! problem solved.
For the integration of Web 2.0 to be both purposive and meaningful, both faculty and students must have some knowledge and mastery of technology. Training time must be allocated for the faculty to gain a level of expertise. Students may need mini-courses to prepare them to fully maximize their learning environment.
ReplyDelete