CONSTRUCTING LEARNING IN WEB 2.

How Students Interact with Web 2.0 to Construct Learning:

A Synthesis of Research
Kathy Lee Strickland
Boise State University

CONSTRUCTING LEARNING IN WEB 2.0

Abstract
Although Web 2.0 technologies have generally been considered informal and personal
communications, they are now emerging as meaningful methods of learning and teaching in
formal education. This paper examines various Web 2.0 technologiesparticularly blogs, wikis,
social networking sites, and discussion forumsin connection with the constructivist learning
theory and synthesizes research on the potential for using these technologies in formal education.
The paper begins by defining Web 2.0 and addressing the disconnect between students
technology use in school and outside of school, a problem that has been widely discussed, as in
the National Education Technology Plan (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Many articles
suggest that this is due in part to misconceptions about Web 2.0 technologies and their
appropriateness in a formal education setting.
By discussing in detail how knowledge is constructed through Web 2.0 interactions, this
paper ties Web 2.0 technologies to constructivism and illustrates how they can have a positive
impact on learning. The effectiveness of conversational and participatory technologies has much
to do with their interactive and collaborative nature, as demonstrated by the research synthesized.
This paper concludes with a discussion of Web 2.0s learning potential in relation to the
dialectical method and pedagogy of the classical Greek philosopher Socrates, as explored by
Wolf (2007).
Key words: Web 2.0, constructivism, constructivist learning, wikis, blogs, discussion forums,
social networking, conversational technologies, participatory technologies, collaborative
learning, interactivity, Socrates

CONSTRUCTING LEARNING IN WEB 2.0

How Students Interact with Web 2.0 to Construct Learning

This paper presents studies and perspectives that demonstrate how Web 2.0 can and does
have a positive impact on learning, particularly from a constructivist viewpoint. A common
theme in the research synthesized is that knowledge is constructed when learners create, share,
discuss, and expand upon information in Web 2.0, a position that links these interactions to the
constructivist learning theory. It is not just Web 2.0 technologies but the way in which learners
interact with them that illustrates the potential for effectively incorporating these technologies in
formal education.
The term Web 2.0 refers to Internet-based technologies that are open, interactive,
dynamic, and often collaborative, as distinguished from static online content resembling
traditional print media. Examples of Web 2.0 technologies include wikis, which are hypertext
systems for storing and processing information that is editable by anyone; blogs, or web logs,
with entries typically displayed in reverse chronological order; social networking sites such as
Twitter and Facebook; and discussion forums, which are often topic-focused.
Bernsteiner, Ostermann, and Staudinger (2008) cite the following definition of Web 2.0
from Tim OReilly, who coined the term in 2005:
Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications
are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering
software as a continually updated service that gets better the more people use it,
consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while
providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating

CONSTRUCTING LEARNING IN WEB 2.0

network effects through an architecture of participation, and going beyond the page
metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences. (p. 18)
A prevalent problem in education today is the disconnect between how students are using
Web 2.0 technologies outside of school and their exposure to these technologies in a school
setting. Not only is this disconnect a source of student disengagement from the traditional
curriculum; it is also detrimental to the ultimate purpose of education: preparing students for the
fast-paced, technology-rich global work force (Bernsteiner et al., 2008).
There are many reasons why this disconnect exists and perpetuates. A generational gap
between teachers and students is clearly a factor, as veteran teachers find it difficult to keep pace
with the so-called digital natives (Prensky, 2001). Other reasons for infrequent use of Web 2.0
technologies in education today appear to be the same as those that limited the use of film in
classrooms in the first half of the 20th century: teachers lack of skill in using the technology,
expense of equipment, unavailability/connectivity issues, and lack of understanding regarding
how the technology fits into the grand scheme of the curriculum (Cuban, 1986, p. 18).
Just as educators 100 years ago questioned the appropriateness of film in formal
education, some decision makers today take issue with aspects of Web 2.0 technologies,
particularly social networking sites that are seen as a distraction from learning (Greenhow,
2011). Furthermore, with the fluidity and openness of information in Web 2.0, the traditional
authority of the instructor or author diminishes, posing a potential threat to the current system of
formal education. Farkas (2012) suggests the need for the flattening of hierarchy between
student and instructor that is necessary to unlock the power of these [participatory] technologies
(p. 92). She quotes Hovorka and Rees (2009) in stating that we must change the way in which

CONSTRUCTING LEARNING IN WEB 2.0

knowledge is perceived: not as something that is reliable and changeless but as something that is
an activity, a process of finding out (Farkas, 2012, p. 92).
The idea of inquiry-based, active learning relates to constructivism and has philosophical
roots dating back to Socrates in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE, who viewed oral discourse as
necessary to arriving at meaning and understanding. The final section of this paper will examine
Socrates objections to the written word in light of Web 2.0 participatory and conversational
technologies and demonstrate how meaningful discourse can and does exist in writing in online
communities and, increasingly, in collaborative educational environments.
Constructivism in the Context of Web 2.0
The concept of the teacher as a dispenser of information and the student as a passive
recipient is widely considered outdated, replaced by the knowledge construction view of the
teacher as a cognitive guide for the active sense maker (Clark & Mayer, 2011, p. 34).
The traditional higher education system established different academic departments for
the purpose of collecting as much relevant information on the discipline as possible and enlisting
someone who had mastered this information to transfer knowledge to students (Reinhart, 2008,
p. 15). However, now that the Internet is able to store the collective knowledge of university
disciplines, the role of the instructor as safeguard and dispenser of information has diminished,
and students have become empowered to construct their own learning from the wealth of
resources available online.
The way in which students construct knowledge is perhaps as significant as the content
they are learning. Although the Internet began as a digital compilation of information, much like
a book on screen, static web pages have evolved into the dynamic, interactive, collaborative
posts and discussions that are known today as Web 2.0 (Alexander, 2006). Alexander (2006)

CONSTRUCTING LEARNING IN WEB 2.0

uses the term microcontent to describe the chunks of content that emerge from blogs, wikis,
podcasts, social networking sites, and other Web 2.0 technologies and stresses that openness is
crucial to the evolution of this knowledge:
Openness and microcontent combine into a larger conceptual strand of Web 2.0, one that
sees users as playing more of a foundational role in information architecture. Drawing on
the wisdom of crowds argument, Web 2.0 services respond more deeply to users than
Web 1.0 services. (p. 34)
Within Web 1.0, or the Internet before the aforementioned interactive technologies, it
was difficult for users to act as an author and take part in the development of content
(Bernsteiner et al., 2008, p. 18). The fact that anyone can contribute content to the vast realm of
Web 2.0be it a comment on a blog, a Tweet or Facebook post, or part of a Wikipedia
definitionblurs the lines between author and reader, producer and consumer, and teacher and
learner. Farkas (2012) writes that few things in recent years have been more disruptive to
education than participatory technologies and Web 2.0. Web 2.0 was built on an architecture of
participation, where users are both consumers and producers of information (p. 83).
This collaborative environment shifts the traditional roles and responsibilities within
formal education. When there is no longer a need to memorize or master content, the learner is
free to focus on finding, interpreting, analyzing, synthesizing, and creating knowledge. As
Bernsteiner et al. (2008) state, the constructivist approach shifts learning from instruction and
design centered to learner-centered learning and teaching. The role of the educator changes from
directing the learner toward supporting and coaching the learner (p. 19).

CONSTRUCTING LEARNING IN WEB 2.0

Learning Through Interaction in Web 2.0

Reinhart (2008) writes about the learning threads that students build when keeping a
blog as part of a class, with content of their own choosing:
By sharing with others, students begin constructing knowledge, socially; they create new
conversational threadsthe sinews of learning. These conversational threads, discussion
tracks, can be viewed, switching metaphors, as laying new neural tracks in the brain
itself. Yet acquisition of information is crucial but not sufficient; the process of acquiring
and reflecting on new information marks only the first stage in learning. It is in the
sharing and discussion of acquired information (new or old) that students begin
constructing knowledge. (p. 23)
The idea of knowledge being constructed conversationally in text-based threaded
discussion forums can be scientifically studied within the framework of discursive psychology,
which includes conversation analysis (Hug, 2008).
Hug (2008) defines discourse in this psychological paradigm as constituting the means
through which people construct their social and psychological worlds, producing versions of
reality and of cognition in the course of their everyday practices (p. 140).
Hug adapts a research heuristic originally designed to study oral communication to the
written communication of Web 2.0, analyzing how meaning unfolds improvisationally and
indexicallyinextricable from the order and context in which the conversation occurs. This
research paradigm and methodology, which have been described as post- or anti-cognitivist,
rely on the conviction that it is not simply the content of a discussion thread but the way in which
the thread emerges that indicates learning (Hug, 2008, p. 146).

CONSTRUCTING LEARNING IN WEB 2.0

Conversational and participatory technologies are common terms in the scholarly

literature on Web 2.0 in education. Farkas (2012) posits that the use of participatory technologies
can improve the quality of dialogue in a traditional classroom:
Participatory technologies allow users to open their work up to everyone in the class, or
even the world, for comment in a space where conversation is king. Students can
challenge or support each others ideas through blog comments and can negotiate
meaning collaboratively in a wiki. (p. 85)
Real-World Applications of Web 2.0 Learning Tools
In an empirical survey Bernsteiner et al. (2008) conducted among 268 first-year students
at Austrian universities, wikis prevailed over blogs and discussion forums as the most promising
Web 2.0 technology for use in learning, from a students perspective. Participation in the study
was voluntary, and participants were asked to use one or more of these Web-based social
software tools (wikis, blogs, or discussion forums) as a learning tool in one of five selected
blended-learning courses during the first semester of their studies at the university (Bernsteiner
et al., 2008, p. 23).
Before taking part in the study, 76% of students surveyed reported that they were
currently using wikis, and 78% reported using discussion forums. In contrast, only 11% reported
using blogs, and the authors, therefore, confined part of their analysis to the comparison of wikis
and forums. Students were asked about their use of wikis or forums for private purposes and for
educational purposes. While the percent of students who said they often used either tool for
private purposes was similar (68% for wikis and 62% for forums), there were far more students
using wikis for educational purposes (90% for wikis and 51% for forums). When asked about
their usage of these tools in their class during the study, students rated the quality of

CONSTRUCTING LEARNING IN WEB 2.0

contributions of wikis as much better than those of forums, with one reason being the
Wikipedian community, which is often seen as synonymous with the term wiki (Bernsteiner
et al., 2008, p. 26). The authors conclude that the results clearly show that wikis are currently
the most often used instrument and furthermore have the greatest potential as a tool for learning
and knowledge management in the field of learning (Bernsteiner et al., 2008, p. 28).
Hsu (2008) supports the advantage of wikis over blogs or discussion forums as a
constructivist learning tool in higher education, stating that wikis are more open and
collaborative by nature:
While the major emphasis of Weblogs is the creation of a set of pages and documents
primarily by a single individual, the strength of a wiki is the ability for numerous
interested readers and users to express ideas online, edit someone elses work, send and
receive ideas, and post links to related resources and sites. As a result, wikis go a step
further and allow for greater collaboration and interactivity. Wikis have been found to
have value for educational purposes, and their use has begun to be integrated into a
number of university courses, in particular. (p. 71)
Outside of formal school settings, students use of blogs, home videos, Twitter,
Facebook, and other social networking sites has helped shape the news, politics, and public
opinion (Greenhow, 2011). Greenhow (2011) states that these social interactions, considered
collectively, constitute a cognitive surplus, which can change our very notions of knowledge
and the means of knowledge production (p. 5).
The term citizen journalism refers to people who are not professional journalists
contributing to the news. Examples include taking photos or videos at the scene of a disaster and
posting them on YouTube, or blogging about an issue being covered in the news and perhaps

CONSTRUCTING LEARNING IN WEB 2.0

10

bringing to light new information. This practice may seem natural and inevitable when all the
worlds on Candid Camera, and publishing a story is practically as easy as releasing the shutter.
However, the idea that anyone can be a journalist raises issues of trust and credibility.
Although some members of the traditional news media embrace this public participation in
shaping the news, others feel threatened by it.
The same Web 2.0 technologies that enable citizen journalism are disrupting the
traditional role and authority of the teacher in formal education. Farkas (2012) calls for educators
to embrace participatory technologies in conjunction with a new pedagogical model called
Pedagogy 2.0:
Participatory technologies are not transformative in and of themselves. If a class is still
largely focused on a hierarchical model where content from their instructor and his or her
views are considered more valuable than student contributions, technologies like blogs
and wikis will not create true collaboration. (p. 85)
Wikipedia illustrates how knowledge can be constructed collaboratively online but also
exemplifies the issue of credibility that arises when anyone is allowed to edit or contribute to its
working definitions. In their 2008 study, Bernsteiner et al. cited credibility issues due to the
open architecture of wikis in contrast to students good evaluations of the quality of wikis
contributions (p. 26). It is not surprising that many teachers have banned Wikipedia as a credible
source for their students writing.
Web 2.0s Future in Formal Education
At its least interactive, the traditional system of education is a lecture with, perhaps, the
opportunity for students to ask questions at the conclusion. At its most interactive, traditional
education is a lively question-and-answer dialogue between the teacher and the students.

CONSTRUCTING LEARNING IN WEB 2.0

11

What happens when this dialogue is written online rather than conducted orally? In other
words, what happens when conversations that used to be confined to one student and one teacher
are shared with the entire classroom, community, or world electronically?
Formal education, and the fields of science and politics, make use of the Socratic method
of dialectical inquiry and discussion. But, as Wolf (2007) points out, Socrates was apprehensive
of the then-emerging written word, fearing that it would stifle thought, as living speech would
become set in stone, and the back and forth of ideas that led to new knowledge would cease to
exist. Wolf lays out three objections that Socrates had to written versus oral language: (a)
inflexibility, (b) the destruction of memory, and (c) the loss of control of language and,
consequently, the loss of context. Millennia later, Web 2.0 assuages some of Socrates concerns
and complicates others.
Socrates first objection of inflexibility holds little ground in a Web 2.0 context, where
the use of participatory and conversational technologies has proved that writing need not be
stagnant, and conversation can evolve online. Content in Web 2.0 is dynamic; meanings and
interpretations are constantly under construction.
However, there is much to be said for Socrates second objection, the loss of memory, in
a time when the convenience of smart phones makes it unnecessary to memorize the phone
numbers of even ones closest friends and relatives, and apps like Diigo and Evernote collect and
Remember Everything. When so much information exists online, the ability to filter it and find
what is relevant and useful becomes a valuable skill. As Farkas (2012) writes:
The internet has made it possible for people to access information at the point of need,
rendering the ability to find information more important than mastery of knowledge in

CONSTRUCTING LEARNING IN WEB 2.0

12

any one area. Knowledge is no longer thought of as immutable; something one can learn
once and forever be considered informed. In many professions, what one needs to know
to be considered informed is constantly changing, making it necessary to think of
learning as a continuous life-long endeavor. (p. 83)
Socrates himself thought of learning this way, as a lifelong commitment to developing
the deepest critical and analytical skills, and to internalizing personal knowledge through the
prodigious use of memory, and long effort (Wolf, 2007, p. 220). Wolf posits that Socrates view
of knowledge as the result of deliberate, critical thought processes is precisely why he worried
about youth having unguided access to information. Addressing the same concern, Hsu (2008)
advocates for the use of guided discovery, illustrating how it can work in conjunction with a
student blog:
Guided discovery allows for the exploration and study of a certain topic, which is then
followed by assignments that emphasize the synthesis of information. In effect, a student
can be asked to research an area and construct knowledge using the Weblog as a
medium. (p. 69)
Web 2.0 validates Socrates third objection to the written wordthat the writer risks
losing control of the knowledge being expressed. As Socrates said:
Once a thing is put in writing, the composition, whatever it may be, drifts all over the
place, getting into the hands not only of those who understand it, but equally of those
who have no business with it; it doesnt know how to address the right people, and not
address the wrong. And when it is ill-treated and unfairly abused it always needs its
parents to come to its help, being unable to defend or help itself. (Wolf, 2007, p. 76)

CONSTRUCTING LEARNING IN WEB 2.0

13

In contrast, letting go of control may be a good thing today, as educators who have
chosen to humble themselves by involving digital natives in the teaching process have
discovered. The uninhibited sharing and creation of content in Web 2.0 can add context to
conversation and ensure that participants construct meaning through their interactions. If
educators, administrators, and policy makers are open to incorporating Web 2.0 technologies into
instruction, they may find that students are motivated to publish, discover, and share with their
peers, which will potentially increase learning outcomes.

14

CONSTRUCTING LEARNING IN WEB 2.0

References

Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educause
Review, 41(2), 32-44.
Bernsteiner, R., Ostermann, H., & Staudinger, R. (2008). Facilitating e-learning with social
software: Attitudes and usage from the students point of view. International Journal of
Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 3(3), 16-33.
Clark, R., & Mayer, R. (2011). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for
consumers and designers of multimedia learning (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New

York: Teachers College Press.

Farkas, M. (2012). Participatory technologies, pedagogy 2.0 and information literacy. Library Hi

Tech, 30(1), 82-94.

Greenhow, C. (2011). Online social networks and learning. On the Horizon, 19(1), 4-12.

Hsu, J. (2008). Innovative technologies for education and learning: Education and knowledgeoriented applications of blogs, wikis, podcasts, and more. International Journal of WebBased Learning and Teaching Technologies, 3(3), 62-81.
Hug, T. (2008). Investigating Web 2.0 for education: A discursive paradigm for research. In H.

CONSTRUCTING LEARNING IN WEB 2.0

15

Risku & M.F. Peschl (Eds). Kognition und Technologie im kooperativen Lernen (pp. 135150). Vienna: Vienna University Press.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-2.
Reinhart, C. J. (2008). Constructing the caf university: Teaching and learning on the digital
frontier. On the Horizon, 16(1), 13-33.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). National education technology plan: Transforming
American education: Learning powered by technology. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010/learning-engage-and-empower
Wolf, M. (2007). Proust and the squid: The story and science of the reading brain. New York,
NY: Harper.