Dancing with Postmodernity: Web 2.0+ as a New Epistemic Learning Space

This chapter addresses a significant theoretical gap in the Web 2.0 (or “Web 2.0+,” as it is referred to by the author) literature by analyzing the educational implications of the “seismic shift in epistemology” (Dede, 2008, p. 80) that is occurring. As already identified in Chapter 2, there needs to be a consistency between our own epistemic assumptions and those embedded in Web 2.0. Hence the underlying premise of this chapter is that the adoption of social media in education implies the assumption of a very different epistemology—a distinctly different way of understanding the nature of knowledge and the process of how we come to know. The argument is that this shift toward a radically altered, “postmodernist,” epistemic architecture of participation will transform the way in which educators and their students create and manage the production, dissemination, and validation of knowledge. In future, the new “postmodern” Web will increasingly privilege what we may usefully think of as a socially focused and performance-oriented approach to knowledge production. The expected subversion and disruption of our traditional or modernist power-knowledge system, as already evident in the Wikipedia phenomenon, will reframe educational practices and promote a new power-knowledge system, made up of new, social ways in which to construct and control knowledge across the Internet. The chapter concludes by advocating strategies for critical engagement with this new epistemic learning space, and posing a number of critical questions to guide ongoing practice. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-60566-294-7.ch018

[1]  Diana Laurillard,et al.  Rethinking University Teaching 2nd Edition: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies , 2002 .

[2]  Michael Schiltz,et al.  Cutting the Trees of Knowledge: Social Software, Information Architecture and Their Epistemic Consequences , 2007 .

[3]  Colin Lankshear,et al.  The Challenge of Digital Epistemologies , 2003 .

[4]  P. Anderson What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education , 2007 .

[5]  Hendrik Huijser,et al.  Exploring the educational potential of social networking sites: the fine line between exploiting opportunities and unwelcome imposition , 2008 .

[6]  M. Foucault,et al.  Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. , 1978 .

[7]  Tim O'Reilly,et al.  What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software , 2007 .

[8]  Douglas A. Levin,et al.  The Digital Disconnect: The Widening Gap Between Internet-Savvy Students and Their Schools , 2002 .

[9]  E. Wenger Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[10]  Lyndsay Grant,et al.  Social Software and Learning , 2005 .

[11]  S. Carter,et al.  Justifying Knowledge, Justifying Method, Taking Action: Epistemologies, Methodologies, and Methods in Qualitative Research , 2007, Qualitative health research.

[12]  Balachander Krishnamurthy,et al.  Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 , 2008, First Monday.

[13]  D. Jonassen Evaluating constructivistic learning , 1991 .

[14]  John Thompson,et al.  Is Education 1.0 Ready for Web 2.0 Students , 2007 .

[15]  Bryan N. Alexander Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning? , 2006 .

[16]  B. Massumi,et al.  The postmodern condition : a report on knowledge , 1979 .

[17]  Ian Chowcat,et al.  Harnessing Technology: preliminary identification of trends affecting the use of technology for learning , 2008 .

[18]  Henk Eijkman Web 2.0 as a non‐foundational network‐centric learning space , 2008 .

[19]  Sociological, Postmodern, and New Realism Perspectives in Social Constructionism: Implications for Literacy Research , 2001 .

[20]  Ronald D. Bleed The IT Leader as Alchemist: Finding the True Gold. , 2006 .

[21]  Charles K. Kinzer,et al.  Questioning Assumptions about Students' Expectations for Technology in College Classrooms , 2007 .