While the idea of Web 2.0 has inspired and driven a whole new era in innovation on the Internet, it can also be a source of frustration for educators outside the application development cycle. Not only are countless web applications popping up daily, since the terminology refers to such a wide variety of applications, it is easily misused and therefore misunderstood; for many, it can be quickly written off as “vacuous marketing hype”. Educators with little time on their hands developing lesson plans will be hard pressed to spend precious hours sorting through the constantly expanding list of available similar solutions.

However, Web 2.0 in the classroom should not focus on specific applications; it should focus on the philosophies which they embrace. Web 2.0 fosters personal exploration and learning through “hackability” and “remixability”. It works asynchronously. It recognizes that we can accomplish more collectively than alone. “Open” is better than “closed”. “Cooperation” better than “control”.

Web 2.0 tools such as wikis, blogs, and podcasts can be extremely powerful, especially in the classroom. Educators who are introducing them are doing a great service to their students and should be commended. However, integrating these tools is merely the first step. Utilizing Web 2.0 applications helps solve current problems; creating a Web 2.0 mentality solves future problems.

So why is this different? Why has this particular approach, with an operating cost of essentially zero, succeeded, where technology initiatives worth millions have failed?

The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) published a list of “Essential Conditions” which are required if teachers are expected to embrace and utilize new technologies in the classroom. Mr. Langhorst’s approach meets nearly all of them.

Most importantly, his approach is student-centered. “StudyCasts” (a coined term for his educational podcasts) are to supplement the lesson, not replace it. Langhorst also does not fall victim to the common assumption that all students have equal access to the same tools outside of the school building. He makes his StudyCasts available in a variety of formats; students who do not have an MP3 player can easily obtain the audio reviews on CD. Struggling readers can participate at their own pace.

Unfortunately, the ISTE conditions can create a sort of “chicken and egg” situation. Many administrators will not support a new initiative (through funding, professional development, policy, technical assistance, and otherwise) unless it hasn’t been assessed as successful. Many teachers will not expend time or energy to change curricula without administration’s consent. However, through the alignment of many key factors (Langhorst’s personal drive, innovation, technological expertise, as well as what can be seen as a fairly liberal administration) we have proof that it can work.

Langhorst best summarizes his approach:

“Will technology magically save the U.S. education system? Certainly not, but to effectively teach all students, we clearly must begin to use some of the technology that has so dramatically changed our lives outside the classroom. It’s not about the “wow” factor — it’s about effective instruction. Students bring multiple learning styles to school; not everyone is best served through lecture-based content delivery and assessments based on written text.”

And if that doesn’t convince you, let the students speak for themselves:

“This is so helpful five stars thanks mr. langhorst !!!”

“Mr. Langhorst is the coolest teacher EVER!!!!”

“Hi Mr. Langhorst its Keelie!!! Thank you soo much for this study guide!!! YOU RULE!!!!”

Eric Langhorst’s History StudyCasts (iTunes) | StudyCasts Blog | Eric Langhorst’s Homepage

Thanks to Craig for the picture.

However, there is something more that needs to be taken from the idea of the learning style test.

One of multimedia’s strengths is its potential for nonlinear, random-access presentation of information.  The current approach to integrating technology into the educational system is completely ignoring this potential.  Introducing a videogame or a film into the curriculum is simply paying lip service to multimedia.  We have the ability to cater the curriculum to individual learning styles.  Why not automatically develop custom units based statistically on the results from a learning style test?  This is not a new idea; Morrison and Lowther discuss a low-tech version using pencils and paper.  However, we can harness the computational power available to us to maximize educational productivity.  A student is more receptive to verbal communication?  Assign a custom homework unit, generated automatically based on learning style results, which includes a podcast.  With a little organization up front, the modularity and automation of the software package could handle the rest.  I think this possibility is definitely worth exploring.

Marc’s point is flawless; we are, in fact, speaking two different languages. However, it is not only the vocabulary that is different, but it is the connotations as well.

When a technologist such as myself mentions the word “game”, the educator’s mind instantly gravitates towards thoughts of the gratuitous violence present in the FPS, the common target when discrediting the game industry.

However, it is those same educators who probably have not entertained the thought of teaching basic economics using Lemonade Tycoon or decision-making and management using Virtual U.

This not only applies to gaming in education but to technology as a whole. Think of the possibilities that arise when you bring a device like the Eye-Fi into the classroom. Does your school have a wireless network? Equip your learners with Eye-Fi cameras and send them out into the playground to capture examples of local wildlife. Pictures are instantly uploaded to the class’ Flickr account for discussion. It’s hard to find a student who hasn’t picked up a Wiimote. Computer scientists like Johnny Chung Lee are using these devices, not for gaming, but for low-cost interactive whiteboards.

If any change is expected within the educational community, we have to break this mentality that technology is synonymous solely with a desktop computer. The “Digital Immigrants” don’t just have to learn to speak a broken dialect of memorized “grammar”; they need to speak (and understand) “fluently”.

And we should soon, because we are already behind.