A Critical Study On The Undergraduate Level

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Richardson, W (2006) in his book Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms" pointed out "The Web has the potential to radically change what we assume about teaching and learning, and it presents us with important questions to ponder: What needs to change about our curriculum when our students have the ability to reach audiences far beyond our classroom walls?"

In ‘Educational Networking: The important role Web 2.0 will play in education’, Steve Hargadon stressed that this new web technology is going to dramatically alter the 21st century landscape in education by shaping how students approach to learning, how educators approach teaching, and increasingly, how educators are interacting and learning from each other. He further stated "these tools allow us to see the start of a radical evolution in education that will bring such dramatic changes that we’ll soon be at a point where we won’t be able to imagine education without them."

The above does seem to suggest that Web 2.0 does have a bright future in terms of its relevance, usage and application in the classrooms. Many western educational institutes of high repute have already turn to information technological tools in attracting students by offering them education that is relevant to the changing social and cultural events side by side the contemporary technological advancement. Maximising opportunities for optimum usage of the educational tools that the web has to offer is indeed the trend for many reputable institutions around the globe. The corporate sector is far not left behind. Corporations have effectively used Web 2.0 tools for more capitalisations. Social media are not only big buck business but proved beyond doubt that they are catalyst of change.

India too is not left behind in this new wave of technology. The social media has indeed taken India by storm. The rise of cell phone usage grew dramatically after 2001. In these ten decades, technology has grown by leaps and bounds and in ways that has not been envisaged before. The instant two way communication that the current networking technology has to offer has affected the netizens in inconceivable ways.

The question is: if this very same technology could affect the way how people communicate to each other, for sure there should be a way how this technology can be used for learning and education in the classroom. It is also argued that whether it is participating in a class discussion or participating in a forum discussion, the technologies available to students in a Web 2.0 classroom will increase the amount that the students participate in the educational process. The next pertinent question is we ready to integrate these technological advancements into our classroom? Are they reliable? What then is the future that these technological tools have in relation to learning and education in classroom situations? These questions can be summarised in the following one tailed hypothesis.

H1 (directional): "Social Media has a positive impacts and a bright future in its applications in the classroom among the undergraduates in Shillong"

H0 (Null): "Social Media has a zero/negative impacts and bleak future in its applications in the classroom among the undergraduates in Shillong"

Statistical reference will be made to test whether the Null Hypothesis is probably true or probably false. If the Null Hypothesis is found to be false the researcher will accept the directional Hypothesis as the most logical answer.

Review of Literature

Web 2.0 is a generic term that many claimed to represent the new version of the World Wide Web or the second generation of the World Wide Web. The term was initially coined in January 1999 by Darcy DiNucci, a consultant on electronic information design in her article ‘Fragmented Future’ where she commented that the web that we know now is only an embryo of the Web to come.

The term Web 2.0 resurfaced in 2002 when John Robb wrote about Web 2.0 in his weblog as a system that breaks with the old model of centralized Web sites and moves the power of the Web/Internet to the desktop.

The term, however, began to rise in its popularity when O'Reilly Media and MediaLive hosted the first Web 2.0 conference in 2003. Tim O’Reily, founder of O’Reilly Media and John Battelle, founder and chairman of Federated Media Publishing outlined their definition of the Web 2.0 as a Platform where software applications are built upon the Web as opposed to the desktop. Although the term suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to any technical specification, but rather to cumulative changes in the ways software developers and end-users use the Web. Web 2.0 was officially coined in 2004 by Dale Dougherty, a vice-president of O’Reilly Media Inc.

A Web 2.0 site allows users to interact and collaborate with each other in a social media dialogue as creators in a virtual community in contrast to websites where users are limited to the passive viewing of content that was created for them. Web 2.0 include social networking sites, blogs, wikis, video sharing sites, hosted services, web applications, mashups, web pages or applications etc that use and combine data, presentation or functionality from two or more sources to create new services; and folksonomies, system of classification derived from the practice or method of creating and managing tags to annotate and categorised contents.

When asked for an interview for a podcast that was published on IBM"s Website on whether Web 2.0 was different from what might be called Web 1.0, the World Wide Web inventor, Tim Bernes-Lee, replied: "Totally not...Web 2.0 is of course a piece of jargon, nobody knows even what it means..." [1] 

Laningham (ed.), developerWorks Interviews, 22nd August, 2006.

In spite of that, the term Web 2.0 was prized by bloggers and by technology journalists. "You" was chosen in 2006, as Time magazine's Person of the Year by recognising you and the millions of people who anonymously contribute user-generated content to Wikipedia, YouTube, MySpace, Facebook and the multitudes of other websites featuring user contribution. Since that time, Web 2.0 has found a place in the lexicon and in 2009 the Global Lanugage Monitor, an Austin, Texas-based company that collectively documents, analyzes and tracks trends in language usage worldwide, with a particular emphasis upon the English language, declared Web 2.0 to be the one-millionth English word.

Tim O’Reily in his famous paper, What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software held in the perspective that Web 2.0 should not be held up in opposition to ‘Web 1.0’, but should be seen as a consequence of a more fully implemented Web. His paper identified certain features that have come to be associated with ‘social software’ technologies, such as participation, user as contributor, harnessing the power of the crowd, rich user experiences etc., and that these do not constitute a de facto Web (r)evolution as Tim Berners-Lee had pointed out.

Drawing inferences from the above a question arises: What then is the Web 2.0? Is it really happening? Is the web transition a reality or is it just the changing form of how people communicate to each other? What then is the next big thing after Web 2.0?

Objectives

The objectives of the study would include:

Is there really a Web 2.0? How far are we aware of it?

Is Web 2.0 a change of structure or a structural change of technology?

Is it here to stay or is it a mere fad?

What is the next big thing?

Does the students’ instant embracement of technological changes impulsive or cautious?

Are there any deciding factors for a choice of technological tool?

Can web 2.0 tools be effectively used in the classroom situations?

Does it have any meaningful and positive impact on the way students learn?

Are the impacts short term or long term?

How techno savvy are our educators?

How technological friendly is our education policies?

How technological friendly is our school/college syllabi?

What are the major hindrances for its adaption in our educational system?

Do educators have a choice?

Limitations of the study

The study will be limited to only graduate students of those colleges located in Shillong city

Those Colleges should be affiliated to the North Eastern Hills University.

Methodology

Suitable Methodologies would be likely to be adopted basing on the variables identified:

Choice of variables: the following variables would be considered.

Ordered variable: to test how much the concept of Web 2.0 is present among college undergraduates. To be further divided under various streams (arts, science, commerce, MBA etc)

Nominal variable: using the differentiation of gender (male/female)

Independent variable : factors affecting the choice of technological tools (choosing some technological applications over others)

Dependent variable: how independent variables affect the way they teach, learn, socialise. Overall impacts of independent variables on dependent variables

Confounding variable: factors like openness, receptivity, adaptability etc to technological changes.

The most probable methodologies/tools and techniques that would be adopted are:

Historical Method: tracing the history of technological advancement and its milestones in the world. The purpose of this method is to find out how development of technology affected the way people communicate world over.

More specifically the historical milestones of technology in India till the present and the most commonly used forms of technology in India as compared to the West.

Further, a chapter on how effects of the Communication revolution affect India as multi-diversity country. A section would be provided on technology and indigenous people of Meghalaya.

Survey Method: this method is expected to provide data that can be quantified to validate the hypothesis. A Probability technique of Stratified Random Sampling will be used to collect data on the number of variables stated earlier. The use of various forms/types questionnaires and interviews will also be beneficial for the study.

Content Analysis: this method will provide better understanding as to why some technological channels/media are preferred over others in terms of customised applications.

Experimental and Case studies: These methods will be under consideration. They can be also used in certain areas where the above three could not provide sufficient data.

Any other method not mentioned here would also be likely to be applied as deem fit by the researcher and as required by the study.

Samples:

Population Sample Size: 1500-2000

Sampling Method would also cover the various streams of bachelor education

Population sample would also cover various demographic and geographic categorisations.

Data Analysis

Variables would be analysed in frequencies and percentages. Interval Measurement Scales such as Semantic Differential Scale, Likert’s Scale and other would be used. Data would be quantified using Frequency distribution, Histograms and Inferential statistics.

Accordingly finding to whether support or reject the hypothesis would be made and validated.