Why NOT Web 2.0 in Art & Museum Education
[Do NOT quote this and attribute it to me - I am playing devil's advocate here and am thinking outloud (or through my fingers) about why people argue against Web 2.0. This is an exercise and is in draft format, not my real beliefs]
Though I just categorized this as a justification for using Web 2.0, I'm going to argue the opposite here. All my loyal readers know I love Web 2.0 and think it has fantastic potential, but here I'm going to try to argue the opposite viewpoint. I am specifically thinking of reasons why Web 2.0 should not be used in art and museum education.
1. Teachers have too much to do already and don't have time to try anything new.
2. It's too dangerous to have students do work online.
3. Students are already savvy enough with technology through their uses of cel phones, IM, texting, computers, MySpace, etc.
4. Web 2.0 is not educational and is more about social networking than learning.
5. Museums cannot allow users to have the freedom to comment on works of art or ideas because visitors may mis-use this and post inappropriate material.
6. Museums do not have the time or staff to commit to this type of endeavor.
7. Museums need to make sure that their message is consistent in all forms.
8. People go to museums to learn from the staff and should not be reading information that may be conflicting on a Web site.
9. Museum educators (or other personnel) do not have the time or interest to try Web 2.0.
Comments
I think you bring up some valid points that people may actually hold to be true.
I think that learning and school is about socialization and that if we don't learn with and from our students how best to use 2.0, then we're the ones missing out. The social structure and elements of 2.0 are there. We can use them for education or not. It's up to us really.
Look at what VMFA did with the podcasts. It was a cool experience that we got to make casual commentaries for download. This was less risky than keeping it open to the general public, but there are ways that museums could protect their interests and still participate in the culture. How can they reach today's young people if they stay rooted in the 20th century?
What happens to the teachers who don't have time for new material when 2.0 is outdated and there are technologies out there that far exceed what is now possible? Will they still not have time for the new? Will anyone listen or be able to hear what they have to say?
Posted by: katie | October 6, 2007 5:05 PM
One of the things that I think can help teachers is "REAL" professional development. Much of what passes for professional development is not rigorous and may not help teachers stay current. However, what teachers also need is simply more time in the day to complete all that they are expected to do. If we want good education for our students, I think we need to recognize that it will not be cheap. If we want cheap education, we need to recognize that it may not be good. I do not know how we, as a society, will be able to have good and cheap public education.
Posted by: Melanie | October 16, 2007 3:26 PM
Good and cheap don't really go together in my opinion. Is there any such thing? Think about food, shoes, or clothes...If it's really good (sustainably made, fair wages paid, quality ingredients/materials, quality look/taste), it's most likely not cheap and if it's cheap, it's almost assuredly not good. So why is it that we're looking to combine these two things in education? Who's idea was that and how can we change their mind?
Posted by: Katie | October 23, 2007 10:18 AM