Year 2007, Volume 8 , Issue 3, Pages 16 - 33 2007-09-01

Web 2.0 Learning Platform: Harnessing Collective Intelligence

P. Clint ROGERS [1] , Stephen W. LIDDLE [2] , Peter CHAN [3] , Aaron DOXEY [4] , Brady ISOM [5]

The rate of technological diffusion and the pace at which technology is altering how and with whom we connect is astounding. Although not at the same pace, theoretical views of learning and teaching are also changing. Whereas much of the initial e-learning simply patterned old models of teaching and learning, the new technological possibilities and realities encourage us to think differently about what is meant by education (Brown, 2000). In this paper, we provide a stepping stone in some of the theoretical background, history, and possibilities for learning systems and platforms in the Web 2.0 era. We share a case study that reflects the experiences of a small university that is moving towards E-Learning 2.0 while simultaneously increasing interoperability by using e-learning standards reflected in the widely-used reference model called SCORM (Sharable Content Object Reference Model). We also highlight the strengths and weaknesses of SCORM in allowing for learning management systems to have a Web 2.0 character.
Web 2.0; E-Learning 2.0; SCORM; Learning Standards.
  • Beck, R.J. (2003). Online list of learning object collections. Retrieved February 2, from the World Wide Web:
  • Blackmon, B. (2007). ADL and SCORM Update. Presented at the ID+SCORM conference, Provo, UT.
  • Blumen, R. (2003). Knowledge Capitalism: Business, work, and learning in the new economy. Economic Affairs 23(3), 58–59.
  • Brown, J.S. (2000). Growing Up Digital: How the Web Changes Work, Education, and the Ways People Learn. Change. Retrieved from on 1/31/2007.
  • Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
  • Bush, M. D. (2002). Connecting Instructional Design to International Standards for
  • Content Reusability, Educational Technology, 42(6), 5-13. Retrieved from on 6/13/2007.
  • Carnevale, D. 2006. E-Mail is for old people. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 53(7): A27.
  • Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale,
  • NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Downes, S. (2003). Commentary: Design, Standards and Reusability. Retrieved from on 6/13/2007.
  • Downes, S. (2006). Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge. IT Forum.
  • Retrieved on Jan 29, 2007 from the World Wide Web:
  • Duke Digital Initiative. (2006). iPods at Duke. Retrieved from
  • Ferris, S. P., & Wilder, H. (2006). Uses and potentials of wikis in the classroom.
  • Innovate 2 (5). Retrieved from on 6/14/2007.
  • Glogoff, S. (2005). Instructional blogging: Promoting interactivity, student-centered learning, and peer input. Innovate 1 (5). Retrieved on 6/14/2007.
  • Hodgins, H. W. (2000). Into the future: A vision paper. Commission on Technology and Adult Learning. Retrieved from on 6/13/2007.
  • Hylen, J. (2006). Open Educational Resources: Opportunities and Challenges.
  • Presented at OpenEd 2006, Logan, UT. Retrieved from on 1/29/2007.
  • Inouye, D. (2004). Learning and teaching in the latter-days: A general education in honors experiment. Retrieved from on /28/2007.
  • Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
  • Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lohnes, S., & Kinzer, C. (2007). Questioning Assumptions about Student’s
  • Expectations for Technology in College Classrooms. Innovate 3 (5). Retrieved from on 6/14/2007.
  • Masie (2003). Making Sense of Learning Specifications & Standards: A decision maker’s guide to their adoption, version 2. The MASIE Center. Saratoga Springs, New
  • York. Retrieved from on /13/2007.
  • Mejias, U. (2006). Teaching social software with social software. Innovate 2 (5).
  • Retrieved from on /14/2007.
  • Miller, G., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. (1960). Plans and the Structure of Behavior.
  • New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (Eds.). (2005). Educating the Net Generation. Boulder, CO:
  • EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from on 6/14/2007.
  • O’Hear, S. (2006). e-learning 2.0 - how Web technologies are shaping education.
  • Read/Write Web. Retrieved February 3, 2007 from the World Wide Web:
  • O’Reilly, T. (2005). What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Retrieved from html on 2/02/2007.
  • Parish, P. (2004) The Trouble with Learning Objects. Educational Technology
  • Research and Development 52(1). Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon 9 (5).
  • Retrieved from on 6/14/2007.
  • Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1984). Computation and Cognition: Toward a Foundation for
  • Cognitive Science. Cambridge: MIT Press. Reigeluth, C. M. (1994) Introduction: The imperative for systemic change. In
  • Reigeluth, C. M. & Garfinkle, R. J. (Eds.) Systemic Change in Education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications, pp. 3-12. Reusable Learning. (2007). Reusable Learning:SCORM Primer. Retrieved from on 6/13/2007.
  • Roberts, G. (2005). Technology and learning expectations of the Net Generation. In
  • Educating the Net Generation, eds. D. Oblinger and J. Oblinger, 3.1-3.7. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE. Retrieved from on 6/14/2007.
  • Rogers, P.C., Liddle, S.W., Allen, C. (2007, May). Moving from E-Learning 1.0 to E
  • Learning 2.0: A global community learning platform. Presented at the 11th Annual Global Chinese Conference on Computers in Education, Guanzhou, China. Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J.L., & the PDP Research Group. (1986). Parallel
  • Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. Vol. 1: Foundations. Cambridge: MIT Press. SCORM 2004 3rd Ed. – CAM. Retrieved from on 2/11/2007.
  • Searle, J. (1984). Mind, Brains and Science. London: British Broadcasting Corporation.
  • Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age.
  • Elearnspace. Retrieved on February 3, 2007 from the World Wide Web:
  • Skinner, B. F. (1968) The Technology of Teaching. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts.
  • Skinner, B. F. (1972) Beyond Freedom and Dignity. New York: Knopf.
  • Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2002). Retrieved from on 2/03/2007.
  • Tapscott, D. & Williams, A.D. (2006) Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. New York: Penguin Books.
  • Thompson, J. (2007). Is Education 1.0 Ready for Web 2.0 Students? Innovate 3 (4).
  • Retrieved from on /14/2007.
  • 2006. Web 2.0. Retrieved from on 6/14/2007.
  • Wiley, D. A. (2000). “Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy,” in D. A. Wiley, ed., The Instructional Use of
  • Learning Objects: Online Version. Retrieved from
Primary Language en
Journal Section Articles

Author: P. Clint ROGERS

Author: Stephen W. LIDDLE

Author: Peter CHAN

Author: Aaron DOXEY

Author: Brady ISOM


Application Date : February 27, 2015
Acceptance Date : December 1, 2020
Publication Date : September 1, 2007

APA Rogers, P , Lıddle, S , Chan, P , Doxey, A , Isom, B . (2007). Web 2.0 Learning Platform: Harnessing Collective Intelligence . Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education , 8 (3) , 16-33 . Retrieved from