Steven H. Stumpf, EdD

Web 2.0 applications bring the opportunity to reduce costs while meeting obligations. The challenge is assessing the cost/value relationship. In some cases this is easy, e.g., striking a deal with Google to take over institutional email - including service - is a no-brainer. Not as simple with other appealing opportunities.

What about online surveys? Collecting data to meet requirements, e.g., quality improvement, graduate placements, poses significant challenges for organizations typically under-funded and over-obligated. No-cost online survey sites can put stars in administrators' eyes. However, as with blog-hosting sites, the no-cost choice offers a smidgen of control compared to the low-cost choice which can offer complete control. The difference in capital outlay can be a few hundred dollars.

For responders the presence of commercial ads on your survey site can be confusing. The option to export a data matrix (instead of accepting percentage outcomes) is a significant advantage for data crunching. And how about linking respondents to an ID code? This feature can be crucial for some reporting. The ability to manipulate graphics and scoring templates to reflect the organizational look is a bonus you will learn to appreciate.

As competition increases among Web 2.0 providers the opportunities for organizations on a tight budget improve. Value can be gained investing with a consultant who has invested in survey tool software just beyond Web 2.0 free-ware. Expect more service, added value and funder-pleasing reports.

Our manuscript titled Divining Integrative Medicine (authors S Stumpf, S Shapiro and M Hardy) describes issues that must be weighed in finding a suitable and widely acceptable definition for integrative medicine. The mansucript was accepted recently by Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine and will be published shortly. The journal is available online at no cost which is a tremendous advantage and the Web2.0 way. When the manuscript was in peer review the question was posed why I used the term "divining" in the title, a word considered old-fashioned, out of context. I explained I was having a little fun playing with “defining” while trying to make our point about how the absence of definition leaves it to the consumer and medicine in general to figure out what exactly is integrative medicine. Make no mistake about it. As authors we firmly believe integrative medicine is here to stay. We also recognize there will be many changes before the final discipline is established…or should I say before the discipline is finally established? I was pleased to receive my first comment from Sonya Pritzker, a licensed TCM provider and a UCLA doctorate student interested in medical anthropology (she read a pre-pub draft). Words mean a lot to Sonya. I hope you will read what she has to say on the question of not only what exactly is integrative medicine but the importance of methodology in arriving at a suitable definition.

The (slowly) burning question is how exactly wikis, blogs, handheld devices, YouTube, MUVEs, and social networking sites fit into a new pedagogy for learning. For people working in this space FUD (F = Fear, U = Uncertainty, D = Doubt) faded in their rear view mirrors long ago.

Employing the "new" methods and applications is inevitable and unavoidable. Those who are already in the "new" mainstream (some may not know it) post digital images (Mongolian street children here, Dede powerpoint screenshot below) online so our friends and family can see them (flickr), post or access videos online (YouTube, see below), and keep up to date on topics of interest where thoughts can be shared (blogs).

How are these platforms, applications, devices and networks actually shaping a new pedagogy? You might download and review Chris Dede's powerpoint from 2005-2006 from the AACU site for big picture concepts, such as "distributed learning across time, space and media".

A streaming video ("The Machine is US/ing us") created by Kansas State professor Mike Wesch entertains while it teaches. He plays with what Web 2.0 means in the most concrete and abstract senses. The subtext is that anyone with well-developed basic skills can entertain and educate using the new methods for communicating...on no-cost platforms featuring tools formerly reserved for DOD contractors and media giants. By contrast, a more traditional lecture describing Web 2.0 is linked from the Wesch video. Production values are less impressive but the content does provide relevant overview information.

Wesch and Dede grapple with large scale ideas about where and how Web 2.0 fits in the educational landscape. Both teachers are moving quickly to keep up with a reality being shaped faster than it is being understood.

How can we be sure Web 2.0 has legs? The world's largest survey vendor/opinion researcher announced their new opinion gathering tool, Hey! Nielsen? It's a survey! It's an exit poll! It's a social networking community created for the express purpose of extracting tons of data! Here is a recent news article weighing the strategic risks.

I have a ground-level story about how reality has changed my brother-in-law's business. For the first time he is using a blog to help manage a large scale project. The participants/partners learn (at their convenience) what other important players in the project (around the state) are thinking about topics that must be digested in order to move the project forward. What are the participants posting to the blog? Opinions, articles, images, videos. How does this move things forward? "We reserve face-to-face meetings for the most consequential decisions. Everyone arrives informed on the basic choices and the relevant issues".

Professional schools that ensure students have every opportunity to master these emerging technologies will become more competitive as their graduates (and faculty) become leaders in shaping the new pedagogy.

The new communication methods are not replacements for face-to-face learning. They enhance, enrich, deepen and broaden learning in new and individualized ways. This entry is an example of how I like to mix media using these new platforms. Be sure you look at the Chris Dede presentation. He describes four levels of learning technologies: device, application, medium, infrastructure (are they hierarchical?). Exciting isn't it? Let us know your thoughts.