1. Curriculum 2.0 ? Changes in information science education for a Web 2.0 world David Bawden City University London

2. Contributors  David Bawden, Lyn Robinson (London)  Theresa Anderson (Sydney)  Jessica Bates (Dublin)  Ugne Rutkauskiene (Vilnius)  Polona Vilar (Ljubljana)

3. Web 2.0 and LIS education  Five case studies (proceedings)  Several common themes

4. Web 2.0 ?  Some confusion as to exactly what it includes  Definition not important  User-generated content, social networking and tagging, social media  Blogs, wikis, podcasts, MySpace, Facebook, Flickr, delic. i.ous etc.

5. Web 2.0  Important feature in LIS professional life …. in everybody’s life ?  Increasingly important educational tool

6. Curriculum 2.0 ?  Enabling students to learn about Web 2.0 Understand future information environment  By using Web 2.0 tools in teaching Better student experience  Integrate theory and practice Teach about Web 2 by using Web 2

7. Introducing Curriculum 2.0 - some lessons  Incremental advances  Professors can use Web 2.0 …  Build on e-learning  Plan and evaluate  Full curriculum  Think local

8. Incremental advances  Build on students’ enthusiasm  Respect worries of professors (and some students)  Not ‘for the sake of it’  For appropriate purposes and topics

9. Examples  Whole courses dealing with ‘web 2.0’, developed from ‘Internet’  Web 2.0 issues in courses on knowledge organisation, web design, foundations of LIS, publishing  Blogs, wikis, podcasts, vidcasts, social bookmarking etc. as teaching tools

10. Professors can use Web 2.0  Adds credibility  Builds expertise  Examples  Blogs for course administration ad recruitment  Wikis for course materials  Professional Facebook groups

11. Build on e-learning  Natural extension, aids acceptance  Add Web 2.0 features  Replace older features, e.g. replace discussion boards by blogs  Like e-learning, may be top-down or bottom up

12. Plan and evaluate  No room for ‘amateurism’  Whatever is done must be good or lose credibility  Ideally, introduce incrementally bottom-up, within a clear top-down framwork  Evaluation of effectiveness of methods and suitability of topics needed

13. Full curriculum  Sensible to cover all potentially relevant aspects of Web 2.0  Technical and social  Still unclear which will have long-term significance  Do not restrict to ‘library’ applications

14. Think local  No ‘grand solution’  Build on what is feasible and acceptable locally  Look for good practice but don’t copy others  The five case studies were all very different ….

15. Curriculum 2.0  Prepares students better for a ‘web 2 world’  Gives credibility to LIS teaching  Helps overcome an ‘old fashioned’ image  Improves teaching quality  IF … it is done well