Academic journal article Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research

Web 2.0 for the Invigoration and Participation of Families and Communities

Academic journal article Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research

Web 2.0 for the Invigoration and Participation of Families and Communities

Article excerpt

1 INTRODUCTION

The main task of the social educator is the socialization of any individual; more specifically, in the education sphere, this becomes the backbone of his/her conduct with minor and youths, for whom the family and community context become a complex coupling that is difficult to address (García, Gomariz, Hernández, & Parra, 2010; Rodríguez, 2011).

As pointed by Lozano, Alcaraz and Colás (2013), the family participation in educational matters and in the teaching of the students benefit their inclusion in education and school dynamics; these facts induce the social educator to promote the participation of the family and community in school environments, as we as to foster actions to invigorate the cooperation of the family - school - community triad among all the agents that intervene in educational centers.

2 FAMILY AND COMMUNITY INVIGORATION AND PARTICIPATION

As underlined by Cieza (2010, p. 126) "the active recovery, recreation and revitalization of the community is necessary in order to convert them into spaces of social coexistence that allow the citizen to reconquer his/her protagonism (empowerment) in the process of improvement or transformation of his/her social reality".

The educational scenarios are being transformed with the employment of technology (Muñoz & González, 2014), affecting not only the didactic actions in favor of learning as well as the social relations that are taking place in the classroom; therefore, the co-existence of educational institutions are becoming conditioned (García et al., 2010).

At the same time, the families and communities consume technological resources in daily life, as elements for communication and social interaction; the Web 2.0 tools become, then, essential instruments for participation in society, as well as elements for invigorating the family's and community's intervention and cooperation in the education sphere. Social educators, in their role as education agents, cannot be alienated from the possibilities that these technological resources bring to the table for collaboration between families, the community and the school in the search for high-quality education for minors and youths.

3 METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN

The general objective set for this research was to determine the ratings as given by students of the Social Educator degree from the Pablo Olavide University (Seville, Spain) of a set of eleven Web 2.0 tools for the field of intervention in the invigoration and participation of families and communities.

Consequently, the study variables that were used were 11 in total, grouped into a single dimension (rating), taking into account the set of Web 2.0 tools proposed. These were selected following three criteria: the technological resources that are most used in primary and secondary educational centers; the proposal by Hart (2013) that is found in the Center for Learning & Performance Technologies; and the classification elaborated by Castaño, Maiz, Palacio & Villaroel (2008), McGee & Díaz (2007) and Muñoz & González (2014) for categorizing these resources taking into account their functionality in and applicability to the educational system.

A quantitative method was used for this research work, with an ex post facto study method, so that the objective will be reached a posteriori as per Mateo (2012).

The population used for this research came from the students that were enrolled in the four academic years of the Social Educator degree at the Pablo Olavide University (Seville, Spain), that had a total of 227 individuals enrolled in the 2012/2013 academic year (the study period of the research). More specifically, the sample was composed by 188 individuals, from which 82.9% were female, and 17.1% male, with the average age being 22.23.

As for the grouping of the students by their degree year, at the time of the study, 27.7% were on their first year; 26.6% on their second, 24. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.