I asked this question because I really only had a vague idea of what Web 2.0 technologies referred to. I must say that I know more now than what I did.
As stated in a reading by Conole (2010), the term Web 2.0 was defined by Tim O’ Reilly as emerging tools and services that make the web more participatory rather than the web been a source of information. More simplistically, Wheeler (2012) says that Web 1.0 technology was about downloads and Web 2.0 technologies are about uploads. O’ Reilly (2005) says the Web 2.0 technologies are characterised by user-generated content and peer critiquing. The common features are that they all require active participation and incorporate collective intelligence through social aggregation of resources (Canole, 2010).
The Web 2.0 era is seen as adding value and has made it
possible for mass self -publication. People everywhere are using the web to
broadcast, publish, share ideas, be creative.
It has allowed for natural, progressive engagement within online
participatory media culture (Wheeler, 2012). Wheeler also states that Web 2.0
technologies require the adoption of a new mind-set and a new culture for many
professionals – the culture of Web 2.0. He
further states that it’s important to recognise the significance of each tool
and how each can be used effectively in all variations and also its
combinations with other tools. As stated in a reading by Conole (2010), the term Web 2.0 was defined by Tim O’ Reilly as emerging tools and services that make the web more participatory rather than the web been a source of information. More simplistically, Wheeler (2012) says that Web 1.0 technology was about downloads and Web 2.0 technologies are about uploads. O’ Reilly (2005) says the Web 2.0 technologies are characterised by user-generated content and peer critiquing. The common features are that they all require active participation and incorporate collective intelligence through social aggregation of resources (Canole, 2010).
According to O’Reilly (2005), Web 2.0 technologies ‘embrace the power of the web to harness collective intelligiences’. He suggests that there are certain characteristics collated together in the table below.
Web 2.0 characteristics
|
Example
|
1. The web is now viewed as a platform that has ‘a set of principles
and practices’ that bring things together
|
E,g Google as a platform has enabled many participatory features
|
2. Tools that allow the ‘collection of intelligences’ e.g
hyperlinking, google, yahoo, ebay, Wikipedia, flickr
|
Hyperlinking-allows for web connections
Yahoo – search engines plus it has moved into creating different
types of content – portals of collective work
Google – uses the link structure of the web to provide better
research results
Ebay – growth in response to user activity with a commercial base
Amazon – online selling but also encourages participation with
product reviews. Uses this activity to
produce better results
Wikipedia – online encyclopedia – entry’s added by web
user-participatory for content creation
Flickr – form of collaborative catergorization
Allows for Tagging-which is
overlapping of catergorizing
Blogging-defined simply as a personal home page in diary format. Web
developers are aiming to create a blogosphere which is type of global brain
where there is constant mental chatter.
RSS-subscribes user to a page, receive notification if any changes.
Users can also access others sites, comments and see who else has links to
their pages
Mash-ups –using sound, videos, images, text to create entirely new content
|
3. Specialised databases
|
Living laboratories – sharing research etc
|
4. Users become ‘co-developers’
|
Open source development
Constant ‘re-builds’ of major sites e.g hourly
|
5. Software can be used over multiple devices
|
More devices can be connected to a single platform
|
Canole,G. (2010) Facilitating new forms of discourse for learning and teaching: harnessing the power of Web 2.0 practices, Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 25:2, 141 -151
O’Reilly, T. (2005) What is Web 2.0 ? Retrieved 16.03.2014 from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
Wheeler, S. (2012) Digital literacies for engagement in emerging online cultures. eLC Research Paper Series, 5 (1), 14-25.
http://web2teacher.blogspot.co.nz/O’Reilly, T. (2005) What is Web 2.0 ? Retrieved 16.03.2014 from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
Wheeler, S. (2012) Digital literacies for engagement in emerging online cultures. eLC Research Paper Series, 5 (1), 14-25.
As I was researching Web 2.0 technologies, O'Reilly stated that Web 2.0 developers are trying to turn the web into a type of global brain. He uses the example of the 'blogosphere' which is equivalent to constant mental chatter in our brain, similar to the voice we hear in our head. Is this what is happening with tools such as 'twitter', 'instagram' and so on?
ReplyDeleteWhere will the peace and tranquillity be?
Lankshear and Knobel (2006) also provide a good comparison between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 representations, and the corresponding mindsets for each of these. It seems to me to be reflective of the difference between earlier models of education (where the tutor ‘imparts’ knowledge) to later models where students participate in their own knowledge construction.
ReplyDeleteYou comment Sue on ‘mass self-publication’ – unfortunately as we all know, quantity doesn’t mean quality! While critical literacy has always been important, even prior to the explosion of Web 2.0 tools, it is perhaps, as Wright (2010) suggests, especially so now?
If one is to do a Google search on any topic of interest, the returned links are generally overwhelming. I encounter this frequently in my work as an IT professional, and am able to quickly scan sites or discussion forums to determine the calibre of responses. But to be able to filter through this overload of information to locate valid, reliable knowledge is not really an inborn skill.
Those of you working with students at NZQA certification level 3+ may be able to share how you assist students to determine the standard and reliability of information they may come across when using the internet?
****************************************
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). Blogging as participation: The active sociality of a new literacy. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.135.3944 doi:10.1.1.135.3944
Wright, N. (2010). e-Learning and implications for New Zealand schools: A literature review. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications
Hi Sue
ReplyDeleteA good question to ask and answer. In text citation is solid too. Referencing on a blog is hard to do the correct formatting but check it before you submit Assessment 1. Also keep in mind how we need to write around 500 plus words so that by putting 4-5 in our Assessment 1 we end up with the required word count. The answer to your question could have more explanation e.g. further information on how Web 2 has more active participation in that you "write" to Web 2, rather than the more "read" of Web 1. Not sure how useful the table is at adding more information to the topic. e.g. what is a 'set of principles and practices'
Hi Helen
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. I created the table as a way of recording features of Web 2.0 technologies and then listing examples. I did not elaborate further as I was concerned that I was over the word count.