"Scott Siddall"
|
|
|
Scott Siddall |
|
Denison University |
What is Web 2.0?
|
|
|
Dot-com bombs of 2001 |
|
Web reinvented |
|
O’Reilly Media conferences in
2004 |
What is Web 2.0?
|
|
|
|
The web as platform |
|
Services that enable
participation |
|
(the “read-write web”) |
|
Strong social basis for many
Web 2.0 applications |
|
Focused, modular,
interoperating tools |
|
NOT an installed desktop
application |
Early Web 2.0 examples
|
|
|
Personal web sites -> blogs |
|
Content management -> wikis |
|
Metadata -> tagging |
|
Britannica Online ->
Wikipedia |
|
Netscape -> Google |
YouTube
Mashups
|
|
|
|
Loosely-coupled,
platform-agnostic services |
|
Maps |
|
Images and video |
|
Search and shop |
|
News |
|
“mashed up” into a new
presentation/tool |
|
Software remixing |
|
Not place-based |
|
Mix and match as needed |
|
Open source (free) or |
|
commercial often with ads |
Mashups
|
|
|
|
|
Three elements |
|
Microcontent with an open
interface or API |
|
Code to glue it together |
|
AJAX |
|
WebDAV (drag and drop) |
|
Web browser for rendering |
|
Need standards for
interoperability |
What are some Web 2.0
services?
|
|
|
Syndication |
|
Word processing |
|
Spreadsheets |
|
Tagging |
|
Searching |
|
…………………………. |
Syndication of content
Geographic data
Mass storage services
The web office
Media tools
Low threshold publishing
- blogs
Wikis for collaboration
Social networks
Social tagging
Tracking the tags
Tags as metadata
Browsing the tags
Shadow tags
Annotations as tags
Folksonomies
Podcasts
An exemplar of Web 2.0
|
|
|
New Media Consortium |
|
|
|
http://www.nmc.org |
Slide 26
Slide 27
Slide 28
Slide 29
Slide 30
Slide 31
Impact on higher
education
|
|
|
|
Lowers the threshold for
publishing |
|
Good and bad |
|
Copyright violations are easier |
|
Quality of writing goes up,
goes down |
|
Active learning, constructivist
methods |
|
Increases opportunity for
collaboration, social learning |
|
Encourages ownership and
distribution of intellectual property |
Impact on higher
education
|
|
|
|
Moves from publishing to
participation |
|
Leverages “smart mob”
approaches, communities |
|
Creates a path of least
resistance |
|
Unstructured but easy to use |
|
Empowering and appealing |
|
Challenges centralized control |
Impact on higher
education
|
|
|
|
It is digital incunabula |
|
new, dynamic, unfinished |
|
It is an attitude as much as
technology |
|
We must learn how to leverage
Web 2.0 |
Web 2.0 in action?
|
|
|
Blogs as alternative course
management system |
|
Wikis for group writing
projects |
|
Netvibes.com to organize
diverse information resources |
|
Google calendar for scheduling
course work |
|
And on and on…. |
Resources
|
|
|
EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative’s “7
Things You Should Know About” series |
|
Mashups: The new breed of Web
app. Duane Merrill, Oct. 2006. |
|
Web 2.0: A new wave of
innovation for teaching and learning? Bryan
Alexander. March/April 2006 EDUCAUSE
Review. |
|
eHub site of Web 2.0
applications. Emily Chang. |
|
Web 2.0…The Machine is Us/ing
Us. Michael Wesch, October, 2006 |
Return to home