If you don’t have a thorough understanding of Web 2.0, Malcolm Brown wrote a good article in this month’s EDUCAUSE Review with a table (below) that compares the characteristics of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0.
Table 1. Characteristics of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0
| Web 1.0 | Web 2.0 |
|---|---|
| Publishing | Participation |
| Content management, presentation | Content reappropriation (e.g., mashups) |
| Individual, large-scale Web sites | Blogs, wikis |
| Directories | Tagging |
| Users observe, “listen to” Web sites | Users add value, co-create |
| Subscription services | Low-cost or free services |
| They, the media (control held by a few) | We, the media (we create the media) |
| Macro-content | Micro-content |
| Authority is key | Collective decision-making |
| Versions and major releases | Continuous micro-enhancement |
| Creator defines content, design | User defines content, design (e.g., Web desktop) |
| Taxonomy | Folksonomy |
| Value indifferent to amount of usage | Value increases the more it is used |
| Business model | Blogosphere |
| In author we trust | In users we trust |
| Harnessing of authoritys intelligence | Harnessing of collective intelligence |
| Best-sellers | The “Long Tail” |
| Control | Cooperation |
| Example: Encyclopedia Britannica | Example: Wikipedia |
Brown writes that “Web 2.0 models the very active engagement that is central to the learning paradigm and Web 1.0 models the teaching paradigm.” He suggests layering the ‘new’ (2.0) atop the ‘old’ (1.0). I’m not sure if layering is the right way to describe using 1.0 and 2.0 together. Don’t we do that now? I don’t know of anyone who’s thrown away 1.0. His goal, I think, is to get us thinking less about replacing 1.0 with 2.0 but instead, using the best of 1.0 and adding the best of 2.0 [ideally to improve learning outcomes]. I think his message too is one of cautiousness and adaptability- don’t be a train-o-saur and don’t be a techno-borg. I think cohabitating is a better metaphor (too racy!). Anyway, I like the chart and the message.
Facebook/Janet Clarey
LinkedIn/jclarey
Twitter/jclarey
Skype/janetclarey
GMail/JClarey
Blog/Instructional Design
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Yes, excellent chart. It is a good way to see that blending (mashing) the two can help in making the transition for those who struggle with using web2 tools. I like how the chart illustrates the correlation between the two – will be something useful to use with teachers as we try to make use of more web2 tools. Thanks!
Re:[ideally to improve learning outcomes]
This makes me think “What is the relationship between Web 2.0 and learning?â€
Thinking of Web 2.0 as an isolated agent to enhance learning outcomes is a little treacherous.
When thinking about the social and cultural impact of Web 2.0 on teaching and learning, perhaps we should ask, “How does Web 2.0 use teaching and learning?â€
I am not sure what I think the answer will be yet but an example of ICT using teaching and learning is reported in The University of London Institute of Education evaluation of the Schools Whiteboard Expansion (SWE) Project (2007). Researchers found the use of a technology marketed as bringing interactivity into classrooms led “to some relatively mundane activities being overvalued.†(p.7) and reduced classroom interactivity to a point where students were immobilised by the screen.
The technology can:
Reinforce a transmission style of whole class teaching in which the contents of the board multiply and go faster, whilst pupils are increasingly reduced to a largely spectator role (p.8)
Well, you’ve definitely got me think here re: the relationship between Web 2.0 and learning…
“Web 2.0 as an isolated (don’t like that word in this context) agent to enhance learning outcomes” and “How does Web 2.0 use teaching and learning?â€
My feeling about tools is that we use them to advance learning and learning outcomes are measured by determining how well those tools advanced learning (compared to other tools). If we look at early technology (the rock as a tool to survive in prehistoric times) then we would be saying (using the example)’the use of the stone tool marketed as having the ability to supply more food led to…an abundance of food, the ability to have more food at hand, and (negative connotation) less physical activity.” So rather than saying ‘the rock is an agent that can enhance survival outcomes’ we’d be asking ‘how does the rock impact survival?’ The first statement is more strategy-driven – ‘did the tool enhance survival?’. The second asks how.
These statements though don’t take into account the effect of the tool. If a tool marketed as improving the amount of food available but causes a decline in physical activity than a new issue is raised. In the SWE example it sounds like the wrong tool is being used or the tool is not being used properly. What tool was used? What method was used to ‘teach’?
Re:[ideally to improve learning outcomes]
This makes me think “What is the relationship between Web 2.0 and learning?â€
Thinking of Web 2.0 as an isolated agent to enhance learning outcomes is a little treacherous.
When thinking about the social and cultural impact of Web 2.0 on teaching and learning, perhaps we should ask, “How does Web 2.0 use teaching and learning?â€
I am not sure what I think the answer will be yet but an example of ICT using teaching and learning is reported in The University of London Institute of Education evaluation of the Schools Whiteboard Expansion (SWE) Project (2007). Researchers found the use of a technology marketed as bringing interactivity into classrooms led “to some relatively mundane activities being overvalued.†(p.7) and reduced classroom interactivity to a point where students were immobilised by the screen.
The technology can:
Reinforce a transmission style of whole class teaching in which the contents of the board multiply and go faster, whilst pupils are increasingly reduced to a largely spectator role (p.8)