I read a very interesting article today “Web 2.0 – A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning?” by Bryan Alexander (2006). The article was interesting because it takes a bird’s eye view of Web 2.0 and investigates the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. Thus the author not only identifies the novel aspects of Web 2.0, but also explains the difference and development providing a rather intriguing historic perspective. To me the article has provided the answers to a number of questions that I have been musing about myself for a while. Furthermore, the article offers a very practical angle on the subject by listing and reviewing relevant services that the reader can explore at his or her own leisure.
Alexander points out the difference between the static or database-driven web pages of Web 1.0 and the wikis and blogs of Web 2.0 with timeliness and user modification in focus. He concludes that Web 2.0 is about microcontent at the level of blog entries and tags e.g., whereas the foundation of Web 1.0 is web pages. Furthermore, he offers a very good definition of wikis, namely “streams of conversation, revision, amendment, and truncation (Alexander 2006, p. 33).
Another keyword is openness which again distinguishes Web 2.0 from the more recipient specific e-mail messages and discussion board posts of Web 1.0. Many blogs are open to all net users, and some systems allow the individual user to set up access restrictions from entry to entry, thus determining the level of openness him-/herself.
The ideology or perhaps rather the culture of Web 2.0 can thus be characterised as democratic with very low power distance (Hofstede 1991). This ideology takes on a very physical presence in the “controversial new form of metadata, the folksonomy” (Alexander 2006, p. 34), in which users themselves generate metadata through tagging instead of the traditional hierarchical lists provided by content authorities. Social bookmarking allows people to locate and connect with others who share the same interests thus providing a basis for new learning to take place.
According to Alexander these three concepts together: microcontent, openness and folksonomy constitute “a new way of making, sharing, and consuming digital documents – a way that differs from what we have grown accustomed to” (Alexander 2006, p. 34). Alexander thus reveals himself as a digital immigrant. Feeling comfortable with and taking full advantage of web 2.0 is then one of the characteristic features of the digital natives as put forward by Prensky (2001). See my weblog entry below. The article goes on to list five uses for social bookmarking in higher education (Alexander 2006, p. 36):- Outboard memory: a location to store links
- Magnify one’s work by learning from others, locating new collaborators
- Offer new perspectives - here is a parallel to Stahl’s concepts of perspective-making and perspective-taking (Stahl 2006).
- Multi-authored bookmark pages are useful for team projects – tagging surfaces individual perspectives within the collective
- A bookmark site allows the instructor e.g. to track students’ progress
Alexander goes on to explore social writing platforms – wikis – and highlights their potential for supporting collaboration both when it comes to student group learning, faculty department work and staff in higher education.
Searching within the “blogosphere” and RSS feeds are also covered in the article, but will not be dealt with in this entry.
Not only new practices have arisen as a result of Web 2.0. Alexander points to the new narrative shapes that have also come into existence, such as storytelling by blog, publishing novels through podcast and alternative reality games. He predicts more will come partly due to the low entry barrier (Alexander 2006, p. 42).
Alexander’s article illustrates how well-suited Web 2.0, and its wide offer of social software, is for CSCL – offering the tools necessary for collaboration in terms of identifying and locating interesting and relevant people and material and providing platforms for individual and collaborative reflection and production of content that will record the learning that has taken place.
Literature:
Alexander, Bryan (2006). Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning? EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 41, no. 2 (March/April 2006): 32–44. Online: http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0621.pdf
Hofstede, Geert (1991): Cultures and organisatons – software of the mind. London. Harper Collins
Stahl, Gerry (2006). Group Cognition – Computer Support for Building Collaborative Knowledge. MIT Press
Keywords: blogs, CSCL, e-learning, folksonomy, microcontent, openness, Web 1.0, Web 2.0
