Social Software

908 views
859 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Design
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
908
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Social Software

  1. 1. Social software for teaching and learning: Web 2.0, early 2008 NITLE Workshop to go
  2. 2. Plan of the talk <ul><li>Web 2.0 </li></ul><ul><li>Rich media web 2.0 </li></ul><ul><li>More pedagogies </li></ul><ul><li>New forms </li></ul>(Vermont county fair, fall 2007)
  3. 3. Thematics <ul><li>Emergence in </li></ul><ul><li>time and space </li></ul><ul><li>Pedagogy </li></ul><ul><li>Open determinism </li></ul>(Radio Open Source blog/podcast, 2006)
  4. 4. One problem <ul><li>How to apprehend emerging technologies? </li></ul><ul><li>Panic/siege mode </li></ul><ul><li>Vendors </li></ul><ul><li>Futurism methods </li></ul><ul><li>Networks </li></ul>
  5. 5. One metaphor <ul><li>Web 2.0 and education is like gaming and education: awareness is challenging </li></ul><ul><li>Huge, financially and quantitatively successful worlds </li></ul><ul><li>Global and rapidly developing scope </li></ul><ul><li>Bad anxieties, policies, and media coverage </li></ul><ul><li>Perceived lack of seriousness </li></ul>
  6. 6. One metaphor <ul><li>Web 2.0 and education is like gaming and education: intersections are possible </li></ul><ul><li>Take advantage of preexisting projects </li></ul><ul><li>Mod/warp/hack </li></ul><ul><li>DIY </li></ul><ul><li>Literacy: new media </li></ul><ul><li>Influence </li></ul>(World of Warcraft)
  7. 7. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>The term’s history: Tim O’Reilly, 2005 </li></ul><ul><li>Expands “social software” </li></ul><ul><li>Draws on Web history </li></ul>
  8. 8. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Microcontent, rather than sites or large documents </li></ul>(NITLE blog)
  9. 9. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Multiply authored microcontent </li></ul>
  10. 10. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Open content and/or services and/or standards… </li></ul>(Pepysblog, 2003-)
  11. 11. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>… leading to networked conversations </li></ul>(Pepysblog, 2003-)
  12. 12. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Data mashups </li></ul>(Google Maps meets Twitter)
  13. 13. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Perpetual beta (O’Reilly, now history) </li></ul>
  14. 14. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>O’Reilly: platforms for development </li></ul>
  15. 15. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Web 2.0 components, movements </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborative writing platforms: the wiki way </li></ul>
  16. 16. I. Web 2.0 Research: wikis are textually productive -Viégas, Wattenberg, Dave (IBM, 2004)
  17. 17. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Web 2.0 components, movements </li></ul><ul><li>collaborative writing platforms: the blogosphere </li></ul>
  18. 18. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Addressable content chunks </li></ul>
  19. 19. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Distributed and/or attached conversations </li></ul>
  20. 20. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>State of the blogosphere </li></ul><ul><li>70 million blogs tracked by Technorati: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Technorati is now tracking over 70 million weblogs, and we're seeing about 120,000 new weblogs being created worldwide each day. That's about 1.4 blogs created every second of every day.” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(David Sifry, April 2007 ) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Chart follows… </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21. I. Web 2.0
  22. 22. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>State of the blogosphere, more </li></ul><ul><li>12 people million using three platforms, including LiveJournal: majority women (Anil Dash, MeshForum 2006) </li></ul><ul><li>Diversity: diaries, public intellectuals, carnivals, knitters, moblogs, warblogs home and abroad… </li></ul>
  23. 23. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Web 2.0 components, movements: social objects </li></ul>http:// flickr.com / <ul><li>Photo sharing: </li></ul><ul><li> Flickr </li></ul>
  24. 24. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Reach of Flickr </li></ul><ul><li>100 million images, as of Feb 2006 </li></ul><ul><li>As of October 2006, 4 million Flickr members (3/4 not in the US) </li></ul><ul><li>1 million photos uploaded each day </li></ul><ul><li>( http://www.radioopensource.org/photography-20/ ) </li></ul>
  25. 25. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Reach of Flickr </li></ul><ul><li>26 million searchable, shareable images in Flickr (December 2006) </li></ul><ul><li>Metadata is good enough </li></ul><ul><li>Gaming inspiration </li></ul>(Ben Harris-Roxas, 2006)
  26. 26. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Social news: </li></ul><ul><li>Memeorandum, Tailrank, Digg, TechMeme </li></ul>
  27. 27. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Social bookmarking </li></ul><ul><li>Del.icio.us </li></ul><ul><li>Also Furl, Scholar.com, StumbleUpon, Digg, Reddit, MyWeb (Yahoo) </li></ul>
  28. 28. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Social object: the person </li></ul><ul><li>FaceBook </li></ul><ul><li>MySpace </li></ul><ul><li>LinkedIn </li></ul><ul><li>ZoomInfo </li></ul><ul><li>CyWorld </li></ul>“ Less than four years after its launch, 15 million people, or almost a third of the country's population, are members.” ( BusinessWeek , September 2005)
  29. 29. <ul><li>This </li></ul><ul><li>can </li></ul><ul><li>be a </li></ul><ul><li>bit overwhelming </li></ul>(“Online Communities” XKCD April 2007 )
  30. 30. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>What can we learn from this? Ton Zylstra: </li></ul><ul><li>“ In general you could say that both Flickr and del.icio.us work in a triangle: person, picture/bookmark, and tag(s). Or more abstract a person, an object of sociality , and some descriptor...” </li></ul>
  31. 31. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>“…In every triangle there always needs to be a person and an object of sociality . The third point of the triangle is free to define[,] as it were.” </li></ul><ul><li>- http://www.zylstra.org , 2006 </li></ul><ul><li>(emphases added) </li></ul>
  32. 32. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>New forms: folksonomy </li></ul><ul><li>Search </li></ul><ul><li>Retrieval </li></ul><ul><li>Self-awareness </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://del.icio.us/ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>for DoctorNemo </li></ul></ul>
  33. 33. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Community surfacing </li></ul><ul><li>Ontology </li></ul><ul><li>Concepts </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborative research </li></ul>
  34. 34. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Tagging museums: the Steve project </li></ul><ul><li>Users tag differently </li></ul><ul><li>Curators get it </li></ul>(Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2004)
  35. 35. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Tagging libraries: PennTags </li></ul><ul><li>Coded locally </li></ul><ul><li>Also tags the open web </li></ul>http://tags.library.upenn.edu/
  36. 36. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Components, movements </li></ul><ul><li>Mixing and mashing: </li></ul><ul><li>the RSS feed </li></ul>
  37. 37. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>-Alex Iskold, The Read/Write Web , April 2007 </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/the_future_of_rss.php </li></ul>“ RSS is basically a filtered push - the user subscribes (pulls in) to channels that he/she likes, and after that content is delivered automatically.”
  38. 38. II. Web 2.0 and rich media <ul><li>Web 2.0 influences rich media </li></ul><ul><li>Podcasting </li></ul>
  39. 39. II. Web 2.0 and rich media <ul><li>How old is the term? “… all the ingredients are there for a new boom in amateur radio. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>But what to call it? Audioblogging? Podcasting ? GuerillaMedia?” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>(Ben Hammersley, The Guardian </li></ul><ul><li>February 12, 2004) </li></ul>
  40. 40. II. Web 2.0 and rich media <ul><li>What’s happened since February 2004? </li></ul>
  41. 41. II. Web 2.0 and rich media <ul><li>What’s happened since “podcasting” in 2001? Neologisms: </li></ul><ul><li>godcasting </li></ul><ul><li>nanocasting </li></ul><ul><li>podfading </li></ul><ul><li>podsafe </li></ul><ul><li>podspamming </li></ul><ul><li>podvertising </li></ul><ul><li>porncasting </li></ul>
  42. 42. II. Web 2.0 and rich media <ul><li>Web 2.0 influences rich media: more audio </li></ul><ul><li>Freesound archive </li></ul><ul><li>DIY copyright </li></ul><ul><li>Social networking values </li></ul>(http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/)
  43. 43. II. Web 2.0 and rich media <ul><li>Web 2.0 influences rich media: video </li></ul>(Gootube? Suetube?)
  44. 44. II. Web 2.0 and rich media <ul><li>Videoblogging </li></ul><ul><li>(vlog? </li></ul><ul><li>vog?) </li></ul>(Rocketboom, Amanda Congdon) (already moved on) (Ask a Ninja)
  45. 45. III. Web 2.0 pedagogies <ul><li>Teaching with Web 2.0: it’s not all new </li></ul><ul><li>- Web 1.0, internet pedagogies </li></ul><ul><li>Hypertext </li></ul><ul><li>Web audience </li></ul><ul><li>Discussion fora </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborative document authoring </li></ul><ul><li>Groupware </li></ul>
  46. 46. III. Web 2.0 pedagogies <ul><li>Teaching with Web 2.0: it’s not all new </li></ul><ul><li>Earlier pedagogies </li></ul><ul><li>Journaling </li></ul><ul><li>Media literacy </li></ul>
  47. 47. III. Web 2.0 pedagogies <ul><li>Teaching with Web 2.0: CMS involvement </li></ul><ul><li>Moodle modules </li></ul>
  48. 48. III. Web 2.0 pedagogies <ul><li>Teaching with Web 2.0: Blackboard Beyond </li></ul>
  49. 49. III. Web 2.0 pedagogies <ul><li>Teaching with Web 2.0: principles </li></ul><ul><li>Distributed </li></ul><ul><li>conversation </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborative </li></ul><ul><li>writing </li></ul><ul><li>Object-oriented </li></ul><ul><li>discussion </li></ul>http://smarthistory.blogspot.com/
  50. 50. III. Web 2.0 pedagogies <ul><li>Teaching with Web 2.0: more principles </li></ul><ul><li>Ease of entry </li></ul><ul><li>Personalization </li></ul>
  51. 51. III. Web 2.0 pedagogies <ul><li>Wiki pedagogies </li></ul><ul><li>Collective research </li></ul><ul><li>Group writing </li></ul><ul><li>Document editing </li></ul><ul><li>Information literacy </li></ul><ul><li>Discussion </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge accretion </li></ul>(Romantic Audiences project Bowdoin College, 2005-present
  52. 52. III. Web 2.0 pedagogies <ul><li>Social object pedagogies </li></ul><ul><li>Prompts </li></ul><ul><li>Discussion object </li></ul><ul><li>Composition materials </li></ul>
  53. 53. III. Web 2.0 pedagogies <ul><li>Social object pedagogies </li></ul><ul><li>Annotate details </li></ul><ul><li>Remix (“Make it mine”) </li></ul>Edugadget http://www.edugadget.com/2005/05/07/flickr-creative-commons
  54. 54. III. Web 2.0 pedagogies <ul><li>New forms: profcasting </li></ul><ul><li>Bryn Mawr College: Michelle Francl, chemistry </li></ul><ul><li>Duke: Classroom recording </li></ul>
  55. 55. III. Web 2.0 pedagogies <ul><li>Student program podcasting on campus </li></ul><ul><li>War News Radio </li></ul><ul><li>(Swarthmore College) </li></ul>
  56. 56. III. Web 2.0 pedagogies <ul><li>Podcasts and research </li></ul><ul><li>Public intellectual </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Out of the Past </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Engines of Our Ingenuity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In Our Time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>University Channel </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Napoleon 101) </li></ul></ul>
  57. 57. III. Web 2.0 pedagogies <ul><li>Instrumental to pedagogy: enhance other media </li></ul><ul><li>Handouts: Allegheny College, Gothcast </li></ul>
  58. 58. Illustrations in pdf format
  59. 59. III. Web 2.0 pedagogies <ul><li>Enhance other media </li></ul><ul><li>Middlebury College, Barbara Ganley </li></ul><ul><li>Podcasting with… </li></ul><ul><li>Blogging </li></ul><ul><li>Digital storytelling </li></ul><ul><li>Photography </li></ul><ul><li>Study abroad </li></ul>
  60. 60. III. Web 2.0 pedagogies <ul><li>Teaching with Web 2.0: “net.gen”: </li></ul><ul><li>“ Fully half of all teens and 57 percent of teens who use the Internet could be considered Content Creators, according to a survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project.” </li></ul>http://www.pewtrusts.com/pdf/PIP_Teens_1105.pdf
  61. 61. III. Web 2.0 pedagogies <ul><li>“ [S]tudents… write words on paper, yes— but… also compose words and images and create audio files on Web logs (blogs), in word processors, with video editors and Web editors and in e-mail and on presentation software and in instant messaging and on listservs and on bulletin boards—and no doubt in whatever genre will emerge in the next ten minutes. </li></ul><ul><li>Note that no one is making anyone do any of this writing.” </li></ul>Kathleen Blake Yancey, &quot;Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key.&quot; CCC 56.2 (2004):297-328.
  62. 62. III. Web 2.0 pedagogies <ul><li>RSS pedagogies </li></ul><ul><li>Shaping Web reading </li></ul><ul><li>Pushing student-created content (mother blog, Feed to Javascript) </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 wrangling </li></ul>(Bloglines)
  63. 63. III. Web 2.0 pedagogies <ul><li>Podcasts and teaching: profcasting </li></ul><ul><li>Bryn Mawr College: Michelle Francl, chemistry </li></ul><ul><li>Duke: Classroom recording </li></ul><ul><li>Learning objects: Gardner Campbell, University of Richmond </li></ul><ul><li>Duke: Course content dissemination </li></ul><ul><li>Information literacy </li></ul>
  64. 64. III. Web 2.0 pedagogies <ul><li>Blog problem: privacy </li></ul><ul><li>Contrary to class safe space (Gary Kornblith, Oberlin College) </li></ul><ul><li>Culture of too much disclosure </li></ul><ul><li>Problem increasing archivally </li></ul>
  65. 65. III. Web 2.0 pedagogies <ul><li>Some responses </li></ul><ul><li>Can block comments and/or readers </li></ul><ul><li>Teachable moment: what is privacy in 2007? </li></ul><ul><li>Complement other practices </li></ul>
  66. 66. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>Lonelygirl15 </li></ul><ul><li>One YouTube </li></ul><ul><li>Another YouTube </li></ul><ul><li>Myspace </li></ul><ul><li>Blogs </li></ul><ul><li>Discussion frenzy </li></ul><ul><li>Media attention </li></ul>(2006-)
  67. 67. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>Alternate reality games </li></ul><ul><li>Permeability of game boundary (space and time) </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on distributed, collaborative cognition </li></ul><ul><li>Increased ephemerality </li></ul>(Perplex City, 2003-2006)
  68. 68. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>Political ARG </li></ul>(World Without Oil, May 2007)
  69. 69. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>ARG pedagogy? </li></ul><ul><li>Creation for constructivism </li></ul><ul><li>Information literacy </li></ul><ul><li>Object of study </li></ul>(Nine Inch Nails game, 2007)
  70. 70. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>Flickr and storytelling </li></ul><ul><li>Tell a story in 5 frames group </li></ul>“ Gender Miscommunication” (Nightingai1e, 2006)
  71. 71. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  72. 72. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  73. 73. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  74. 74. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling “ Gender Miscommunication” (Nightingai1e, 2006)
  75. 75. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling “ Gender Miscommunication” (Nightingai1e, 2006)
  76. 76. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>Flickr and storytelling </li></ul><ul><li>In the Tell a story in 5 frames group, 'Alone With The Sand' </li></ul>(moliere1331, 2005)
  77. 77. One provocation (Valdis Krebs, 2004)
  78. 78. A second provocation C.S. Mott Children's Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health, May 2007 The persistence of fears
  79. 79. Keeping up <ul><li>National Institute for Technology and </li></ul><ul><li>Liberal Education http:// nitle.org </li></ul><ul><li>NITLE blog http://b2e.nitle.org </li></ul>

×