• Save
Web 2.0 workshop
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Web 2.0 workshop

on

  • 6,638 views

Some slides and activities exploring the implications of web 2.0 for higher education - the workshop took about 90 minutes.

Some slides and activities exploring the implications of web 2.0 for higher education - the workshop took about 90 minutes.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
6,638
Views on SlideShare
6,389
Embed Views
249

Actions

Likes
23
Downloads
0
Comments
2

10 Embeds 249

http://nogoodreason.typepad.co.uk 182
http://research.edu.uea.ac.uk 44
http://webopedia2.wordpress.com 6
http://www.via6.com 5
http://edgarleguizamontarazona.wordpress.com 4
http://www.slideshare.net 4
http://nogoodreason.typepad.co.uk:80 1
http://72.14.205.104 1
http://static.slidesharecdn.com 1
http://edtechlady.blogspot.com 1
More...

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Introducing web 2.0 and implementing it as higher education is good a technics. There is a good website to get some more news for you http://www.slideshare.net/alysaally/higher-education
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • ok, i introduced in elearning section on http://factoriagris.collaboratix.com
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Web 2.0 workshop Web 2.0 workshop Presentation Transcript

  • Web 2.0 and implications for higher education Martin Weller
  • Outline
    • Some web 2.0 definitions
    • Web 2.0 examples and transitions
    • Activity 1
    • Web 2.0 implications for higher education
    • Activity 2
    • Discussion
  • What is Web 2.0
    • Both an approach and a set of technologies
    • Web as platform
    • Harnessing collective intelligence
    • Evolutionary development
    • Lightweight programming models
    This time, though, the clash isn't between a platform and an application, but between two platforms, each with a radically different business model: On the one side, a single software provider, whose massive installed base and tightly integrated operating system and APIs give control over the programming paradigm; on the other, a system without an owner, tied together by a set of protocols, open standards and agreements for cooperation “ users add value and the technology or site needs to be set up so that it encourages participation” Users must be treated as co-developers , … The open source dictum, “release early and release often” in fact has morphed into an even more radical position, “the perpetual beta,” in which the product is developed in the open, with new features slipstreamed in on a monthly, weekly, or even daily basis….
  • What is Web 2.0?
    • The transition of websites from isolated information silos to sources of content and functionality , thus becoming computing platforms serving web applications to end users
    • A social phenomenon referring to an approach to creating and distributing Web content itself, characterized by open communication, decentralization of authority, freedom to share and re-use , and "the market as a conversation"
    • A more organized and categorized content, with a far more developed deeplinking web architecture
    • A shift in economic value of the web, possibly surpassing that of the dot com boom of the late 1990s
    • A marketing term to differentiate new web businesses from those of the dot com boom, which due to the bust now seem discredited
    • The resurgence of excitement around the possibilities of innovative web applications and services that gained a lot of momentum around mid 2005
    • Wikipedia
  • What is web 2.0
    • Ajax, Democracy, Don’t mistreat users (Paul Graham)
    • Writing semantic markup (transition to XML)
    • Providing Web services (moving away from place)
    • Remixing content (about when and what, not who or why)
    • Emergent navigation and relevance (users are in control)
    • Adding metadata over time (communities building social information)
    • Shift to programming (separation of structure and style)
    • (Digital Web)
  • Some Web 2.0 transformations
    • Web 1.0 
    • Ofoto
    • mp3.com
    • Britannica Online
    • personal websites
    • Publishing
    • content management systems
    • directories (taxonomy)
    • Stickiness
    Web 2.0 Flickr Napster Wikipedia Blogging Participation wikis tagging ("folksonomy”) syndication
  • Take one example
    • Stickiness
    • Don’t want lots of info – want appropriate chunks
    • Changes the way you write content
    • Loss of central control
    • Loss of context
    • Increased user control
    • Form of personalisation
    • Increased currency
    Syndication
  • Techie side
    • RSS – Really Simple Syndication (or sometimes Rich Site Summary). Allows users to subscribe to web sites that are updated regularly.
    • API –Application Program Interface. This is a set of routines or protocols for developing or interfacing with a piece of software.
    • Mash up – this term refers to the process of mixing two or more different services together to create a new type of service. It is at the heart of much of the web 2.0 approach. E.g. Housingmaps .
  • Some web 2.0 examples
    • Netvibes
    • Flickr
    • Wikipedia
    • Del.icio.us
    • 43Things
    • YouTube
  • Analysing Web 2.0 characteristics
    • The Long Tail
    • Data is the Next Intel Inside
    • Users Add Value
    • Network Effects by Default
    • Some Rights Reserved
    • The Perpetual Beta
    • Cooperate, Don't Control
    • Software Above the Level of a Single Device
    Tim O’Reilly (2005) What is Web 2.0? http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
  • Web 2.0 and OpenLearn Use XML as the basis for our material and work on conversion to accessible formats such as DAISY and to be viewable as print and mobile. Software Above the Level of a Single Device 8 Separate availability of sensemaking tools and look for new tools to come in from the users. Cooperate, Don't Control 7 Release new tools in the LabSpace while monitoring use and getting feedback from users The Perpetual Beta 6 Adopt Creative Commons and make clear that reuse is permitted and encouraged. Some Rights Reserved 5 Let users rank content easily and use highlight active areas to identify what is working and where users are going. Network Effects by Default 4 Allow users to contribute to increase the value of existing content by participation in forums and journal, and by providing new content in the LabSpace. Users Add Value 3 Build on the quality assured content that we have. Data is the Next Intel Inside 2 Offer specialist subjects and consider everyone as a potential user The Long Tail: 1 Impact on OpenLearn O’Reilly’s advice No.
  • Activity 1 - Individual
    • Specify three characteristics that you think typify web 2.0 applications or approaches.
    • Identify any part of your current (personal or professional) activity that can be identified as web 2.0 and state why it corresponds to the principles you have specified in part a)
    • Now think of an activity you do that could be enhanced or altered by adopting a web 2.0 approach, stating how it would be changed.
  • Technology Implications
    • Good technologies we can use e.g. Flickr, delicious, Google Maps, RSS feeds.
    • Do they constitute a Personal Learning Environment?
    • Should we outsource technical developments e.g. Google Apps for your domain?
    • How do we recognise the toolset students bring to study?
    "Compared with the staid corporate-software industry, using these services is like “receiving technology from an advanced civilisation”,
  • Technology implications (2)
    • Web 2.0 vs. VLE
    • VLE is good because:
      • It cannot be assumed that all students have tools or adequate technological skills.
      • In order to facilitate a lot of functions, it is necessary to integrate tools with existing institutional systems. This type of integration is difficult to achieve with many different tools.
      • By providing one central system technological support, for example a help desk, can be provided.
      • In order to facilitate some group tasks it is necessary for students to be using the same systems
    • Ignores general competence and the wealth of consumer technologies
  • Social implications
    • As much a social phenomenon as a technological one
    • E.g. blogs and traditional broadcast
    • Democracy – at odds with HE hierarchical approach?
    • Collective intelligence – quality, academic role
    • Reuse – assessment, academic role
    • Who decides quality?
  • Activity 2 - Groups
    • http://www.go2web20.net/
    • Choose one of these (preferably one you are not familiar with) and give an example of how it may be implemented in education.
    • (For an example, see my blog posting on the potential use of Blufr in education).
  • Some questions for the OU
    • Can we understand our student needs if we don’t understand web 2.0?
    • What impact will it have on how we design and run courses?
    • Are we ready to let go?
    • Is it here to stay?
    • What are the exciting things we can do?
    • What tools should we be looking at?
    • What research should we be doing?