Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

DC Tech and Humanities talk

981 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

DC Tech and Humanities talk

  1. 1. Web 2.0: Collaboration, Publication, and Storytelling Technology and Humanities November, 2006 George Mason University
  2. 2. Thematics <ul><li>Emergence in </li></ul><ul><li>time and space </li></ul><ul><li>Pedagogy </li></ul><ul><li>Dynamic information ecologicy </li></ul>(Radio Open Source blog/podcast, 2006)
  3. 3. Two theoretical notes <ul><li>“ Out of the dialectical exchange between the media-technological ‘base’ and the discursive ‘superstructure’ arise conflicts and tensions that sooner or late result in transformations at the level of media…” </li></ul><ul><li>-Friedrich Kittler, 1999 </li></ul><ul><li>Also: Janet Murray’s two-step argument </li></ul><ul><li>( Hamlet on the Holodeck , 1997) </li></ul>
  4. 4. One historical flourish <ul><li>Responses to overload </li></ul><ul><li>Cyclopedia (Chambers, 1728) </li></ul><ul><li>Encyclopedie (Diderot et al, 1751-1772) </li></ul><ul><li>(Another precursor, lacking the technology: Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae (636)) </li></ul>
  5. 5. A current metaphor <ul><li>Web 2.0 and education is like gaming and education : awareness is difficult </li></ul><ul><li>Huge, financially and quantitatively successful worlds </li></ul><ul><li>Global and rapidly developing </li></ul><ul><li>Bad anxieties, policies, and media coverage </li></ul>
  6. 6. A current 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: IF Literacy: audience </li></ul>
  7. 7. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Microcontent, </li></ul><ul><li>rather than sites </li></ul><ul><li>or large </li></ul><ul><li>documents </li></ul>Components and principles
  8. 8. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Multiply authored microcontent, rather than sites or large documents </li></ul>
  9. 9. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Open content and/or services and/or standards </li></ul>(Pepysblog, 2003-)
  10. 10. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Network constructivism </li></ul>(Pepysblog, 2003-)
  11. 11. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>perpetual beta (O’Reilly) </li></ul>
  12. 12. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>platforms for development (O’Reilly) </li></ul>
  13. 13. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Data mashups </li></ul>
  14. 14. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Web 2.0 components, movements </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborative writing platforms: the wiki way </li></ul>
  15. 15. I. Web 2.0 <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>
  16. 16. I. Web 2.0 Research: wikis are textually productive -Viégas, Wattenberg, Dave (IBM, 2004)
  17. 17. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Wikis are textually productive </li></ul><ul><li>OhMyNews! , WikiNews </li></ul>
  18. 18. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Web 2.0 components, movements </li></ul><ul><li>collaborative writing platforms: the blogosphere </li></ul>
  19. 19. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Addressable content chunks </li></ul>
  20. 20. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Distributed, attached conversations </li></ul>
  21. 21. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>State of the blogosphere </li></ul><ul><li>57 million blogs tracked by Technorati: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ As of October 2006, about 100,000 new weblogs were created each day… the doubling of the blogosphere has slowed a bit (every 236 days or so…” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(David Sifry, November 2006) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Chart follows… </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. I. Web 2.0
  23. 23. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>State of the blogosphere </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>
  24. 24. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Two provocations </li></ul><ul><li>Did popular courseware keep higher education from contributing? </li></ul><ul><li>Did academia’s lack of engagement make it harder to catch up now? (cf Technorati 2006 November report) </li></ul>
  25. 25. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Web 2.0 components, movements: social objects </li></ul><ul><li>Flickr </li></ul>http:// flickr.com /
  26. 26. 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>
  27. 27. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Reach of Flickr </li></ul><ul><li>22 million searchable, shareable images in Flickr (October 2006) </li></ul>(Ben Harris-Roxas, 2006)
  28. 28. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Two provocations </li></ul>(Ben Harris-Roxas, 2006) <ul><li>Did popular CMS/LMSes keep higher education from contributing? </li></ul><ul><li>What collaboration design do we offer in comparison? </li></ul>
  29. 29. 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 delicious work in a triangle: person, picture/bookmark, and tag(s). Or more abstract a person, an object of sociality , and some descriptor...” </li></ul>
  30. 30. 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>
  31. 31. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>What can we learn from this? </li></ul><ul><li>Jyri Engesrom is succinct: </li></ul><ul><li>“ The fallacy is to think that social networks are just made up of people. They're not; social networks consist of people who are connected by a shared object .” </li></ul><ul><li>- http://www.zengestrom.com/ , 2005 </li></ul>
  32. 32. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Social object principles: tagging </li></ul>(Flickr is one influential and leading tagging project)
  33. 33. I. Web 2.0 <ul><ul><li>“ Home </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Owain </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hestia </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Chickens </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ripton” </li></ul></ul>
  34. 34. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Folksonomy </li></ul><ul><li>User benefit </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>
  35. 35. 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>
  36. 36. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Case study, tagging museums: </li></ul><ul><li>the Steve project </li></ul>
  37. 37. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Tagging museums: the Steve project </li></ul><ul><li>Expert discourse, controlled vocab </li></ul>
  38. 38. 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><ul><li>(Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2004) </li></ul>
  39. 39. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Tagging libraries: PennTags </li></ul><ul><li>Coded locally </li></ul>
  40. 40. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Components, movements </li></ul><ul><li>Mixing and mashing: the RSS feeding frenzy </li></ul>
  41. 41. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Components, movements: social objects </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborative </li></ul><ul><li>music: LastFM </li></ul>http:// www.last.fm /
  42. 42. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Teaching with Web 2.0 </li></ul><ul><li>Distributed conversation </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborative writing </li></ul><ul><li>Object-oriented discussion </li></ul>http://smarthistory.blogspot.com/
  43. 43. 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>Spock </li></ul><ul><li>CyWorld </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Less than four years after its launch, 15 million people, or almost a third of the country's population, are members.” ( BusinessWeek , September 2005) </li></ul></ul>
  44. 44. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Social news: </li></ul><ul><li>Memeorandum, Tailrank, Digg, TechMeme </li></ul>
  45. 45. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <ul><li>Web 2.0 influences rich media </li></ul><ul><li>Podcasting </li></ul>
  46. 46. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <ul><li>What’s happened since February 2004? </li></ul>
  47. 47. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <ul><li>What’s happened since? </li></ul><ul><li>“ More than 22 million American adults own iPods or MP3 players and 29% of them have downloaded podcasts from the Web so that they could listen to audio files at a time of their choosing.” </li></ul><ul><li>-Pew Internet and American Life study, </li></ul><ul><li>April 2005 </li></ul>
  48. 48. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <ul><li>What’s happened since? 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>
  49. 49. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <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>
  50. 50. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <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>Napoleon 101 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In Our Time </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Trudi Abel, “Digital Durham and the New South” (Duke University, 2006) </li></ul><ul><li>Duke: Field recording </li></ul>
  51. 51. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <ul><li>Social media: Web 2.0 video </li></ul>(Gootube? Suetube?)
  52. 52. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <ul><li>Videoblogging </li></ul><ul><li>(vlog? </li></ul><ul><li>vog?) </li></ul>Rocketboom, Amanda Congdon
  53. 53. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <ul><li>Social media: Freesound archive </li></ul>(Freesound archive)
  54. 54. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <ul><li>(Second Life, 2004-present) </li></ul>Social media: social gaming and Web 2.0?
  55. 55. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <ul><li>Size of Second Life: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1 million residents, October 2006 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>“ the new golf”, Second Life (Joi Ito) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Compare the field </li></ul><ul><ul><li>6 million players, World of Warcraft </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1 million players, Virtual Magic Kingdom </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Diversity: platform, genre, content </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(Random sample stats) </li></ul></ul>
  56. 56. III. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>Web 2.0 storytelling </li></ul><ul><li>Nonfiction ( Pulse ) </li></ul><ul><li>Fiction (“I Found a Camera…”) </li></ul><ul><li>Public intellectuals </li></ul><ul><li>New art form: ARGs </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>( Pulse , screenshot fall 2006) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  57. 57. III. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>Web 2.0 storytelling </li></ul><ul><li>New art form: ARGs </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>( Perplex City , 2004- </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The Beast, 2000-2001) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  58. 58. III. 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)
  59. 59. III. Web 2.0 storytelling
  60. 60. III. Web 2.0 storytelling
  61. 61. III. Web 2.0 storytelling
  62. 62. III. Web 2.0 storytelling “ Gender Miscommunication” (Nightingai1e, 2006)
  63. 63. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>Flickr and social storytelling </li></ul><ul><li>Feedback </li></ul><ul><li>Revisions </li></ul><ul><li>Peer group </li></ul><ul><li>Audience </li></ul><ul><li>Personal microhistories </li></ul>(“Alone With The Sand”, moliere1331, 2005)
  64. 64. 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>(Jessica Rose, Ramesh Flinders, Miles Beckett, 2006-)
  65. 65. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>Lonelygirl15 </li></ul><ul><li>Blogs </li></ul><ul><li>Discussion frenzy </li></ul><ul><li>Media attention </li></ul><ul><li>“ transmedia storytelling”(Jenkins 2006) </li></ul>(cryptic plush toy)
  66. 66. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>Pedagogies </li></ul><ul><li>Multimedia compositions </li></ul><ul><li>Creative writing </li></ul><ul><li>Media literacy </li></ul><ul><li>Scholarly publication </li></ul>(Noircast)
  67. 67. V. Anxieties and policies Policy fears - DOPA: “’ Social networking sites such as MySpace and chat rooms have allowed sexual predators to sneak into homes and solicit kids,’ said Rep. Ted Poe…” -C|Net (on the way to Bryan’s office, spring 2006)
  68. 68. V. Anxieties and policies (Valdis Krebs, 2004)
  69. 69. <ul><li>National Institute for Technology and Liberal Education http:// nitle.org </li></ul><ul><li>NITLE blog http://b2e.nitle.org </li></ul><ul><li>NITLE Lab http:// nitle.org/index.php/nitle/laboratory </li></ul>

×