Successfully reported this slideshow.

NMC 2006 regional

3,900 views

Published on

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

NMC 2006 regional

  1. 1. Web 2.0: The Next Wave of Collaboration, Publication, and Storytelling New Media Consortium Regional Conference November, 2006 Trinity University
  2. 2. Plan of the talk <ul><li>Web 2.0 in late 2006 </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 rich media </li></ul><ul><li>Browser gaming </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 storytelling </li></ul><ul><li>Brooding and provocations </li></ul>(Middlebury waterfall, spring 2006)
  3. 3. 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)
  4. 4. One theoretical question <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>
  5. 5. One historical flourish <ul><li>Responses to overload </li></ul><ul><li>Cyclopedia (Ephraim Chambers, 1728) </li></ul><ul><li>Encyclopedie (1751-1772) </li></ul><ul><li>Another precursor, lacking the technology: Isidore of Seville, Etymologiae (636) </li></ul>
  6. 6. One 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>
  7. 7. 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: IF/audience </li></ul>
  8. 8. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Microcontent, rather than sites or large documents </li></ul>
  9. 9. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Multiply authored microcontent, rather than sites or large documents </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>Network constructivism </li></ul>(Pepysblog, 2003-)
  12. 12. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>O’Reilly: perpetual beta </li></ul>
  13. 13. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>O’Reilly: platforms for development </li></ul>
  14. 14. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Data mashups </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 <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>
  17. 17. I. Web 2.0 Research: wikis are textually productive -Viégas, Wattenberg, Dave (IBM, 2004)
  18. 18. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Wikis are textually productive </li></ul><ul><li>OhMyNews! , WikiNews </li></ul>
  19. 19. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Web 2.0 components, movements </li></ul><ul><li>collaborative writing platforms: the blogosphere </li></ul>
  20. 20. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Addressable content chunks </li></ul>
  21. 21. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Distributed, attached conversations </li></ul>
  22. 22. 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>
  23. 23. I. Web 2.0
  24. 24. 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>
  25. 25. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>State of the blogosphere </li></ul><ul><li>Did popular CMS/LMSes 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>
  26. 26. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Web 2.0 components, movements: social objects </li></ul><ul><li>Flickr </li></ul>http:// flickr.com /
  27. 27. 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>
  28. 28. 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)
  29. 29. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Reach of Flickr </li></ul>(Ben Harris-Roxas, 2006) <ul><li>Did popular CMS/LMSes keep higher education from contributing? </li></ul>
  30. 30. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Web 2.0 enables the Web office </li></ul><ul><li>Example: Google Spreadsheets </li></ul>http://spreadsheets.google.com/
  31. 31. 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>
  32. 32. 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>
  33. 33. 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>
  34. 34. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Social object principles: tagging </li></ul>Flickr is one influential and leading tagging project
  35. 35. 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>
  36. 36. 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>
  37. 37. 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>
  38. 38. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Case study, tagging museums: </li></ul><ul><li>the Steve project </li></ul>
  39. 39. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Tagging museums: the Steve project </li></ul><ul><li>Expert discourse, controlled vocab </li></ul>
  40. 40. 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>
  41. 41. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Tagging libraries: PennTags </li></ul><ul><li>Coded locally </li></ul>
  42. 42. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>AJAX-based projects </li></ul>
  43. 43. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Components, movements </li></ul><ul><li>Mixing and mashing: the RSS feeding frenzy </li></ul>
  44. 44. 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 /
  45. 45. 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/
  46. 46. 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>
  47. 47. I. Web 2.0 <ul><li>Social news: </li></ul><ul><li>Memeorandum, Tailrank, Digg, TechMeme </li></ul>
  48. 48. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <ul><li>Web 2.0 influences rich media </li></ul><ul><li>Podcasting </li></ul>
  49. 49. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <ul><li>What’s happened since February 2004? </li></ul>
  50. 50. 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>
  51. 51. 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>
  52. 52. 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>
  53. 53. 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>
  54. 54. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <ul><li>Social media: Web 2.0 video </li></ul>(Gootube? Suetube?)
  55. 55. 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
  56. 56. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <ul><li>Social media: Freesound archive </li></ul>(Freesound archive)
  57. 57. II. Rich media and Web 2.0 <ul><li>(Second Life, 2004-present) </li></ul>Social media: social gaming and Web 2.0?
  58. 58. 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>
  59. 59. III. Browser gaming <ul><li>Within the larger framework of gaming </li></ul><ul><li>Devices: Web-dependent </li></ul><ul><li>Relatively low cost </li></ul><ul><li>Small scale </li></ul><ul><li>Global </li></ul>
  60. 60. III. Browser gaming <ul><li>Within the larger framework of gaming: genre </li></ul>(Grow Chronon, 2006) <ul><li>Puzzle </li></ul><ul><li>Adventure narrative </li></ul><ul><li>Action </li></ul>
  61. 61. III. Browser gaming <ul><li>Social network aspects </li></ul><ul><li>Contexts </li></ul><ul><li>Help files </li></ul><ul><li>Development </li></ul>(Grow Chronon, 2006)
  62. 62. III. Browser gaming <ul><li>Pedagogical issues </li></ul><ul><li>Student-authored games </li></ul><ul><li>Media landscape: minigames </li></ul><ul><li>“ The Phone” (Stacy Road, 2004) </li></ul>
  63. 63. IV. 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>ARGs </li></ul><ul><li>Public intellectuals </li></ul>
  64. 64. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>“ I Found a Camera Lost in the Woods” (2004) </li></ul>
  65. 65. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  66. 66. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  67. 67. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  68. 68. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  69. 69. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  70. 70. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  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
  75. 75. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  76. 76. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>“ I Found a Camera Lost in the Woods” (2004) </li></ul>
  77. 77. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  78. 78. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  79. 79. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  80. 80. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  81. 81. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  82. 82. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  83. 83. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  84. 84. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  85. 85. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  86. 86. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  87. 88. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  88. 89. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  89. 90. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  90. 91. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  91. 92. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  92. 93. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  93. 94. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  94. 95. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling <ul><li>“ I Found a Camera Lost in the Woods” (2004) </li></ul>
  95. 96. 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)
  96. 97. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  97. 98. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  98. 99. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling
  99. 100. IV. Web 2.0 storytelling “ Gender Miscommunication” (Nightingai1e, 2006)
  100. 101. 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)
  101. 102. 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-)
  102. 103. V. Anxieties and policies (Valdis Krebs, 2004)
  103. 104. V. Anxieties and policies (Gwynneth Alexander, Fort Ticonderoga ferry landing, summer 2006)
  104. 105. 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)
  105. 106. <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>

×