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.

Social Software

1,019 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

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>

×