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.

Innovation web 2_0_tools[1]


Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

Innovation web 2_0_tools[1]

  1. 1. Innovation--Web 2.0 Tools<br />Monica Loadholt <br />Spring 2010 <br />EDUC 8841<br />
  2. 2. Need<br />The move from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 necessitated the development of tools that would enable users to create and share content. Users of the World Wide Web were not satisfied with just being able to read the content available, but there were few who knew how to use html to create content. Therefore, a need arose for tools that allowed those without html knowledge to create content. Since Web 2.0 is known as the "read-write web" instead of being a read-only environment, users needed platforms that would enable them to not only read the content available, but also to become creators of the content.<br />
  3. 3. Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0<br />Web 1.0<br />users read but don't create content<br />limited uses<br />Web 2.0<br /><ul><li>not just for reading content
  4. 4. users can create content
  5. 5. "Read-Write Web"</li></li></ul><li>Web 2.0 in a Nutshell<br /> “Web 2.0”—term began being used in 2004<br /> Includes social networking, media sharing, social bookmarking, creative works, collaborative knowledge development, content aggregation and organization, and remixing/mash-ups of content from different sources<br />Tools include, but aren’t limited to Facebook, Ning, YouTube, Flikr, Delicious, Wikipedia, Twitter, Wordpress, and RSS <br />Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now. Educational Researcher, 38, 246-259. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09336671<br />
  6. 6. Research<br />The “lead thinkers” aren’t any one person or group; they are everyday people who read/write content online.<br />
  7. 7. Development<br />Problems encountered during development process:<br />Doubts about accuracy of information shared using Web 2.0 tools<br />Lack of knowledge about how to use Web 2.0 tools<br />Doubts about longevity of Web 2.0 tools<br />Lack of vision about how Web 2.0 tools could be used to enhance education<br />Intended audience:<br />Anyone who uses the Internet to read and create content<br />Business Leaders<br />Educators<br />
  8. 8. Commercialization<br /><ul><li>Available to all via Internet
  9. 9. Users create/produce the content and tools available</li></li></ul><li>Web 2.0 Tools Timeline<br />Flickr; Facebook--2004<br />Google—1998<br />This timeline includes only a few of the major Web 2.0 tools that have come on the scene. Many, many more exist and are made available almost daily.<br />YouTube--2005<br />Wikipedia--2001<br />MySpace--2003<br /><br />
  10. 10. Web 2.0 Tools S-Curve<br />Number of Users<br />500,000,000<br />100,000,000<br />50,000,000<br />1,000,000<br />500,000<br />100, 000<br />1998<br />2010<br /><br />
  11. 11. Potential Innovators/Early Adopters<br />Potential Innovators—teenagers, young adults, and middle-aged adults interested in technology<br />Early Adopters—teachers in their first few years in the classroom; more experienced teachers who are technology-minded<br />Strategies to Encourage Adoption:<br />Incentive program—perhaps one that will offer recertification points for adoption; access to new technology for classroom use<br />Workshops—offer the chance to see the innovation in action, including ways to use it in the classroom<br />
  12. 12. Potential Laggards<br />Potential Laggards—teachers who have refused to change their teaching style in the years since they first started teaching; teachers who are older in age; teachers who are unsure of how to use the innovation or of how it could be beneficial to their teaching<br />Strategies to Encourage Adoption:<br />Incentives—recertification points; potential to gain access to newer materials for classroom use<br />Workshops—hands-on opportunities to try the innovation and to see it in action; tips on how to incorporate into instruction<br />Help Line—provide constant access to innovators and adopters for assistance<br />
  13. 13. Attributes for Promoting Adoption<br />Relative Advantage—The benefits of using Web 2.0 tools in the classroom need to be made clear to potential adopters.<br />Complexity—Potential adopters need to be reassured that Web 2.0 tools are not difficult to use.<br />Observability—Demonstrations of how to use Web 2.0 tools and how to integrate them into instruction should be provided by innovators and early adopters.<br />
  14. 14. Decentralized Approach<br />
  15. 15. Key Change Agents<br />Administrators<br />School/District Technology Department Staff<br />Teacher Innovators<br />
  16. 16. Roles of Change Agents<br />Each change agent would take part in all seven roles at the level necessary for the innovation to be adopted:<br />Develop a need for change<br />Establish an information exchange relationship<br />Diagnose problems<br />Create an intent to change in the client<br />Translate intent into action<br />Stabilize adoption and prevent discontinuance<br />Achieve a terminal relationship<br />
  17. 17. Critical Mass<br />Strategies for reaching critical mass<br />Get administrators and other leaders in the school on board with using Web 2.0 Tools<br />Have teacher innovators demonstrate use of Web 2.0 Tools<br />Teacher innovators should provide data about the effects of using Web 2.0 Tools in their classrooms<br />Provide incentives to those who adopt and then bring others on board<br />
  18. 18. Summary<br /> <br />Why should Web 2.0 tools be integrated into classroom instruction?<br /><ul><li>Students need to know that we think their out-of-school literacies are important.
  19. 19. Students need to be prepared to go into a workplace that uses Web 2.0 tools.
  20. 20. Our students need to practice the skills that will help them compete with their peers around the world.</li></li></ul><li>References<br />Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age: Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now. Educational Researcher, 38, 246-259. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09336671<br />Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.<br />