This document discusses new types of social internet applications becoming popular in higher education, specifically blogs, social video sites, and virtual worlds. It explains that while originally developed for entertainment, these applications are now being adopted by higher education institutions. The document then provides definitions and explanations of key concepts like Web 2.0, how it differs from Web 1.0, and how applications like social networking sites allow for more participation and user-generated content compared to older websites. Specific technologies associated with Web 2.0 like AJAX and how they enable richer user experiences are also examined.

1. Mohd Shahid Khan
Abhishek
Shahid.ieee@gmail.com
abhishek6@gmail.com
Vignan bharathi institute of technology,
Vidya jyothi institute of technology
Hyderabad.
Hyderabad
Riithu A Jain
Abstract
New types of social Internet applications
are becoming increasingly popular within
higher education environments. Although
developed primarily for entertainment
and social communication within the
general population, applications such as
blogs, social video sites, and virtual worlds
are being adopted by higher education
institutions. So web 2.0 provides a better
platform for us to do thinks in different
ways .This paper is a step to discuss some
of the most important features of web
2.0. This paper will give focus on the
aspects of web 2.0, how it could be
utilized by the upcoming development
scenario.
These newer applications differ from
standard Web sites in that they involve the
users in creating and distributing
information, hence effectively changing
how the Web is used for knowledge
generation and dispersion. Although Web
2.0 applications offer exciting new ways to
teach, they should not be the core of
instructional planning, but rather selected
only after learning objectives and
instructional strategies have been
identified. This paper provides an answer
to many questions rised on the topic what
Web 2.0 is?.the potential of web 2.0.It is a
challenging job really define and built a
relationship between web .
Introduction
The term Web 2.0 refers to an evolving
number of Web applications that are both
open and social in nature. Although there is
controversy as to what this means, the general
concept is a new set of online applications
embracing openness among users, openness
among other applications, social connections,
and collective intelligence. While Web 2.0 as a
term indicates a second generation of Web
tools, most experts would say that it is more
an evolving emergence of familiar and
unfamiliar technologies rather than an entirely
new construct.[2] The term Web 2.0 reflects a
paradigm shift from Web sites as providers of
information, to social co-construction of
information by a community of users
Also known as the Participatory Web, Web 2.0
applications such as blogs, Faccbook and
YouTube are being adopted at high rates
among users of all ages who seek to capitalize
on those social and interactive features Many
of these applications hold the promise of
value to teaching and learning in higher
education. Similar to the excitement
generated by the invention of the World Wide
Web, this second generation of the Web is
garnering new interest for potential changes
in how people communicate and share
knowledge. Due to ease of use and open
availability, and unlike previous Internet
applications, many Web 2.0 applications have
a lower barrier to entry into the education

2. environment.[2]
Most of the applications
are available at no charge to the user, are
readily accessible via the Internet, and do not
require extensive technology skills
Differences Between Web 1.0 and Web
2.0
According to Cormode and Krishnamurthy
(2008), there are big differences in web 1.0
and web 2.0 in terms of use and activity. Web
1.0 is less interactive with a major focus on the
retrieval of knowledge. Web 2.0 allows the
user to participate in the acquisition of
knowledge. While 1.0 focuses on the
individual, 2.0 focuses on communities. Users
can interact and gain knowledge from one
another through blogging, product sharing, or
social media sites in 2.0, while 1.0 was more
search engine focused (O’Reilly, 2005).
Cormode and Krishnamurthy (2008) argue
that labeling a site as 1.0 or 2.0 can be a
challenge. They suggest some keys points to
consider when determining the status of a site.
The term 2.0 wasn’t coined until 2004, so sites
created before fall under 1.0 (Cormode &
Krishnamurthy, 2008). It is important to point
out that many sites have upped their user
compatibility and adopted 2.0 strategies to
keep up with user demands. Some of the
important features that separate 2.0 from 1.0
include:
1. Internet users as the major focus in the
system.
Internet users have prominent profile pages
that include personal information and
interactivity between users.
2. The ability of users to form connections
between themselves.
Users are linked to other users who are
“friends” or members in social “groups” of
various kinds.
3. The ability to post content in many ways.
Users have the ability to post photos, videos,
blogs, comments and to rate the content of
other users. They can also tag information of
their own or comment on others content.
4. The ability to mix media types within
content.
.
In 2.0, it is possible to “allow third-party
enhancements
and
“mash-ups”,
and
embedding of various rich content types (e.g.
Flash videos), and communication with other
users through internal email or IM systems”
(Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008).
Web 2.0 is interested in sharing knowledge
and in personal involvement in the web, while
1.0 seems more interested in simply publishing
information for users to access. Sites like
Facebook, Twitter, and Blogger have become
the norm. Users interact with one another …
often dozens of times a day. 2.0 has moved
away from the personal websites that were so
popular in 1.0 (O’Reilly, 2005).
Web 2.0 and Social Networking - what do
those two technologies have in common?
When looking at them independently, and
from a purely technical point of view, you
might think they don't have a lot in common.
However, merge the concepts of two of the
hottest technical advances to come around in a
while and you have the power to change the
world. Not all at once, as change happens over
time, but they do provide a framework and the
opportunities for major change, which is a first
step and much of what we discuss here.
My hope is that you can use this excerpt as a
reference that provides some concrete
guidelines for creating and then implementing
a strategy for Web 2.0 and Social Networking
integration within your group or organization.
Much of the focus in the Web 2.0 and Social
Networking space has been toward customer
interaction; that is, how to draw in or
collaborate better with customers through
blogs, forums, or Facebook and MySpace
pages; how to increase brand or product
awareness or drive sales with viral marketing
campaigns; or how to increase customer
satisfaction using AJAX so that pages are
updated almost automatically. We'll look at

3. these ideas and more. However, we also turn
our focus inward to the enterprise to see how
we can use new strategies and technologies to
increase
productivity,
collaboration,
knowledge management, and creativity of our
employees and partners.
By now, many people understand the use of
the term Web 2.0, but it still requires some
explanation in our context. For our purposes,
we might define Web 2.0 as a set of enabling
technologies that enable us to reach and
provide services to end users in exciting new
ways. The reality is that much of the hype
around Web 2.0 already existed on the Web
well before the term became popular with the
media and within the industry, but the concept
is helping to drive new innovation in the use of
this technology toward better user interaction.
At the core of these new technologies is the use
of Asynchronous JavaScript and XML (AJAX)
to provide a richer user experience to end
users.
The term Web 2.0 was coined by Tim O'Reilly,
founder and CEO of O'Reilly Media, Inc., and
the term became better known across the
industry after the O'Reilly Media Web 2.0
conference in 2004. The idea of Web 2.0
provide for and foster a collective community.
Users can create, edit, rate, and tag content at
will, which provides other users with new
information and guides the relevance of what
is important to the overall community.
In addition to providing the underlying ability
for communities to build momentum, obtain
critical mass, and contribute to ongoing
).
definitely has some technical aspects, with the
implementation and innovation of new
technologies and standards within the web
platform. However, much of the focus of Web
2.0 is on new business models. Whereas the
focus of Web 1.0 was on delivering products,
Web 2.0 had created a paradigm shift to
delivering services that can be used and
combined with other services in new ways.
Another key aspect is the growth of
interactivity with end users in new ways,
enabling users to drive what is important or of
the most value.
Figure 1 illustrates the concept of Web 1.0,
where there is a strict producer/consumer
approach to delivering web content. The
webmaster or content creators build and
maintain the website for consumption by end
users.
The
relationship
is
strictly
unidirectional in this model, fixed and targeted
based on assumptions made by the webmaster
and content team.
In contrast to this approach, in the Web 2.0
model, users actively participate and
contribute to a website. This bidirectional
approach enables users to interact with the site
and
each
other
in
ways
that.
collaboration, services can be provided in the
form of application programming interfaces
(APIs), Representational State Transfer
(REST) services, or Really Simple Syndication
(RSS) feeds, which enable end users to merge
and view data in ways that haven't even been
imagined
(see
Figure
2

4. Figure 2: Web 2.0 paradigm
CIO,
CTO
Resources
&
Developer
Web 2.0 is not only about providing data in
new ways, it is also about improving the user
interface and enabling end users to view data
quicker and in more dynamic ways through
richer user interfaces using AJAX and other
technologies.
Rich User Experience Within the
Browser
Although not always the case, the goal is to
take advantage of the browser as the universal
client and provide a richer interactive
experience to the end user. Two core
technologies that help provide this experience
are AJAX and REST. There are lots of other
frameworks technologies in this category that
can also provide a browser-based rich user
experience, such as Adobe Flex and
Macromedia Flash. In addition, there are nonbrowser-based approaches, such as using an
refreshes that are so common with the Web.
Take, for example, a simple stock
ticker or some fluid piece of data. With the
pre-Web 2.0 approach, the entire screen needs
to be refreshed to update a potentially small
piece of data. With AJAX and Web 2.0, that
Eclipse framework-based approach such as
Lotus Expeditor.
AJAX has again brought JavaScript into vogue
by providing a new approach to the language.
Now you can leverage JavaScript using
eXtensible
Markup
Language
(XML),
Representational State Transfer (REST),
JavaScript Object Notation (JSON), and other
technologies. The term AJAX is relatively new;
although if you work with web technologies,
you have undoubtedly heard of the term, but
the underlying technologies have been around
almost as long as the Web itself.
The key in AJAX is the term asynchronous,
which enables the browser to provide services
and features in simple but exciting ways. AJAX
provides a new paradigm for interacting with
the browser. Essentially, the browser can be
updated in an asynchronous manner, which
means that there need be no more full-page
small piece of data can be retrieved behind the
scenes at regular intervals and updated while
users focus elsewhere on the page (see Figure
3).

5. Figure 3: AJAX interaction model
The purpose of all of this is to provide much
more dynamic web pages that not only
respond quicker to user action, but that
actually assist the user in working with the web
page. Simple AJAX patterns include the
following:
Type Assist: This enables a user to
type into a text box while the system
tries to figure out what word or phrase
the user is looking for. As the user
types, the text box continues to change
with different values that can assist the
user in getting the right value.
Form Assist: Another scenario is the
concept of updating a list of options
based on an earlier choice. Consider,
for example, a user trying to fill out a
form on the screen. Choosing one
option from a list or drop-down box
might trigger different options to
appear, change, or prefill with
additional values based on that choice.
Page Fragment Updates: Again, as
in the stock ticker example, data can
be retrieved behind the scenes and
update small fragments of a page
without requiring a full refresh of the
page.
Sliding Palettes: This pattern is
where a window appears or slides out
on top of the page. This allows the user
to choose from a picklist or set of
displayed options.
More advanced examples of using AJAX are
more obvious, where large sections of the page
are updated based on options chosen. One
example is a customer service type of
application where the user can look up
customer and order detail information in a
single interface. A detailed example of this is in
Chapter 3, "Ajax, Portlets, and Patterns." It has
been said that the use of AJAX is nontrivial,
which means that although it is simple to add
basic examples to your web pages, more
advanced works require advanced skills and
additional design work to obtain good results.
The results of this effort can be impressive as
web pages become truly interactive for the end
users.
AJAX
and
the
Dojo
Toolkit
The Dojo Toolkit is a JavaScript-based
collection of libraries (hence the name toolkit)
that enable you to build AJAX capabilities into
your web pages. The Dojo Toolkit is more than
just AJAX, but that is our primary focus here.
In reality, Dojo is a DHTML toolkit. Because
Dojo is open source, it is free to use in your
projects, and many large organizations
contribute to Dojo itself.
JavaScript,
DHTML,
and
AJAX
are
complicated. Dojo encapsulates complex
JavaScript
capability
with
predefined
components and APIs. Of course, Dojo has a
learning curve; however, the gains obtained by
focusing at a higher level of abstraction can be
enormous.
In
addition,
while
some
optimization can be obtained, using Dojo
libraries implies heavier pages in the form of
JavaScript libraries that need to be

6. transmitted to the user's browser to enable all
the cool functionality that you will build. It is
worth the tradeoff, but I don't want you to
think that you get something for free.
Several AJAX libraries are available on the
market today. Many of them are open source.
IBM has opted to support Dojo by contributing
to the community and building Dojo into
WebSphere Portal 6.1. The National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA) has
launched some Web 2.0 technologies and has
signed agreements to create National Archives
sites on Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and
Flickr. NARA is using these tools and sites to
create new ways of communicating with the
public and we look forward to your feedback.
Below is a comprehensive list of NARA's social
media initiatives and those of our affiliate
organizations. Please visit us often to see
NARA's expanding Web 2.0 and social media
projects.
7. Rich User Experiences
"Ajax isn't a technology. It's really
several technologies, each flourishing in
its own right, coming together in
powerful new ways. Ajax incorporates:
standards-based
presentation using XHTML
and CSS;
dynamic
display
and
interaction
using
the Document
Object
Model;
data
interchange
and
manipulation
using XML
and XSLT;
asynchronous
data
retrieval
using XMLHttpRequest;
and JavaScript binding
1.
everything together."
As early as Pei Wei's Viola browser in
1992, the web was being used to deliver
"applets" and other kinds of active
content within the web browser. Java's
introduction in 1995 was framed around
the delivery of such applets. JavaScript
and then DHTML were introduced as
lightweight ways to provide client side
programmability
and
richer
user
experiences.
Several
years
ago,
Macromedia coined the term "Rich
Internet Applications" (which has also
been picked up by open source Flash
competitor Laszlo Systems) to highlight
the capabilities of Flash to deliver not
just multimedia content but also GUIstyle application experiences.
However, the potential of the web to
deliver full scale applications didn't hit
the mainstream till Google introduced
Gmail, quickly followed by Google Maps,
web based applications with rich user
interfaces
and
PC-equivalent
interactivity.
The
collection
of
technologies
used
by
Google
was christened AJAX, in a seminal essay
by Jesse James Garrett of web design
firm Adaptive Path. He wrote:
AJAX is also a key component of Web
2.0 applications such as Flickr, now part
of
Yahoo!,
37signals'
applications
basecamp and backpack, as well as
other Google applications such as Gmail
and
Orkut.
We're
entering
an
unprecedented period of user interface
innovation, as web developers are finally
able to build web applications as rich as
local PC-based applications.
Interestingly, many of the capabilities
now being explored have been around
for many years. In the late '90s, both
Microsoft and Netscape had a vision of
the kind of capabilities that are now
finally being realized, but their battle
over the standards to be used made
cross-browser applications difficult. It
was only when Microsoft definitively won
the browser wars, and there was a
single de-facto browser standard to write
to, that this kind of application became
possible.
And
while Firefox has
reintroduced competition to the browser
market, at least so far we haven't seen
the destructive competition over web
standards that held back progress in the
'90s.

7. We expect to see many new web
applications over the next few years,
both truly novel applications, and rich
web
reimplementations
of
PC
applications. Every platform change to
date has also created opportunities for a
leadership change in the dominant
applications of the previous platform.
Gmail
has
already
provided some
interesting
innovations
in
email,
combining the strengths of the web
(accessible
from
anywhere,
deep
database competencies, searchability)
with user interfaces that approach PC
interfaces in usability. Meanwhile, other
mail clients on the PC platform are
nibbling away at the problem from the
other end, adding IM and presence
capabilities. How far are we from an
integrated
communications
client
combining the best of email, IM, and the
cell phone, using VoIP to add voice
capabilities to the rich capabilities of web
applications? The race is on.
It's easy to see how Web 2.0 will also
remake the address book. A Web 2.0style address book would treat the local
address book on the PC or phone merely
as a cache of the contacts you've
explicitly
asked
the
system
to
remember. Meanwhile, a web-based
synchronization
agent,
Gmail-style,
would remember every message sent or
received, every email address and every
phone number used, and build social
networking heuristics to decide which
ones to offer up as alternatives when an
answer wasn't found in the local cache.
Lacking an answer there, the system
would query the broader social network.
A Web 2.0 word processor would support
wiki-style collaborative editing, not just
standalone documents. But it would also
support the rich formatting we've come
to
expect
in
PC-based
word
processors.Writely is a good example of
such an application, although it hasn't
yet gained wide traction.
Nor will the Web 2.0 revolution be
limited
to
PC
applications.
Salesforce.com demonstrates how the
web can be used to deliver software as a
service, in enterprise scale applications
such as CRM.
The competitive opportunity for new
entrants is to fully embrace the potential
of Web 2.0. Companies that succeed will
create applications that learn from their
users,
using
an
architecture
of
participation to build a commanding
advantage not just in the software
interface, but in the richness of the
shared data.
Core Competencies
Companies
of
Web
2.0
In exploring the seven principles above,
we've highlighted some of the principal
features of Web 2.0. Each of the
examples we've explored demonstrates
one or more of those key principles, but
may miss others. Let's close, therefore,
by summarizing what we believe to be
the core competencies of Web 2.0
companies:
Services, not packaged software,
with cost-effective scalability
Control over unique, hard-torecreate data sources that get
richer as more people use them
Trusting users as co-developers
Harnessing collective intelligence
Leveraging the long tail through
customer self-service
Software above the level of a
single device
Lightweight
user
interfaces,
development
models,
AND
business models
The next time a company claims that it's
"Web 2.0," test their features against
the list above. The more points they
score, the more they are worthy of the
name.
Remember,
though,
that
excellence in one area may be more
telling than some small steps in all
sevens

8. Web 2.0 Applications
Blogs are easily implemented, open to all (with
controls), and can foster a collaborative
environment. While this is a simplified
description of the blogging process, it captures
the essence of the technology. This
collaborative
environment
offers
some
advantages over in-class discussions. First, it
gives everyone a chance to "speak." Second, it
can be a less threatening environment for
students who are uncomfortable speaking in
class. Third, blogs can be used to shift
discussion to non-class hours, freeing time in
class for discussion of additional topics.
Although some think that the blog creation
process
is
difficult,
the
process
is
straightforward and can be accomplished in
less than 5 minutes by someone with only
moderate technical ability. Two of the most
popular free blogging sites are Blogger.com
[Link type: uri, href: Blogger.com] and
Wordpress.com.
A sample list of blogs addressing a variety of
pharmacy practice and health care-related issues is
presented in Table 1. These blogs provide readers
with a simple way to find current information
related to health care and the pharmacy
profession. They can be used as teaching tools, as
well as a means for educators to stay informed
about relevant issues. Numerous "opinion" blogs
maintained by practitioners also exist, providing
perspectives into the day-to-day professional lives
of pharmacists. Some of these blogs, however,
convey personal attitudes and contain language
that many in the profession might feel are
[8]
transgressions of e-professionalism. A Web
search on the phrase "pharmacy blog" will return a
list of links to some of the more personal
blogs.Several characteristics of wikis lead to their
potential use as an educational tool. First, wikis are
active, evolving, and built by contributors who add
content to a specific topic. By adding content,
contributors are constructing knowledge through a
process of internal reflection, external information
gathering, and potential discussion with others.
Second, contributors actively seek authoritative
resources to support their own statements or
arguments. Similar to the expectation that
pharmacy students justify their rationale for
clinical recommendations, wiki construction can
require the inclusion of authoritative resources for
postings. Third, as a collaborative medium, wikis
allow contributors to evaluate content posted by
others. This evaluation process potentially allows
students to practice and develop critical-thinking
skills. Darwikinism is a term describing the
continual, socially-driven editing and refining
[10]
process that a wiki page undergoes. Wiki
postings are believed to evolve so that only the
higher quality postings remain. At least 1 study has
shown that Wikipedia drug information has
markedly improved over time,contains a small
sample of wikis used for different purposes in
higher education. Wikipedia also maintains a
partial list of university and school projects
that educators can reference for
ideas.[14] In addition, the University of
Delaware has created an exploratory
report on the value of wikis in higher
education
Conclusion
Web-based language learning has been
popular for many years due to the
access it provides to authentic targetlanguage materials. Web 2.0 applications
augment this, providing many more
opportunities for input, social interaction
and collaboration with native speakers of
the target language. Language is all
about communication, and there is
nothing more motivating than being able
to use one's newly acquired language
skills in an authentic environment. In
addition, the user-friendliness of Web
2.0
applications
enables
language
teachers to integrate these tools very
easily into the class setting. The
potential of these tools is clear, but a
greater body of research is required to
inform the creation of guidelines to
ensure these tools are integrated
appropriately. As Web 2.0 applications
become mainstream, developments in
this exciting field are likely to continue
apace.
Reference

9. "Web 2.0". Retrieved 2006-08-02. "I first
heard the phrase 'Web 2.0' in the name of the
Web
2.0
conference
in
2004."
^ a b c d Tim O'Reilly (2005-09-30). "What Is
Web 2.0". O'Reilly Network. Retrieved 200608-06.
^
http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?
q=cache:v9BjMTEh0rQJ:scholar.google.com/+
web+2.0+definition&hl=en&as_sdt=0,33&as_
vis=1
^ a b c "DeveloperWorks Interviews: Tim
Berners-Lee". 2006-07-28. Retrieved 2012-0805.
^ "Berners-Lee on the read/write web". BBC
News. 2005-08-09. Retrieved 2012-08-05.
^ Richardson, Will (2009). Blogs, Wikis,
Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for
Classrooms (2nd ed.). California: Corwin Press.
p.
1.
ISBN
978-1-4129-5972-8.
^ DiNucci, Darcy (1999). "Fragmented Future"
(pdf).
Print
53
(4):
32.
^ Idehen, Kingsley. 2003. RSS: INJAN (It's not
just about news). Blog. Blog Data Space.
August
21
OpenLinkSW.com
^ Idehen, Kingsley. 2003. Jeff Bezos
Comments about Web Services. Blog. Blog
Data Space. September 25. OpenLinkSW.com
^ a b Knorr, Eric. 2003. The year of Web
services.
CIO,
December
15.
^
a
b
"John
Robb's
Weblog".
Jrobb.mindplex.org. Retrieved 2011-02-06.
^ a b O'Reilly, Tim, and John Battelle. 2004.
Opening Welcome: State of the Internet
Industry. In San Francisco, California, October
5.
^
O’Reilly,
T.,
2005.
^ Grossman, Lev. 2006. Person of the Year:
You.
December
25.
Time.com
^ Dion Hinchcliffe (2006-04-02). "The State of
Web 2.0". Web Services. Retrieved 2006-0806.
^ [SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=732483
Wireless Communications and Computing at a
Crossroads: New Paradigms and Their Impact
on Theories Governing the Public's Right to
Spectrum Access], Patrick S. Ryan, Journal on
Telecommunications & High Technology Law,
Vol.
3,
No.
2,
p.
239,
2005.
^ Bart Decrem (2006-06-13). "Introducing
Flock Beta 1". Flock official blog. Retrieved
2007-01-13.
^ Gerald Marwell and Ruth E. Ames:
"Experiments on the Provision of Public Goods.
I. Resources, Interest, Group Size, and the
Free-Rider Problem". The American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 84, No. 6 (May, 1979), pp.
1335–1360
^ Best, D., 2006. Web 2.0 Next Big Thing or
Next Big Internet Bubble? Lecture Web
Information Systems. Techni sche Universiteit
Eindhoven.
^ Greenmeier, Larry and Gaudin, Sharon.
"Amid The Rush To Web 2.0, Some Words Of
Warning – Web 2.0 – InformationWeek".
www.informationweek.com. Retrieved 200804-04.
^ O’Reilly, T., 2005. What is Web 2.0. Design
Patterns and Business Models for the Next
Generation
of
Software,
p.
30
^
"7
Key
features
of
web
2.0".
www.webApprater.com. 2012-09-17. Retrieved
2012-09-17.