Web 2.0 vs. Web 1.0 : “More than information, an experience”
Web 1.0 is more a technology of static web-sites; one
supplies many.
Web 2.0 is a participatory read and write s in practice based on open-source software, where content is provided by the users and the platforms on which to share it comes from Web publishers.
Differences between Web 1.0 and 2.0:
http://leighhouse.typepad.com/advergirl/2007/10/web-10-vs-web-2.html
A graphic representation:
http://www.sizlopedia.com/2007/08/18/web-10-vs-web-20-the-visual-difference/
A Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BAXvFdMBWw&feature=related
Thoughts to ponder on the class blog this week:
The range is from ‘accessible’ to ‘personal’ and ‘expert voice’ to ‘peer credible’ – the web learning that’s available and can be categorized Web 1.0 and 2.0 each have its benefits and its drawbacks. Using the examples from Advergirl, the graphic and the video above, as well as your knowledge gained from using various sites, share your thoughts on the positives and negatives for the concepts behind web 1.0 and 2.0.
What’s the Matter with Ebooks: An Update
7 years ago
I really liked the way the video captured the essence of Web 2.0. I even embedded it in my work blog because I liked it so much. And, the graphic actually did a pretty good job of what the video explained in a neat little picture. I liked the concept of the examples from Advergirl but I have to say that I think some explanations would have helped her case. I did quite see how some of her examples demonstrated the difference in Web 2.0 vs. Web 1.0. For example:
ReplyDelete1. Finding information to making connections. In this one, it's very clear. Switchboard is a lookup service, Linkedin/Facebook connects friends or other contacts and Prosper (pretty cool,btw) connects unknown people together for mutual benefit.
2. Directed behavior to finding by browsing. Not sure I get this one. How does the BN or HomeDepot site differ from Crate and Barrel?
3. Answers to Connecting to Support. Again, how does RevolutionHealth differ from WebMD?
4. Value Propositions to Simple Value. I would have liked to see some explanation for the examples chosen in this category.
5. Reading to Writing. Wasn't sure I get this one at all. Hill and Knowlton seem like a consolidation site of different articles, but I'm still confused about what Squidoo is all about and how does FoodTV have anything to do with reading?
6. Accessible to Personal. Again, not sure I see the connections between this category and the examples. Also, NewsGator seems like a brand, not raw.
7. Expert voice to peer credibility. How is NY Times "peer credible"?
8. You to Me. I get that Kashi is trying to get user participation though I'm not sure MySpace fits as a good example for raw.
9. Content to Multimedia. Like she starts, she ends with a good example. About is static content, YouTube is peer videos and Chow is the brand including videos on how to cook, etc...
Barring my critique of Advergirl, I do believe concepts such as "personal" and "peer credible" are representative of what we mean by Web 2.0. I also think we have to include concepts such as "collaboration", "participation" and "sharing". From the perspective of educators, Web 2.0 opens exposes completely new challenges for teaching and yet, I would argue, also opens up entirely new opportunities for teaching.
My thoughts on the readings listed on ClassWeb for this week.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Robin about Advergirl. Some of the categories made sense, but only after I watched the video and checked out the graphic on Sizlopedia. I think the nature of Web 2.0 is better described in a multimedia way and through actual experience. I thought "Expert Voice" to "Peer Credibility" was an interesting category and one I can relate to in the classroom. I think part of my goal is to achieve this kind of change in classroom culture.
ReplyDeleteThe video was clear and concise - maybe it was the british accent! Anyway, it made the point more clearly than anything I had read. I was particularly taken with the notion of strategies for business - going to where people start on the web (social networking sites) and then bringing them to you. Interaction seems to me a key term in summing up 2.0
Thinking about the use of Web 2.0 at the middle and high school level -
Where I teach, we barely qualify for 1.0! Until November of 2008, we used a website designed 9 years ago. It was very static - very much a place to post information.
The new website: ryeschools.org contains more interactive features, allows for blogging and RSS, but teachers are fighting the use of it, and administrators don't understand how the technology can be used. So far, we have been encouraged to do little more than "decorate" our teacher pages with posts to show the school board we are using it.
More time is spent preparing faculty to post files and no one has bothered to explain what RSS is or what its implications are for the classroom, let alone blogging. I fear that except for a few of us, the potential of the site will remain untapped.
Our filtering system continues to frustrate as well. Those who oversee our technology are very reluctant to make exceptions to blocked sites. I had to make a case for accessing the Princeton University Music Dept. site, which was blocked because they detected "streaming radio"!!
Dan,
ReplyDeleteWow! - Thanks for the real example from your school. It is a big problem and I think quite timely that you bring up the resistance by teachers and administrators to adopt these Web 2.0 technologies. The very first question (I'm only up to the 2nd one) at the Obama virtual town hall was about education and how we are going to reform it. One of Obama's points was driving right to the problem at your school which is the need to train teachers on how to utilize newer and more effective tools to educate and engage students. It sounds like your school would be prime for that kind of training since the technology is now in place.
First...
ReplyDeleteThe videos and graphic did a good job of explaining the Web 2.0 concept. Previously the whole 2.0 thing just sounded like a corporate marketing ploy to make the old new again... (Wasn't New Coke supposed to be better than old Coke, hmmmm).
As for Advergirl, I would have to agree with much of what Robin said, specifically 4-6. I too am not sure how some of those examples are supposed to fit into those roles.
In my professional life my day job as an elementary school science teacher is completely Web -4.5... Despite my best efforts to get something started we barely use technology, much less the web.
In my undergrad class I have my students post to a blog (sound familiar). I will expand it a bit next semester as I tweak the course.
From some of the postings I gathered that some people think the idea of web 2.0 is a scheme or isn’t real. It seems to me like that what we’re seeing/experiencing is a major evolutionary step in the web.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of web 1.0 and web 2.0 is completely new to me. At first advergirl’s posting was extremely confusing. After watching the video and viewing the graphic the concept was clearer.
After watching the video and watching the graphic I felt like advergirl’s classification system (1.0, 2.0 raw and 2.0) would be clearer and I would be able to see concrete examples of the evolution from 1.0 to 2.0. This wasn’t always the case. Like gadgetgirl stated, what’s the difference between the crate & barrel site and the home depot site?
I understand the difference between “peer credible” and “expert voice” but again like gadget girl stated how is the nytimes “peer credible”. Hopefully I’m not missing something in saying this but I’d think a site like Wikipedia would be more towards “peer credible” and maybe a better example of web 2.0. If I’m wrong, someone please tell me!
I understand everyone’s frustration about their school websites. We use a system called zumu that teacher’s basically use to post information. It’s a virtual bulletin board that is so non- user friendly even the younger teachers shy away from it.