The linked article (Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning) by Bryan Alexander, Director of Research at the National Institute for Technology, was published in the March / April 2006 Educause Review. It is a comprehensive media accumulation and review of "Web 2.0" technologies for use in teaching and learning settings — see also my prior media accumulation post regarding Feedback and Collaboration tools.
While there is no single agreement on a definition for "Web 2.0", it is widely used as the term to describe emerging web based technologies. As outlined in this article, many of the Web 2.0 technologies fall into a category of "social software", including podcasts, blogs, wikis and other social networking tools. These tools transform web content from static pages to dynamic content "blocks" or "microcontent" can be "saved, summarized, addressed, copied, quoted and built into new projects." The collaboration aspect reflects the notion of "wisdom of crowds" where microcontent contributed by many ebbs and flows to form meaning in new and ever changing ways contributing to online communities of practice. The author notes that these applications satisfy the desires to "discover, publish and share". While these applications are not exclusive to learning settings, these desires are central to learning in general.
The media accumulation includes references to social bookmarking, social writing, social commentary and feedback, content aggregation and content search that can all assist in the teaching and learning process. The bookmarking and content aggregation / search applications support discovery learning. The writing applications allow for learner reflection and practice, as well as teacher / learner commentary and feedback.
______________________________
Additional Suggested Reading: An additional media accumulation resources from Educause: The Horizon Report 2006 Edition
Yikes, there's a lot of meat in that article! My head was spinning with so many links and terms!
I agree that "Web 2.0" may not be the best choice of terms, since it changes daily and it's tough to put a line of demarcation anywhere, but I definitely think we're moving into a new era. Podcasts and wikis definitely represent exciting developments, but I still have a few reservations about them.
Many podcasts are, quite frankly, boring. I recently started listening to one about issues of sex, power, and gender at http://metropolitician.blogs.com/, but after listening to the guy ramble on for a solid 15 minutes without getting on with it I turned it off (BTW, if you have a look at his blog you'll see his writing style matches his podcasting style…). There are some good ones out there, but it takes a lot of work to separate the wheat from the chaff. This separation process is time-consuming, too; with the written word, a quick scanning can tell you if it's worth a look or not, but with podcasts you have to listen for at least five or ten minutes before you can make a decision on its value.
I'm worried about the legitimacy of wikis, too. With the "wisdom of crowds" comes the possibility of mob rule. There are a whole lot of Mormons out there, but just because they all believe in it doesn't mean that Jesus was preaching in North America, does it? I've read how the wikis can be edited by mutiple editors and how this is a safeguard, but I keep flashing back to "1984" and the potential to rewrite history. On the other hand, how can I be sure that a traditional source (i.e. written by one person) is accurate, either? Having said all that, wikis are very interesting and useful, and I find myself using them more and more each month.
Ken