LEARNING IN WEB2.0 Exploring the implications for ubiquitous learning

Defining Web2.0  Introduced in 2004 as the name of an O’Reilly conference, specifically focused on business  They define it as “A set of economic, social and technology trends that collectively form the basis for the next generation of the Internet – a more mature, distinctive medium characterized by user participation, openness, and network effects” (Musser 2006)  The word is used to refer to a time period, a social movement, as adjective, as a technology and more  Keyword associations with Del.icio.us Keyword associations with Del.icio.us  A new stage in the information revolution! (?)

O’Reilly’s 8 Core Trends  Harnessing Collective Intelligence: Sometimes described as the core pattern of Web 2.0, this describes architectures of participation that embraces the effective use of network effects and feedback loops to create systems that get better the more that people use them.  Data is the Next "Intel Inside": A phrase that captures the fact that information has become as important, or more important, than software, which has become relentlessly commoditized.  Innovation in Assembly: The Web has become a massive source of small pieces of data and services, loosely joined, increasing the recombinant possibilities and unintended uses of systems and information.  Rich User Experiences: The Web page has evolved to become far more than HTML markup and now embodies full software experiences that enable interaction and immersion in innovative new ways.  Software Above the Level of a Single Device: Software like the horizontally federated blogosphere (hundreds of blog platforms and aggregators) or the vertically integrated iTunes (server farm + online store + iTunes client + iPods) are changing our software landscape.  Perpetual Beta: Software releases are disappearing and continuous change is becoming the norm. (“What version is Google?”)  Leveraging the Long Tail: The mass servicing of micromarkets cost effectively via the Web is one of the primary "killer business models" made possible by the Internet in its present form.  Lightweight Software/Business Models and Cost Effective Scalability: Everything from Amazon's S3, to RSS, to Ruby on Rails are changing the economics of online software development fundamentally, providing new players powerful new weapons against established players and even entire industries.

Characteristics of Web2.0  Structural (analysis issues) (Cormode and Krishnamurthy 2008)  Interactivity, dynamic pages (graphs!), boundaries?  New links (friends, navigation, relationships)  Technological (Cormode and Krishnamurthy 2008)  Publish/subscribe  Platform  Underlying technologies (AJAX, Flash, XML)  Measurement issues (Cormode and Krishnamurthy 2008)  Traffic measurement (not just clicks)  Crawling is difficult (due to interactivity)  Speed and performance  Social! (Participatory Culture, Jenkins et al. 2006)  Affiliations (memberships, formal and informal, virtual identity!)  Expressions (production of new creative forms – more than multimedia?)  Collaborative Problem-solving (wiki-wiki-wikipeeeedia, gaming, hackers/Linux)  Circulations (flow of information – blogs, p2p, FB newsfeed)

Stuff Jeff Associates with Web2.0  Social Networking Sites – Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Cyworld, Xanga, Live Journal Orkut, StudiVZ, Mixi, QQ, Hi5, Xiaonei.com, etc…  Wikipedia.  Multimedia Sharing – YouTube, Flickr, DeviantArt  Mapping – Google Maps/Earth, Open Street Map, Platial  Social Bookmarking – Del.icio.us, Digg, feeds/podcasts  Websites – Wordpress, Drupal, Google Sites, Wikis  Google Suite – Docs, Calendar, groups, moremore  Commerce – Ebay, Craigslist, Amazon  I made a funny presentation about these : Web2.0 Resources and the Digital Divide: The Good, The Bad, and the UglyWeb2.0 Resources and the Digital Divide: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly

Visualize it!

Enter Ubiquitous Learning  Well, what is learning?  Acquiring new knowledge, behaviors, skills, values, preferences or understandings  Processing information, may be termed ‘education’ or ‘personal development’  Conscious and unconscious, habitual and through play, structured or unstructured  Predicated on Ubiquitous Computing (network effects; population-specific)  New opportunities for leaning  New environments (altered place; distance)  New teachers (direction of information; authority)  New timelines (a-synchronous, in-demand)

So What Have We?  Information Access in a Networked World  Osmosis  Pull  Push  Digital Literacy  Play  Performance  Simulation  Appropriation  Multitasking  Distributed Cognition  Collective Intelligence  Judgment  Transmedia Navigation  Networking  Negotiation

Implications (Challenges!)  Pedagogies  What new things can we learn on/with/through these websites?  How to structure learning experience? Websites as classrooms?  Compounded challenges for measurement…  Teaching how to think… with the internet! (technologies change)  Institutions  How do educational institutions make use of Web2.0?  Web2.0 sites as institutions; knowledge producing communities  Where are the boundaries??  Adapt old methodologies to new mediums on the web?  Technologies  Information interfaces as a (almost) new form of structure  Technologies that adapt to us? Vice- versa? Balance…  Critical access! Who gets to make the tech toys?  Social Transformations  Renegotiating the role of teacher  Workplace, home, play, classroom, virtual space  New identities, new inequalities; participation  How we meet other people; how we become introduced to an idea; how we remember…  Wesch + Lessig! (socialization) Wesch + Lessig!

An example… with videos!   The Machine is Us/ing Us The Machine is Us/ing Us  Information R/evolution Information R/evolution  YouTube Digital Ethnography YouTube Digital Ethnography  An anthropological introduction to YouTube An anthropological introduction to YouTube  Did You Know 2.0 Did You Know 2.0

References  boyd, danah. (2007). "Information Access in a Networked World." Talk presented to Pearson Publishing, Palo Alto, California, 2 Nov  Cormode, Graham and Balachander Krishnamurthy. (2008). Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. First Monday, 13(6), 2 June / /1972  Hinchcliffe, Dion. (2006). “Web 2.0 definition updated and Enterprise 2.0 emerges.” ZDNet, 5 Nov  Jenkins, H. (with Clinton, K., Purushotma, R. Robinson, A. J., & Weigel, M.) (2006). “Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century.” Chicago, IL: MacArthur Foundation.  McDonald, Fritz. (2008). “Web 2.0: What It Means, How It Works, And How To Use It To Your Advantage.” Stamats, 24 Apr  Musser, John. (2006). “Web 2.0 Principles and Best Practices.” An O’Reilly Radar Report, Nov