Alexander.+2.0.+A+New+Wave+of+Innovation+for+Teaching+and+Learning?

 **Alexander, Bryan. "** Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning?" Youblisher, 2006. Web. 19 Mar. 2011.

By Roaquiem Manderson Remastered by Michael Miglio

** Abstract **

The term is audacious: Web 2.0. It assumes a certain interpretation of Web history, including enough progress in certain directions to trigger a succession. The label casts the reader back to Sir Tim Berners-Lee’s unleashing of the World Wide Web concept a little more than a decade ago, then asks: What forms of the Web have developed and become accepted enough that we can conceive of a transition to new ones? ■ Many people—including, or perhaps especially, supporters—critique the “Web 2.0” moniker for definitional reasons. Few can agree on even the general outlines of Web 2.0. It is about no single new development. Moreover, the term is often applied to a heterogeneous mix of relatively familiar and also very emergent technologies. The former may appear as very much “Web 1.0,” and the latter may be seen as too evanescent to be relied on for serious informatics work. Indeed,one leading exponent of this movement deems continuous improvement to be a hallmark of such projects, which makes pinning down their identities even more difficult.

Ultimately, the label “Web 2.0” is far less important than the concepts, projects, and practices included in its scope.

** Argument **

The central theme of this article is what makes web 2.0. worthy of its name and how it differs from web 1.0. Alexander points out that social software presents its information in different ways than the written book. The current microcontent, like blog posts and text messages, are generated by users instead of programmers. Alexander asserts that web 2.0 revolves around the users, who generate metadata called “folksonomy." Folsonomy is metadata that consists of words that users generate and attach to content, i.e. they're "tags."

Because of the introduction of tags, the internet is breaking away from the un-intuitiveness of construction hierarchical pillars of data.

** Key Passages **

“Ultimatley, the label ‘Web 2.0” is far less important than the concepts, projects, and practices included in its scope” (1). “Openness and microcontent combine into a larger conceptual strand of Web 2.0, one that sees users as playing more of a foundational role in information architecture” (2).

"Whereas traditional metadata is usually hierarchical (topics nested within topics), structured (e.g., the fields within Dublin Core), and predetermined by content authorities, folksonomic metadata consists of words that users generate and attach to content" (34) "Del.icio.us was one of the first popular folksonomic sites, based on the proliferation of these tags. Users were apparently delighted to tag the sites they found interesting, as a casual browse through the site reveals. Schacter’s site became influential in a short period of time. There is something immediately gratifying about adding a description to a site one is interested in, being able to do so beyond prose sentences, and not having to look to an authority for ontological assistance" (36) "Given the Web 2.0 ethos of sharing content across services, and the importance of social software, it is only logical that crossbreeds of news and social software have emerged. Blogdex (http://blogdex.net/), for example, charts the most popular Web pages as linked by a group of bloggers." (40)

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">** Selected Works Cited **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 10pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">Alexander, Bryan. “Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning?” EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 41. No. 2 (March/April 2006): 32-44.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">[]