Introduction to Module 4 - Social Technologies

Click to view fullsize photosphere

The internet is not yet a decade-and-a-half old, but has already caused tectonic shifts in how we communicate, do business, socialise, and learn.

Tim Berners-Lee’s original vision for what was to become the World Wide Web was quite simple (grammatical errors are his!):

The aim would be to allow a place to be found for any information or reference which one felt was important, and a way of finding it afterwards. The result should be sufficiently attractive to use that it the information contained would grow past a critical threshold, so that the usefulness the scheme would in turn encourage its increased use.
(Berners-Lee, 1989/90, ‘Conclusion’ section).

The internet was thus conceived as a participative, social technology. But as with any technology, it would be in practice, in the uses that people saw and found for it, that the internet would truly take form. Human needs and ingenuity would determine how the internet would be leveraged to add value for communication, business, socialising, and learning.

[You can click into the map below to explore the structure of Module 4]:




In this module you will have the opportunity to use social ‘web 2.0’ technologies to interact as you:

* consider what these technologies mean to you in your context (Discussion Part 1)

* explore the potential they have to add value to teaching and learning (Discussion Part 2)

* evaluate whether this value can translate into paying customers; investors who will support entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs who seek to market and implement social technologies (Discussion Part 3).

Enjoy your explorations - we look forward to learning with you!

Ada, Micah, & Adam

Discussion Part 1:
After reading the "Introduction" to our module, please post memos on CrowdTrust expressing your understanding of what Social Technologies and Web 2.0 mean to you. Please tag memos with at least the following, so it is convenient for others to search and respond: M4-1, 522.

(Part 1 memos should be posted latest Tues, Oct 2 for adequate discussion time.)

Please proceed to Discussion Part 1, in CrowdTrust (note this will only take you direct to the Discussion Part 1 thread if you are already logged in to CrowdTrust)

Social Technologies' Learning Potential

Web 2.0 Potential

When we discuss the potential of social technologies, it cannot be adequately described without the term Web 2.0, which is really a marketing term describing the different ways of building applications online, according to Eric Schmidt of Google. These social applications, such as Facebook or Flickr, allow users to communicate and be connected through the web. That, literally, is the potential of our current social technologies, also known as Web 2.0.

Learning Potential

In terms of learning, educational institutions are jumping on the bandwagon of Web 2.0 because it provides educational opportunities for social collaborative learning. Through applications, such as blogs and wikis, students are able to contribute and learn anytime, anywhere without the restraints of the physical classroom. As well, these social applications empower the individual to actively share knowledge and learn. Even some colleges are beginning to offer classes on YouTube, so anyone can potentially peek into their classrooms and motivate postings of video responses. The concern is, will these Web 2.0 experiments actually become opportunities for greater learning or do they have limitations that will turn students off from using these applications?

Please read the following three articles to get a better idea of Web 2.0 potentials in terms of school learning:

School Learning Goes Web 2.0, YouTube Studies, and Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning?


Web 3.0 Potential

Web 3.0 is still a relatively new term that is predicted to help us connect all social applications together, so that the web becomes one big database, where the content is accessible and connected by all people, organizations, services, products, websites, and other entities. In other words, the currently fragmented and inconsistent social applications of Web 2.0 will eventually become interconnected and cooperative when a single platform can join all the functions and data. Moreover, this database and its social applications can be runned and customized quickly on any electronic device, such as a PDA or a cellphone. It is worth thinking about the large difference and impact Web 3.0 would make to school learning. Can you imagine a student working on a research project who types in a general word on Google, and instead of the million results he/she would currently get, this student gets an elaborate but concise list of results that would be compatible with his/her personal updated profile, bookmarks, and recent website visits because all his/her information entered previously are stored and connected to all other applications?

We realize this may all sound new and complex, so to help you obtain a greater understanding of the potentials of Web 3.0, we recommend that you complete the following optional readings and/or video viewings:

Ben Hunt on The Future Web 2.0 Experience

Eric Schmidt on Web 2.0 vs. Web 3.0

Bran Ferren on Web 3.0 during O'Reilly's Web 2.0 Conference (beginning @ 18:22 out of 25:47 total video running time)

Discussion Part 2:
After reading our sections on "Web 1.0 and the potentials of Web 2.0", please post memos on CrowdTrust regarding your thoughts on whether the influence of Web 2.0 and the future impact of Web 3.0 will be boom or bust. Tag memos with at least the following: M4, 522, discussion 2

(Part 2 memos should be posted latest Thurs, Oct 4 for adequate discussion time.)


*Please proceed to Discussion Part 2 in CrowdTrust.

Who are the Customers and Why will they pay?

Who are the customers and why will they pay in the Web 2.0 world?

Two of the big sales points with Web 2.0 are brand-awareness and stiff competition amongst the major players.

In the article Brandbuilding and Web 2.0 the authors mention that some companies are even willing to take a loss on their investment (ROI) in order to build their brand. Companies such as Google and Yahoo are willing to pay for brand awareness because they want web users to use their tools instead of their competitors. This is one of the reasons why some Web 2.0 companies such as "Flickr, Delicious , WebJay , Konfabulator , and Upcoming, for instance, have all been acquired by Yahoo" (Roush, 2006). It is also well known that one of the other big social Web 2.0 sites, YouTube.com was purchased for "$1.65 Billion in Stock." Of specific interest is that some blogs such as gottaquirk report that Youtube.com was "previously making less than 20 million in revenues" (Stokes, n.d) and TheNewYorkTimes.com suggests that "the price tag Google paid may simply have been the cost of beating its rivals — Yahoo , Viacom and the News Corporation" (Sorkin, 2006).

According to Mark Anderson and David Vogt what is happening in terms of Web 2.0 companies is that “many/all of today's Web 2.0 companies don't make any money … they're hoping to accumulate eyeballs” so that a larger company such as Google will buy them out (Anderson, 2007). Another interesting way to make money on the Web 2.0 wave is to cash in on lucrative grants such as FaceBooks 10 million dollar grant fund available for companies to develop applications for the Facebook platform. In the education world it would be interesting to develop a piece of educational software that runs on Facebook that would connect Vista with Facebook to allow learners to take courses within the Facebook software.

In the Web 2.0 world the customer base appears to be very limited to a selected group of big name companies that have a ton of cash and are looking to expand their reach further to capture the market share of existing internet users

Case Studies: The Web 1.0 LMS vs Web 2.0 Social Learning Technologies

In my experience working with academic staff and my university's learning management system, it seems that most staff tend to use an LMS as a web 1.0 materials distribution tool, and much less as a web 2.0 social learning tool. I hear from staff that even their most basic use of the LMS often stems from student demand for more flexible access to materials online.

Adam Blake, University of Auckland

* At Harvard, students unhappy with the university's centralised portal created their own portal using Netvibes, called Crimson Connect, complete with RSS feeds bringing in content from the university's LMS. But university administration required password-protected content to be withdrawn from the site.

* Unitec is a large Auckland polytechnic where Blackboard is the chosen LMS. Senior academics there concerned at the divide between student familiarity with web 2.0 tools and their own understanding formed a community of practice to become familiar with these social technologies (see 'Case Study1: Dummies2Delight' halfway down the page, complete with a link to a short YouTube video of the participants' thoughts when they first met with their tutor Thom Cochrane). Thom came to talk to staff at the the University of Auckland last month regarding his experiences with this project.

* This very short article from the latest EDUCAUSE review highlights the tension between centralised control of IT in learning organisations like universities and the demands of connected net-savvy students to use social tools of their own choice.

Do these cases suggest a continuum in demand and comfort levels in relation to web 2.0 learning technologies, being typically high for students, at a mid-range for academics, and low for all but the most progressive university adminstrators?

In terms of analysis of these cases using the ETEC522 cube [thanks Tracey!], 'who is the customer'? Is 'learning technology competing with other forms of learning'?

Pitches

After reading the various sections regarding Social Technologies and Web 2.0, you should now have a better understanding of what they are, their potentials, and who may be the customers that would be willing to pay or invest in these potentials. As a result, our group has included the following two pitches for you to choose and analyze to see if you would be willing to be such a potential customer to one of the following companies that is trying to expand the potential of social technologies.

Pitch 1: A representative from Aggregate Knowledge

Pitch 2: David Vogt on CrowdTrust

*Please proceed to Discussion Part 3 in CrowdTrust.

Additional Readings/Resources

The following is a non-exhaustive list of additional readings and videos regarding Social Technologies that may be of interest to you:

Ben Hunt on the Future Web 2.0 Experience
Eric Schmidt on Web 2.0 vs. Web 3.0
Bran Ferren on Web 3.0 during O'Reilly's Web 2.0 Conference (beginning @ 18:22 out of 25:47 total video running time)
YouTube video on Web 2.0 is Us/ing us
video on "Identity 2.0" by Dick Hardt
What Web 2.0 is all about by Tim O'Reilly
article on Web 0.0