1. WEB 2.0 Interactive Web 2.0 Colective Intelligence Collaborative Social Dynamic Guillermina Viruet Cruz Educ. 7101-2 Dr. Almasude

3. 250,000 sites visited for 45 million users At first the Web was just reading.

4. The users only had access to read what they had and to wait for each new publication. There were few people creating content

5. WEB 1.0 WAS People connecting to the network

6. Information was generated only by publishers and webmasters So boring!

7. Next Step: FROM WEB 1.0

8. The term Web 2.0 was coined by Tim O'Reilly in 2004 to refer to a second generation in the history of community-based web users

9. Web 2.0 is a special range of services such as social networks, blogs, wikis or the folksonomies that encourage flexible collaboration and exchange of information between users.

10. It is something like Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0 users Users and contributors Users organize and share

11. 1989 WWW 1995 1998 Web 2.0 timeline 1999 2001 2003 2004 2005 2006 2008 2007 Web 2.0 encompasses a range of technologies. The most used are blogs, wikis, podcasts and social networks.

12. Curve of Adoption Initially, had a rapid diffusion. However, for lack of knowledge decreased its acceptance in the commercial sector.

13. Innovators and Early Adopters Now Both in the commercial sector and in education, Web 2.0 is seen as a powerful tool to construct knowledge collaboratively, (which after all can access) through individual contributions that enrich learning and teaching practice Web 2.0, the participatory web, is already having a significant impact, but the major changes are yet to come (Corbin Ball Associates, 2006).

14. 1990 2009 WEB 1.0WEB 2.0 Perceived Attributes Web 2.0 Tools present a vast array of opportunities—for companies that know how to use them. Adoption of corporate technology Web 2.0, the second generation of the web, brings richer and more efficient means of planning, collaborating, communicating and promoting events. The web is replacing shrink- wrapped, stand-alone software as the platform; data is becoming the driving force; participation is becoming the key ingredient. (Corbin Ball Associates, 2006).

15. World population using web 2.0.4% 19961996.9% 19971997 20022002 9.4% 20062006 15.7% 20092009 22.5% You tube RSS feed Podcast Flicker My space Social bookmarking Reference: History of Web 2.0 and Digital Natives. Retrieved from http://www.xtimeline.com/timeline/History-of-Web-2-0-and-Digital-Natives The increase in the use of social networks like Facebook, Youtube and others Web 2.0 tools among young people demonstrates the need to include them in the field of education. The phenomenon of social networks or virtual communities is growing in these two or three years in parallel with the development of services and tools known as Web 2.0.

16. CRITICAL MASS The web evolution and it’s rapid grow has not allow to reach the critical mass in all Web 2.0 tools in Education and Companies. Also, there are a lot of teachers that are reluctant and have old paradigms that avoid to reach the critical mass.

17. The explosion of social sites where people share information and knowledge promotes a new trend toward creating a common understanding and collective created by and for users. This promotes collaborative learning as desired by different currents of face to face and virtual education, and must be seized and taken into account by the new models and methods of virtual education. CHANGE AGENTS individual innovators are necessary to make Web 2.0 ‘work’ in a school.

18. Approach Decentralized Approach Participants create and share information with one another in order to reach a mutual understanding.

19. It is a social space horizontally and rich sources of information (social network where knowledge is not closed) which is an alternative to the traditional unidirectional hierarchy and learning environments. Requires new roles for teachers and students to self-employment oriented, collaborative, critical and creative, personal expression, investigation and share resources, to create knowledge and learn... Educational Implications of Web 2.0

20. Their sources of information and communication channels provide a more autonomous learning and enabling greater participation in group activities, which tends to increase interest and motivation of students.. Educational Implications of Web 2.0 Continued

21. With its editing applications teachers and students can easily develop materials individually or in groups, share and submit to the comments from readers. Provides on-line spaces for storage, classification and publication / dissemination of textual and audiovisual content, which after all can access.

22. Educational Implications of Web 2.0 Continued Facilitates the implementation of new learning activities and assessment and the creation of learning networks. They develop and improve digital skills, since the search and selection process information and turn it into knowledge, to publication and broadcast by various media. Provides environments for the development of networks of schools and teachers where they can reflect on educational issues, help and develop and share resources.

23. References Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education,. 11(2), 71-80 Alexander, B. (2006). A new way of innovation for teaching and learning. Educause Review,41(2), 32−44.Retrieve fromhttp://educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0621.pdf BizEd, (2010). Schools take Web 2.0 to the next level. Technology, 3, 52. Retrieve from Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost. Cobo Romani,C & Pardo, H. (2007). Planeta Web 2.0. Inteligencia colectiva o medios fast food. Retrieve from www.planetaweb2.net.

24. Grahame Moore, M. (2007). Web 2.0: Does It Really Matter? Editorial American Journal of Distance Education, 21(4), 177–183 O’Reilly, T.(2005).“What Is Web 2.0,” Retrieve from tim.oreilly.com, Rainie, L. (2010). The raise of networked individuals. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieve from http://www.pewinternet.org/Presentations/2010/Apr/University. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovation. New York: Free Press. References