2. Need The move from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 necessitated the development of tools that would enable users to create and share content. Users of the World Wide Web were not satisfied with just being able to read the content available, but there were few who knew how to use html to create content. Therefore, a need arose for tools that allowed those without html knowledge to create content. Since Web 2.0 is known as the "read-write web" instead of being a read-only environment, users needed platforms that would enable them to not only read the content available, but also to become creators of the content.
6. Research The “lead thinkers” aren’t any one person or group; they are everyday people who read/write content online.
7. Development Problems encountered during development process: Doubts about accuracy of information shared using Web 2.0 tools Lack of knowledge about how to use Web 2.0 tools Doubts about longevity of Web 2.0 tools Lack of vision about how Web 2.0 tools could be used to enhance education Intended audience: Anyone who uses the Internet to read and create content Business Leaders Educators
8.
9.
10. Web 2.0 Tools S-Curve Number of Users 500,000,000 100,000,000 50,000,000 1,000,000 500,000 100, 000 1998 2010 http://thefuturebuzz.com/2009/01/12/social-media-web-20-internet-numbers-stats/
11. Potential Innovators/Early Adopters Potential Innovators—teenagers, young adults, and middle-aged adults interested in technology Early Adopters—teachers in their first few years in the classroom; more experienced teachers who are technology-minded Strategies to Encourage Adoption: Incentive program—perhaps one that will offer recertification points for adoption; access to new technology for classroom use Workshops—offer the chance to see the innovation in action, including ways to use it in the classroom
12. Potential Laggards Potential Laggards—teachers who have refused to change their teaching style in the years since they first started teaching; teachers who are older in age; teachers who are unsure of how to use the innovation or of how it could be beneficial to their teaching Strategies to Encourage Adoption: Incentives—recertification points; potential to gain access to newer materials for classroom use Workshops—hands-on opportunities to try the innovation and to see it in action; tips on how to incorporate into instruction Help Line—provide constant access to innovators and adopters for assistance
13. Attributes for Promoting Adoption Relative Advantage—The benefits of using Web 2.0 tools in the classroom need to be made clear to potential adopters. Complexity—Potential adopters need to be reassured that Web 2.0 tools are not difficult to use. Observability—Demonstrations of how to use Web 2.0 tools and how to integrate them into instruction should be provided by innovators and early adopters.
16. Roles of Change Agents Each change agent would take part in all seven roles at the level necessary for the innovation to be adopted: Develop a need for change Establish an information exchange relationship Diagnose problems Create an intent to change in the client Translate intent into action Stabilize adoption and prevent discontinuance Achieve a terminal relationship
17. Critical Mass Strategies for reaching critical mass Get administrators and other leaders in the school on board with using Web 2.0 Tools Have teacher innovators demonstrate use of Web 2.0 Tools Teacher innovators should provide data about the effects of using Web 2.0 Tools in their classrooms Provide incentives to those who adopt and then bring others on board
18.
19. Students need to be prepared to go into a workplace that uses Web 2.0 tools.
20.
Editor's Notes
The move from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 necessitated the development of tools that would enable users to create and share content. Users of the World Wide Web were not satisfied with just being able to read the content available, but there were few who knew how to use html to create content. Therefore, a need arose for tools that allowed those without html knowledge to create content. Since Web 2.0 is known as the "read-write web" instead of being a read-only environment, users needed platforms that would enable them to not only read the content available, but also to become creators of the content.
Before examining this matter further, background on Web 2.0 is needed. Web 2.0 came about as the needs of Internet users changed. With Web 1.0, users were only able to read content, but without html knowledge, they were unable to create content. Therefore, Web 1.0 had limited uses. Because of the desire to be able to create content online without being html-savvy, Web 2.0 was born. Now, Internet users are able to read and create content, hence the reason Web 2.0 is also called the “Read-Write Web”.
The term “Web 2.0” officially began being used in 2004, even though some of the tools that are considered part of Web 2.0 came into being as far back as 1998. Web 2.0 includes social networking, media sharing, social bookmarking, creative works, collaborative knowledge development, content aggregation and organization, and remixing/mash-ups of content from different sources. These tools include, but aren’t limited to Facebook, Ning, YouTube, Flikr, Delicious, Wikipedia, Twitter, Wordpress, and RSS .
Problems encountered during development process were doubts about accuracy of information shared using Web 2.0 tools, lackof knowledge about how to use Web 2.0 tools, doubts about longevity of Web 2.0 tools, and a lack of vision about how Web 2.0 tools could be used to enhance education.The intended audience of this innovation is anyone who uses the Internet to read and create content,business leaders, and educators.
Commercialization of Web 2.0 tools has occurred fairly quickly due to the availability of the tools to all people who have Internet access. The content and tools available depend on what Internet users decide to create/produce, so there is a constant supply available.
With the birth of Google in 1998, the tools that are currently a part of Web 2.0 quickly became a way of life. This timeline includes only a few of the major Web 2.0 tools that have come on the scene. Many, many more exist and are made available almost daily.
The number of users of Web 2.0 tools has steadily grown since Google came on the market in 1998. As new tools become available, the number of users will most likely continue to grow.
The potential innovators for integratingWeb 2.0 tools into educational settingsare teenagers, young adults, and middle-aged adults interested in technology, especially those already involved in using those tools outside of the classroom. Early adopters will most likely be teachers in their first few years in the classroom and more experienced teachers who are technology-minded. Some strategies to encourage adoption are incentive programs that might offer recertification points or access to new technology and workshops that offer a chance to see the innovation in action.
In the case of Web 2.0 tools, potential laggards might be teachers who have refused to change their teaching style in the years since they first started teaching, teachers who are older in age, and teachers who are unsure of how to use the innovation or of how it could be beneficial to their teaching. Possible strategies to encourage adoption might include incentives, workshops, and a help line.
The attributes of relative advantage, complexity, and observability all play into the promotion of the adoption of this innovation. To promote adoption, the benefits of using these tools in the classroom would need to be made clear to potential adopters. These persons or groups would need to be reassured that these tools are not difficult to use, and demonstrations of how to use the tools and integrate them into instruction will need to be provided by innovators and early adopters.
The adoption of this innovation will take a very decentralized approach. Since information about Web 2.0 tools is available online to everyone with Internet access, no one person will have the sole responsibility for disseminating information about these tools. Administrators, teacher innovators, and school/district technology staff should share the responsibility for making sure that their colleagues—both in their own school/district and in others—have the knowledge necessary for adopting this innovation.
The key change agents in the adoption of this innovation are the administrators, school/district technology department staff, and teacher innovators with the knowledge and desire to integrate Web 2.0 tools into classroom instruction.
The roles of these change agents would include developing a need for change, establishing an information exchange relationship, diagnosing problems, creating an intent to change in the client, translating intent into action, stabilizing adoption and preventing discontinuance, and achieving a terminal relationship. All of the change agents won’t take part in all seven roles at the same time, but they will participate in each role at least once in order to promote successful adoption of this innovation.
For critical mass to be achieved, the administrators and other leaders in the school need to be brought on board with using Web 2.0 tools. Teacher innovators need to demonstrate how to use these tools and effectively integrate them into instruction, and they also need to provide data about the effects of using Web 2.0 tools in their classrooms. Also, incentives need to be provided to those who adopt and then work to bring others on board with using Web 2.0 tools in instruction.
So, why should Web 2.0 tools be integrated into classroom instruction? Why is it important to bring the tools that students use outside of the classroom into the educational setting? Students need to know that we think their out-of-school literacies, which include using Web 2.0 tools, are important. They need to be taught the skills necessary to be prepared to go into a workplace that uses Web 2.0 tools. Our students also need to practice the skills that will help them compete with their peers around the world.
