Comments on: Web 2.0- A Synthetically Organic Nomenclature

By: mrsdurff

mrsdurff — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:16:18 +0000

Why not “Collaborative Web”? Let’s take a vote!

By: John Easo

John Easo — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:10:43 +0000

Well written blog! While web2.0 can bring in great benefits, for education purpose, we need to worry about also having all other relevant features that can be aided by technology. And more importantly techniques which students and teachers can effectively leverage online. A very good example of such a system is a online flashcard system with web2.0 based collaboration. Also do not miss the 'funnel' concept which is one of the biggest benefits to the users of this system. No wonder it has attracted many teachers and students already.

By: Steve Dembo

Steve Dembo — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:48:34 +0000

Well written post and I think you make some great points. My gut reaction is to disagree though for one reason primarily: You use these tools that are dubbed “web 2.0″ differently than you used to use traditional websites.

You use the car example. A car is a car, right? And yet as you point out, we do have qualifiers like “Truck” and “Hybrid”. People do say, “I’m going to hop in my truck and go to the store.” Is that confusing to someone that doesn’t know what a truck is? Maybe. And where is the line drawn between a truck, SUV, wagon and car? Pretty blurry at times.

I think you could make the same argument about phones. A phone is a phone, right? Do you REALLY need to specify a landline versus a cordless phone versus a mobile phone? They’re all just phones, and maybe kids today wouldn’t really care one way or the other what the difference is. But the qualifiers are there for a reason.

You mention that many teachers don’t understand the difference between Web 2.0 and Web 1.0, or that there ever was a 1.0. I’d imagine that most of those same people may not know that there are web based tools that can be used for photo editing, word processing and to create presentations. Or that they can create a classroom website for themselves with no more technical skills than it takes to send an email. And in particular for those people, the distinction is relevant.

Why does it matter for them to understand what Web 2.0 is? Because their classroom blog is fundamentally different than the district website, and they do need to know how and why.

Yes, the distinction deserves a better name. It’s even worse than Coke II. And it’d be helpful if there were a formal definition. But that’s what happens when a term mentioned in casual conversation goes viral. I’m with you about removing roadblocks, but I don’t think changing the term will turn confusion to comprehension. that’s why I think it’s still as important as ever to do Blog 101, Wikis 101 and Podcasting 101 sessions.

By: Debate Over Listservs: Web 1.0 or 2.0? « The Technorate Teacher

Debate Over Listservs: Web 1.0 or 2.0? « The Technorate Teacher — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 00:49:54 +0000

[...] fall very much in line with Ben Grey’s thinking in his post Web 2.0 – A Synthetically Organic Nomenclature. I feel that the distinction between Web 1.0 and 2.0 is tenuous at best, and confusing at worst. [...]

By: concretekax

concretekax — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:48:15 +0000

My question is what term do you use when introducing the “tools” and techniques of blogs, wikis, social bookmarks, skype, digital storytelling, etc.

Twenty-first century learning has also been criticized because many of these techniques have been done before just not always on the web.

For most teachers this represents new tools and a new teaching style (although it truly is not new). What do we call it when introducing it to them? Student-centered, constructivist, real-world, problem-solving. collaboration using internet tools? I would prefer something shorter????

By: links for 2009-07-03 | Señorita Murrell

links for 2009-07-03 | Señorita Murrell — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:10:05 +0000

[...] Web 2.0- A Synthetically Organic Nomenclature (tags: necc) [...]

By: Brady Cline

Brady Cline — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:31:39 +0000

Ben ~ I hate that I always agree with you. I’d go even further than the other commenters though: people don’t know what Web 2.0 means because it doesn’t actually have any denotative meaning. The wide range of connotations, however, make it almost useless.

By: mrsdurff

mrsdurff — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:41:45 +0000

What about pushmi-pullyu web ? A colleague recently brought up the same – that our current nomenclature not only turns people away but can be so difficult that comprehension is insurmountable.
I remember asking my IT friend what these terms meant back in early 2005. She had no idea. Still doesn’t. But her teenage kids explained it to me. I immediately understood and jumped on, as it were, the web 2.0 train.
Was it their initial explanation, that one from people like coolcatteacher, and ETT folk, or something else? I have no idea.
The point is, we have to make all of this magic accessible to the masses. On Twitter we are still amazing audiences with shout-outs. Still. Shouldn’t we be beyond that stage?
Renaming is part of jumping the hurdles beyond.

By: Steve Ransom

Steve Ransom — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:44:53 +0000

I think we have naming conventions for everything… even for things that we already do while remaining unfamiliar with the exact label. How many teachers use elements of “reciprocal teaching” or “didactic” pedagogy without being familiar with the labels they are formally given? We have a “clutter” of cats, a “skulk” of foxes, a “horde” of hamsters, and a “parliament” of owls. I think we can all agree that the name is less important than the meaning or action behind the label. However, we need to work from a common vocabulary in order to efficiently communicate at a certain level.
I agree with you that the term “web2.0″ does little to communicate the meaning of what the label represents (as does Sylvia Martinez in her post that Brian linked to), and that it is the very affordances and opportunities behind that label that are of most importance. But I don’t think that there is really one good label to descriptively represent them all. I have no problem with the label if examples and explanations of these new opportunities and affordances are at the heart of all of our conversations. If they are, then the label is understood just as any other label. As one becomes comfortable with the meaning, the label is then used fluently with understanding. So, when we know our audience is new to the ideas that “web2.0″ represents, we have to be certain to let the examples and opportunities define the label. And, if there is a better label or phrase that describes what we are talking about, then perhaps “web2.0″ should not be used at all. I have learned with my own students that if I simply try to define “web2.0″ didactically, they don’t really get it. Like most things, we learn best through experiences within social contexts – you know, “web2.0″ kinds of learning

As Shakespeare wrote, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” I know it’s a stretch, but I think there’s a parallel somewhere there.

By: Diane Main

Diane Main — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 03:26:02 +0000

Do you prefer the term “Read-Write Web”?