Bryan Alexander in EDUCAUSEreview with a discussion of Web 2.0 in the context of teaching and learning:
“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. Yet we can survey the ground traversed by Web 2.0 projects and discussions in order to reveal a diverse set of digital strategies with powerful implications for higher education. Ultimately, the label Web 2.0 is far less important than the concepts, projects, and practices included in its scope.”
Stephen Downes in eLearn Magazin on e-learning 2.0:
“What happens when online learning ceases to be like a medium, and becomes more like a platform? What happens when online learning software ceases to be a type of content-consumption tool, where learning is “delivered,” and becomes more like a content-authoring tool, where learning is created? The model of e-learning as being a type of content, produced by publishers, organized and structured into courses, and consumed by students, is turned on its head. Insofar as there is content, it is used rather than read and is, in any case, more likely to be produced by students than courseware authors. “
A presentation from George Siemens on how different learning needs require different approaches.
Irving Wladawsky-Berger from IBM on collaborative knowledge and innovation:
“To me, this feels very much like 1995. A huge change in how people do things is once again bursting out all around us.”
David Porter about lessons from the web 2.0 and the implications for building contemporary learning communities.
Dave Pollard on efficiency, effectiveness or value of information processes or content: “Most organizations, too, refused to abandon the top-down centralized information model that was already in place, merely institutionalizing it with firewalls, access restrictions, monster centrally-managed one-size-fits-all databases and websites and over-engineered, over-managed collaboration and community-of-practice tools. Democratizing corporate information entails the devolution of decision-making and other power to front-line workers, and executives are understandably nervous about this.
(…) Step by step, here is what KM practitioners would need to do to realize this possibility:
- Revamp and upgrade the role of Information Professionals from content managers to personal productivity enablers.
- Reintermediate Information Professions to filter and add more value to external content.
- Develop simple, automated, Pub & Sub mechanisms to encourage and enable workers to ‘publish’ their knowledge and subscribe to that of others, inside and outside the organization.
- Create new media to allow workers to obtain and share ‘know-how’, ‘know-who’ and ‘know-what’ information from colleagues both inside and outside the organization.
- Provide tools and information resources that enable and enhance solution co-development with clients.”
by Ned F. Kock
Business Process Improvement Through E-Collaboration: Knowledge Sharing Through the Use of Virtual Groups is written around two main theses. The first is that business process improvement, a key element of the most influential management movements since the 1980s, can itself be considerably improved by the use of information technology. The second is that process improvement affects organizational knowledge sharing in a non-linear way, and that the use of e-collaboration technologies can boost this influence by increasing the breadth and speed of knowledge dissemination in organizations.