Web 2.0 and Beyond

Response to: iWrite by Dana J. Wilber

Here I am again, hanging out with Wilber again. Initially, I thought I would break up my responses every couple of chapters. I liked Chapter 2, but felt like I should spread the love a little. Then I read Chapters 3 and 4. I am back to the chapter that actually had some interesting info. I get that technology is an ever-evolving monster, but I feel like so much of what is included in this book is already outdated. This is more of a review statement, but let's go with it for a moment. I think iWrite is a fast and easy read, but I feel like I should have read it two years before it was written. Will educators always be playing catch up with technology? When will we ever be on the cutting edge of technology? Now, let me step off my soapbox and get back to business.

After my previous rant, it might sound like I am saying there is nothing of use in this book. I am not saying that AT ALL! I just found chapter 2 much more response worthy. There are TWO things I want to address in this post. Web 2.0 and "Essential Literacies."

Web 2.0

Okay, so we've all heard it, but are we 100 percent sure we understand that it means? I thought I had an understanding, but I missed a key component. Here are a couple of clips that make it crystal clear rather than muddy water.

Short version? Web 2.0 relies on user interaction, contribution, and opinion to thrive. Users create content. Another important component to this Web 2.0 idea is that there is no user cost. Wilber states on page 32, "Web 2.0 is marked by technologies and tools that are free and allow the user to create content, share it with others, and make it publicly available." This makes me wonder......does that mean everyone has access since it is free? Ideally, yes. Students have cell phones that surely connect to the web. But is access to social media the same as access to information? Schools all have access to the internet, but do all students have that same access at home? Is the access skewed by internet safety filters in schools? When will internet access be free to everyone? This goes back to my previous comment about educators playing catch up. Depending on where we land in our teaching careers surely will impact the way we utilize technology in our classrooms.

A big part of the section on Web 2.0, Wilber spends time explaining multimodal texts. This blog post would be classified as multimodal because of the text, links, pictures and videos. In chapter one, Wilber said students need to read traditional texts (page 11). I completely agree. However, if our students are living in the age of multimodal texts, how can we expect them to read traditionally presented texts? In the age of e-readers and SparkNotes, is it necessary to read canonical texts? Should we settle for our students reading anything as long as they are reading and making meaning? I don't know the answers to these questions, but I have to ask. Maybe you know. Do you?

Let's move to the next point.

"Essential Literacies"

Let's define literacies before I move forward. Dictionary.com defines literacy as the ability to read and write. That hardly seems adequate in this day and age. So let's see what else the world wide web can provide. Our good friends at wikipedia have a much more detailed response. To sum up their definition, literacy includes the dictionary.com definition but also broadens it to include all forms of communication whether written, visual, auditory or multi-sensory. Now that I know what literacy means, I can respond like an informed intellectual. 

Wilber starts the section with visual literacy. Anytime we talk about hieroglyphics I think about my kids as toddlers. They saw pictures and told their gibberish stories. It seems rational to think that visual literacy is innate. But then kids go to school. They are taught that they can't depend on the pictures to tell the story. But isn't that what pictures are supposed to do? Help us understand what words cannot communicate to us? Wilber goes on to explain how visual information on websites can help struggling readers form mental images when the text is too complicated (page 37).  I think the appeal of these websites is more because of the interaction than just visuals. If a student can click around to find what interests them aren't they more inclined to stick to it? I don't know. Maybe I am too old. Wilber talks about  emails and text messages like they are new and exciting technology. If we want students to learn in the classroom, I think it is essential that we learn to teach in their language. That seems to mean short, attention grabbing gimmicks or profound status updates. Check out the video below. It is meant to sell you a book, but just absorb the message.

First, let's be honest. I loved this clip because they used the work Millennial which I used far too many times in my last post. More importantly, they focused on social media. iWrite doesn't specifically have a section on social media, rather a variety of blurbs on social networking. Here is my question for you: How can we make learning in the classroom as interactive are social media? How can we use tools like Facebook or Twitter, with their short, snarky comments and updates that rarely venture beyond 100 characters, to our advantage? Again, I don't have the answers. But if the next generation can multi-task as long as the multitask are simple, repetitious routines, how can we use that to our advantage??