The two articles “Why is Web 2.0 Important to Higher Education?” by Trent Batson and “Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning” by Bryan Alexander possess similarities simply within their titles. Both are not mere statements, instead they are questions that let the reader believe the articles will be one of contemplation. Another similarity is within one concept both articles address: the togetherness Web 2.0 promotes among its users. Batson writes about Web 2.0 helping the human instinct's “gregarious nature,” Alexander introduces a large component of Web 2.0 to be “social software.” Both articles agree that a major purpose of Web 2.0 is its endorsement for cooperation and communication between individuals. Also both articles place an emphasis on users participating and playing a critical role in Web 2.0. Batson goes so far as to state “the new textbook is student work.” Meaning that students are the ones who will be generating ideas and concepts, instead of a pre-written textbook. Alexander implements this same concept by stating “[Web 2.0] sees users as playing more of a foundational role in information architecture.” Once again, the concept of information coming from individuals is promoted.
Although the two articles present many similarities their differences are just as distinct. One distinction between the two articles is the target audience. Batson’s target audience includes educators, specifically “faculty member[s].” While it is apparent Alexander addresses education as well (due to his title including the words teaching and learning) he keeps his audience more generic by never explicitly stating a specific group of people. Another difference includes the evidence each article presents. Batson keeps his article solely related to education in primarily the classroom setting, whereas Alexander does not solely focus upon Web 2.0 in classrooms but in other environments as well. It is evident that both authors had similar concepts regarding Web 2.0, but each analyzed the notion in a different manner.
Great job, Sheila!
ReplyDeleteI really liked how you addressed the title format similarity between the two articles. I hadn't really noticed or paid much attention to the fact that they were questions until I read your post. I agree that while searching for an answer to their respective answers the authors took slightly different approaches in who they were addressing. Perhaps Batson's article is not as widely read because of its narrower audience?