Both authors of these articles cite Web 2.0 as more than "just the technology" behind the Internet. Both see the Internet as a tool functional in multiple settings: in the classroom, as a social networking tool, and as a sort of library. The articles format their definition of Web 2.0 as a stipulative definition, never putting it into a sentence or two, but rather spending the entire article writing an informal, descriptive analysis of Web 2.0.
However, the articles differ in a few aspects. First, the authors are addressing different audiences. One writes a response to the others paper. In these descriptions, the authors focus on different emphases: one focuses on the concept of being open, while the other more on the practical application of technology in education. Overall however, the articles form a good basis for an introduction to Web 2.0 to the new user.
I agree with your description of the articles content as a stipulative definition. Each article goes into great detail and provides many examples for why there is a difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. Comparing the articles, I found that Alexander's article was for an audience that understood much more about technology than the audience of Batson's article.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea that both of these authors targeted a different audience. However I feel like you didn’t being up one of the main differences that I noticed. One of the authors was very enthusiastic about the prospect of Web 2.0 and the developments that it could bring to education. The other found that it could be somewhat detrimental to the current educational fabric. I found that by reading both of these articles, there was a good balance to show us what Web 2.0 really is.
ReplyDeleteAlthough both articles were somewhat different in their approach to Web 2.0, Alexander's article was more technical and detailed while Batson's was a bit more superficial and general.
ReplyDeleteThe similarities were were a bit more obvious; they viewed web 2.0 as a means of expanding education as well as expanding the social networking platforms. Both author's quoted and cited many current and past, relevant sources that web 2.0 is becoming a pervasive, seemingly ubiquitous term.
While you are on the right track with the similarities and differences of the two articles, overall I thought your post was a little vague. First of all, instead of referring to the readings as "the article(s)" it is best to actually tell us which one you are actually discussing along with the author. Also, telling us the authors defined Web 2.0 as a stipulative definition is just as unclear as to what the definition might be. Lastly, your concluding sentence is vague and doesn't shed any insight as to the similarities and differences between the articles.
ReplyDelete