A really interesting post from the JISC digitisation team this morning over at: http://digitisation.jiscinvolve.org/2008/07/07/is-academia-ready-for-web-20
It concludes:
- Social networking features are perceivedas primarily for pleasure rather than for work
- Content is still king: to be a truly useful research tool, students and lecturers need to know that a resource has been created for them and has scholarly merit, and reliable and relevant content
- Wikipedia was singled out by both FE and HE interviewees as being particularly unreliable, and yet highly popular
- The features most associated with a Web 2.0 approach (rate, comment, upload, blog and send to friend) were commonly described with reference to social networking or e-commerce sites and were largely considered non-academic and therefore inappropriate for the Pre-Raphaelite online resource.
Comments
Hi Lawrie
Similar results that may be of interest.
I recently performed an online semi-structured online questionnaire survey of 3000 medical students and 3000 qualified medical practitioners (consultants, general practitioners and doctors in training) on the British Medical Association’s membership database. All groups had high familiarity, but low use, of podcasts. Ownership of digital media players was higher among medical students. There was high familiarity, but low use, of other Web 2.0 technologies except for high use of instant messaging and social networking by medical students. All groups stated that they were interested in using Web 2.0 technologies for education but there was lack of knowledge and skills in how to use these new technologies. The free text comments
J Sandars, S Schroter Postgrad Med J. 2007 83 759-62 18057175 (P,S,E,B,D) Web 2.0 technologies for undergraduate and postgraduate medical education: an online survey.
I think we seriously need to consider developing a training package on "digital literacy" - how to inform and develop the skills to use (and teach) with Web 2.0 technologies. This package should be part of IT induction for students and staff.
Value comments
Best wishes
John
Lawrie
These are interesting times and I feel the euphoria and enthusiasm for Web 2.0 has, so far, clouded some of its failings - but I do feel there is a place for Web 2.0 applications in H.E. - it may be that the applications are not mature enough to meet requirements - as yet!!
As you know, the HeLMET project is working to produce a collaborative environment for tutors of medicine scattered around the hospitals of the North West. The tool we have created is based on a social networking application (Drupal). Why? Because we wanted to create communities of practice within the tool, and because early user requirements told us that doctors were keen to find and associate with other doctors in similar fields. The fact that social networking applications such as Drupal are designed for pleasure rather than work, is highlighted by the fact that a user's 'contacts' are called 'Buddies' and they have a 'Buddy List'. Not wholly appropriate to senior hospital consultants - so we are currently trying to think a the correct term to use (Friend, colleague, associate?). Hence, although built for pleasure, that doesnt mean they don't have real validity in a working environment and just as in real-life, I see people having their social network on something like Facebook, whilst they maintain a 'working-network' on dedicated sites, such as HeLMET.
However, I do feel there is a serious lack of maturity in the Web 2.0 arena when it comes to providing applications to complete real tasks. I could point to thousands of mini-applications that will rate whether I'm 'hot or not' or send someone a virtual drink. However, trying to discover an online collaborative editing tool which provides rich-text editing and reviewing functionality with a WYSIWYG front-end is proving impossible. We have tried the usual suspects (Google docs, Zoho) but each have failed to provide. So if anyone knows of a suitable application....
In the meantime, I feel this illustrates the issues with Web 2.0. As John points out, there is a desire to use the new technologies, but perhaps a lack of skills or understanding of how they can be used in a meaningful way for work. In addition, the existing technologies are aimed at the leisure side of web-use and are not mature enough to be used in a work context. Should it not therefore be the aim of the JISC community to bridge this gap by identifying how the new technologies can be used to support the work of academics and then push the development of existing technologies to meet this need?
Tim