The two articles, one written by James Batson and the other written by Brian Alexander, are very similar in aim, and in title. They both aim to argue that Web 2.0 is defined by its openness, its accessibility to cyber content, and the fact that anyone can now change/edit content on the internet. They both agree its openness is crucial when discussing what defines Web 2.0.
Their arguments thought differ on many aspects. Firstly, since Batson is an English Professor, his article is focused on how Web 2.0 can revolutionize teaching and education. He argues that Web 2.0 is a manifestation of what humans are, helping us rediscover "our naturally cooperative, creative, and gregarious nature." this rediscovery is key in allowing Web 2.0 help education. Alexander on the other hand, being a research director, focuses his discussion on the flow of microcontent between domains and servers. He discusses the use of user-generated tags to categorize content, allowing users to quickly access a content they want using the tags. Unlike Batson, Alexander focuses more on the architecture while Batson focuses more on the benefits.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that both articles have to do with education not just the one.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the authors' backgrounds and professions influence the way they view Web 2.0. It affects their opinion on it because they analyze it in different ways. Batson focuses on how the technology can be used in the classroom, while Alexander focuses primarily on the structure and information that goes along with it. The articles do have their differences when it comes to viewpoint, but they both still effectively describe Web 2.0.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Batson definitely leaned his argument towards teaching and the education process as he is a teacher himself. As Garrett says above, I also believe that Alexander talks about education. Although it may not seem this way because he is not as argumentative for technology in the learning process as Batson is.
ReplyDelete