Tag Archives: Web 2.0

Library 2.0, information and digital literacies in the light of the contradictory nature of Web 2.0

Reviewed By: Sherrie Bullard, Michael Hober, Heidi Scheidl, Kayleigh Septer

Link to article: http://www.webology.org/2010/v7n2/a78.html

Article synopsis and core research question(s)

In this article, Koltay (2010) attempts to find connections and differences between professional and amateur content generation in Web 2.0 environments. The paper begins with the hypothesis “that raising awareness of differences between professional content and content produced by the amateurs of Web 2.0 is of extraordinary importance in providing adequate library services, be it in the form of offering content services or information literacy (IL) and digital literacy (DL) education” (Koltay, 2010, para. 1). It is also argued that while technological developments are interesting and libraries enjoy being as close to the cutting edge as they can get, it must continue to be the user’s needs that determine the adoption of new technology.

The article begins by looking at Web 2.0 technology and why it is so commercially successful. It also examines Web 2.0’s connection to amateurism due to the ease with which users can participate. This is contrasted to the professional and educational uses that Web 2.0 provides for librarians and libraries. The importance of IL and DL in different contexts is also considered, such as the importance of engaging in formal IL instruction in academic library settings where an analytic style of information seeking and use is appropriate. However, in public library settings it is more acceptable to facilitate a pragmatic style of information use.

Methods used to answer the research question

The research method that Koltay used to answer the research question is desk research, also known as secondary research. This research method is the gathering and analyzing of information that is readily available in print or published on the internet. Secondary research has been proven to be very time and cost effective because it helps to obtain the large spectrum of information in a shorter span of time and for a lesser cost than primary research.

Many different types of sources were used to find literature that the author could use to support the research question. Peer reviewed articles from professional journals and professional associations that were in print and online and professional blogs were used to find literature. Most of the information is from the United States. However, the author used a few articles of information from other countries, such as the United Kingdom, Italy and Hungary. The author uses these diverse sources to try to find a balance view of Web 2.0. Although, the author does point out that having a “critical attitude helps to identify the most useful tools that can serve library goals and is the basis for providing adequate information literacy and digital literacy education” (Koltay, 2010, para. 2).

The author set out to investigate the main features of Web 2.0 that contributes to its commercial success, the question of amateurism, and the difference between amateur and professional contents. The role of amateur and professional content in library services, IL and DL and in Library 2.0 were also examined.

Findings & conclusions

As previously mentioned, the purpose of this article was “to prove the hypothesis that raising awareness of differences between professional content and content produced by the amateurs of Web 2.0 is of extraordinary importance in providing adequate library services…” (Koltay, 2010, para. 1). The author understands that “there is no single literacy that is appropriate for all people or for one person over all their lifetime” (Koltay, 2010, para. 31). He also realizes that literacies are changing and require “constant updating of concepts and competencies in accordance with the changing circumstances of the information environment” (Koltay, 2010, para. 31). It should also be noted that when public libraries use Web 2.0 as a service, that the tools that are a part of Web 2.0 “can and should be used for different purposes according to differential user needs” (Koltay, 2010, para. 32).

The concept that patrons should have is an awareness of whether they are using the Web 2.0 services for a scholarly need, or purely for entertainment should also be emphasized. Ultimately Koltay (2010) finds that “…the pragmatic style is compatible with amateurism, thus has a place in public library environments, while the analytic style is the ideal for academic users and literacies geared toward their needs should show preferences to this information style” (para. 30). Public libraries have so much to offer their patrons, and by providing their patrons with the knowledge of how to correctly analyze and critically evaluate these tools can prove to be not only beneficial for the library as digital and information literacy teachers, but for the patrons themselves.

Unanswered questions you have and what future research might address. &
A thoughtful attempt to answer your own questions

Upon evaluating this article, one major question came to mind: What are the most useful tools and how might librarians use them in order to assist users in creating more analytical and professional Web 2.0 content? If libraries make use of Web 2.0 tools, they have the opportunity to develop a presence in the every-day lives of their users by connecting and sharing via various online networks.

Some useful Web 2.0 tools might include: blogs (WordPress, Blogger), wikis, podcasts, social networks (Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn), image sharing (Instagram, Flickr), and video sharing (YouTube, Vimeo).

Libraries have the opportunity to enhance IL and DL competencies within the user community by way of distributing tutorials using Web 2.0 tools for construction and delivery. This activity might promote more professional Web 2.0 content from their users. Tutorials can be cross-promoted on various social networking pages associated with the library.

Libraries might host IL and DL screencasts on video sharing sites and share the link across other sites, or create interactive tutorials, such as Guide on the Side (GOTS), in order to assist users with navigating virtual resources while they are utilizing them. GOTS offer a valuable constructivist learning experience. Topics might be: tips for searching databases, evaluate sources for bias, make a blog, create a LinkedIn profile, use social media and exhibit “Netiquette”, ethical use of information (copyright and fair-use), guide to web resources that assist children in developing early literacy skills. These activities can help librarians instruct users on IL and digital DL while using Web 2.0 tools.

For further thought: As we move toward Library 3.0, how might the further development of the Semantic Web (or Web 3.0) and its environment of linked data change and enhance the way in which the library can integrate itself into the daily lives of its user-base in terms of information literacy instruction?

Web 2.0 and New Learning Paradigms

Reviewed By: Melissa Feinberg, Tammy Molloy, Nate Nielsen, Kristan Ramos

Link to article: http://www.lmi.ub.es/personal/bartolome/articuloshtml/08elearningPap.pdf

Bartolomé, A. (2008, April). Web 2.0 and New Learning Paradigms. Retrieved from http://www.lmi.ub.es/personal/bartolome/articuloshtml/08elearningPap.pdf


Advancements in technology and the transformation of the internet towards Web 2.0 has lead to new educational ideas known as eLearning 2.0. Changes in old curriculum have been compared to the new paradigm for distance education within a technology enhanced environment.

Changes in old curricula:
The Net as a multi-device system allows changes in studying at any place and time.
Flexibility between iPods and computers for learning tasks is a technical and irrelevant question, implying learning occurs at any time such as walking and traveling.

While recently developed changes occurring at institutions and businesses using eLearning is skeptical, the near future is hopeful to use eLearning 2.0 as a commercial promotion tactic that encompasses Web 2.0 in educational courses without business control access and knowledge authority. At the same time, distance learning attributes should be characteristic in non-formal education in order to end the separation between living and learning.

Core Question: “Where are the new paradigms?”

Although the lack of a formative definition of Web 2.0 indicates that it has been used and shows a connection between distance education courses and Web 2.0 elements, there is little to no impact on the structure of the old learning paradigms that new curriculum is built upon. The acceptable structure is oriented towards document distribution and production including video-sharing, blogs, and wikis, while courses with eLearning elements are not currently applicable to information management tools including social bookmarking and tags.


Bartolomé breaks down the concepts that form Web 2.0 and what the future holds for eLearning. The article is organized into three sections that (1) describe Web 2.0, (2) the types of Web 2.0 resources used within eLearning, and (3) new paradigm platforms for eLearning. Breaking down the constructs of Web 2.0, provides analytical structure and meaning to this technology trend.

Web 2.0 – To understand Web 2.0, it must be divided into what it is and what it is not. Bartolomé explains the characteristics of Web 2.0 and the comparison from Web 1.0.

Web 2.0 resources found in eLearning courses – This section analyses the structures within Web 2.0 that may be found in the eLearning environments, such as, Wikis, Blogs, RSS readers, and so on. Bartolomé references scholars and other personnel to understand how each resource provides eLearning capability.

New paradigms – After comparing Web 2.0 with 1.0, and explaining the individual learning tools for Web 2.0; Bartolomé predicts the future of the Web 2.0 platform through past and present references. New paradigms for Web 2.0 are portrayed within this section to expand the eLearning environment.

Bartolomé references the research and theories from other scholars and journals to create a comprehensive argument about the eLearning environment within the Web 2.0 platform. The new paradigms referenced throughout this paper are theories; however they possess possible solutions for an expanding Web 2.0 platform and eLearning environments.

Conclusions and Findings

In our technologically driven environment today we are more dependent on Web 2.0 resources than most of us realize. Many users of the Web 2.0 resources don’t realize they are using resources in their everyday life that are categorized under a technologically advance concept. Although we as everyday laymen users are skilled in these resources, our learning environments are becoming more of a model for how to utilize these resources to their best benefit to the end-user.
Our end-users include teachers, students, corporate trainings, and business professionals. Web 2.0 is no longer just a Snapchat or a Facebook post, it is now a technological model utilized for various purposes such as education and corporate training in many domains.
Web 2.0 being mostly based on a learning theory that can offer online access from anywhere, once being more of a social networking collaborative effort, is now being catapulted into the future as a collaborative learning, teaching, and effective business tool for all users in many capacities under many domains.

Unanswered questions you have and what future research might address

As we all now know, web 2.0 has effectively taken over the web. Wikis, blogs, video and picture sharing platforms are now the norm on the web. Although one could still find the old model of expert to novice information sharing, this model is continuously shrinking in favor of broad information collaboration. While we were given a thorough description of the web 2.0 paradigm, and how it may affect learning, the article leaves a number of unanswered questions, these unknowns will benefit future research. Future research should do its’ best to answer the questions regarding the continued growth of web 2.0, its effects of learning models and what’s in store. Some questions that might guide future research include:
How are educators using web 2.0 technology in the physical classroom and are they keeping pace with the e-learning environment?
Have schools developed learning models to teach technical and digital literacy to prepare students? Are e-educated students more digitally and informationally literate than physical classroom taught students?
What effects has the growth of web 2.0 had on student learning?
Now that we have seen / used / participated in web 2.0, what comes next? What is the next development?
Researchers who look into these and other questions will show how learning modules have evolved and adapted. They will be able to describe new learning paradigms, how educators and institutions have harnessed the web 2.0 and the impacts it has had. They will put themselves into a position to answer the ever important question of what comes next.