Copyright 2012 by the RESEARCH IN THE SCHOOLS

Mid-South Educational Research Association 2012, Vol. 19, No. 1, i - iv

Spring 2012 i RESEARCH IN THE SCHOOLS

Guest Editorial: Web 2.0 and Literacy: Enacting a Vision, Imagining the Possibilities

Marla H. Mallette

Binghamton University

Patrick M. Mthethwa

Southern Illinois University Carbondale

June 2, 2012 – 9:30 am (Marla Mallette)

I began this day with the best intentions –

complete the revision of this editorial before

lunch. But first, with great excitement, I had to

check out the New York Times (late edition), as

last night history was made -- Johan Santana

pitched a no hitter. It was the first time ever in

8,019 games, in 50 years, in the New York Mets

franchise history. Of course, I had already (last

night) read the stories featured in today’s edition

of the Times, viewed photographs, watched video

highlights, listened to an audio recording of the

radio call, and searched twitter. Indeed, the

photo and story made the front page–now the

challenge–locate a store in Southern Illinois that

sells the NY Times–Barnes and Noble? I went to

the website, but my search was quickly put on

hold; I was captivated by the large

advertisement filling the home page screen:

Oprah’s Book Club 2.0 . . .

The construct of Web 2.0 emerged, in a rather

precarious way, during a brainstorming session,

which sought to understand the collapse of the dot-

com industry. Web 2.0 served as a mechanism

separating companies that survived from those that

failed (O’Reilly, 2007). Thus, at first, the existence of

Web 2.0 was been debated, questioned, and even

disregarded, with qualms about its authenticity

seemingly warranted. For example, Berners-Lee,

developer of the World Wide Web, initially was

skeptical:

Web 1.0 was all about connecting people. It

was an interactive space, and I think Web

2.0 is of course a piece of jargon, nobody

even knows what it means. If Web 2.0 for

you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to

people. But that was what the Web was

supposed to be all along. (Berners-Lee,

2006, para. 54)

However, with the tremendous interest and

growth in the social and interactive uses of the web,

as well as the profound technological advances that

aid in user ease and convenience, the once ambiguous

conception of Web 2.0 has developed into a clear and

interconnected framework, an idea with which

Berners-Lee agrees. That is, during an interview with

Tim O’Reilly at the 2009 Web 2.0 summit, Berners-

Lee shared his views on the presence of Web 2.0:

Correspondence concerning this article should be

addressed to Marla H. Mallette, Graduate School of

Education, Binghamton University, PO Box 6000, Binghamton, NY 13902

E-mail: mmallett@binghamton.edu

MARLA H. MALLETTE AND PATRICK MTHETHWA

Spring 2012 ii RESEARCH IN THE SCHOOLS

O’Reilly: So, what do you think of the term

Web 2.0?

Berners-Lee: Oh well, I think it's a

wonderful term, it's a term that should be

our guiding light through the last few years,

leading us out of the confusion of Web 1.0.

But, no seriously, I think over the years,

Tim, we figured out more or less what it

means. I think there was a little confusion

initially, but I think it is a useful term…

particularly for sites which are user-

generated content, because they use user-

generated content, they allow participation.

(O’Reilly & Berners-Lee, 2009)

Thus, we contend that the more current and

thoughtfully developed construct of Web 2.0 does not

really differ in theory and purpose from the original

Web. Rather, Web 2.0 represents the enactment of

Berners-Lee’s (2006) vision, people authentically

connecting and interacting with people, an idea with

which Berners-Lee agrees. Further, we subscribe to

the belief that Web 2.0 ought not be characterized as

dichotomous to Web 1.0, but instead, as continuous.

The core principles of the Web 2.0 framework

include the following (Anderson, 2007):

1. Individual production and User Generated

Content–The ease with which people can

create, self-publish, collaborate, and share.

2. Harness the power of the crowd–The notion

of collective wisdom achieved through

crowdsourcing (Howe, 2008) and

folksonomy or social tagging (Vander Wal,

2007).

3. Data on an epic scale–The ability to collect,

analyze, and aggregate massive amounts of

user data.

4. Architecture of Participation—The

reciprocity of development and use–website

use improves development, development

increases website use.

5. Network Effects–The “economic term used

to describe the increase in value to the

existing users of a service in which there is

some form of interaction with others, as

more and more people start to use it

(Klemperer, 2006; Liebowitz and Margolis,

1994)” (p. 20).

6. Openness–The ubiquity of the web as open

space (e.g., open access, open data, open

source, and open innovations).

These core principles of Web 2.0 not only frame

the ways in which we think about and use the web,

but also they influence the ways in which we

conceptualize literacy. As Leu has powerfully

conveyed, from his earlier work to the present (see

Leu & Forzani, 2012), Internet technologies shape

our understanding of literacy, and with the rapid and

continual changes in these technologies, literacy is

deictic (i.e., relative).

Today, then, with the increasingly interactive,

collaborative, open, easily accessible, and socially

situated features of the web, the knowledge, skills,

and strategies of a singular literacy are not sufficient.

That is, the multiple, complex, and multimodal

literacies of today require new and additional

knowledge, skills, and strategies. However,

paralleling the notion that Web 2.0 is a continuation

of Web 1.0, the new and multiple literacies of the

Web 2.0 also are continuous in that they include, and

build upon, existing ways of understanding and

conceptualizing literacy. Thus, we also subscribe to

the belief that new literacies should not be

characterized as dichotomous to old literacies, a

singular literacy, foundational literacy, and/or

traditional literacy.

We hope by this point, your interest is piqued,

you want more specificity, and you are questioning:

1. What exactly are the tools of Web 2.0 and

multimodal, new literacies?

2. What do the literacies of Web 2.0 look like

in classrooms (or out of school)?

3. Why is it important to teach about Web 2.0

tools and new literacies?

4. How are teachers using Web 2.0 tools and

new literacies in classrooms and what are

the implications for doing so?

5. How are teachers being prepared to teach

new literacies within the context of Web

2.0?

This special issue on Web 2.0 and literacy was

inspired by the quest to understand better these

complex and difficult ideas, which we believe are of

great value to educators and researchers. Further, in

appreciating the importance of literacy at all levels,

along with ubiquitous nature of the web, we felt it

was essential to focus on a vast array of

age/grade/learner levels. Thus, the articles that follow

span an impressive range of learners, from young

children to graduate students.

In the first article, Barone (2012) provides a

thought-provoking examination of the influence of

Web 2.0 on the literacy learning of young children.

Shifting in focus to teachers of elementary-aged

students, Dalton and Smith (2012), in an original

study, examined the integration of literacy and

technology in teacher-designed lesson plans. Next,

through his expertise with postmodern picturebooks,

Serafini (2012) provides a text-based foundation of

GUEST EDITORIAL: WEB 2.0 AND LITERACY: ENACTING A VISION, IMAGINING THE POSSIBILITIES

Spring 2012 iii RESEARCH IN THE SCHOOLS

multimodalities, exemplifying the notion that

multiple literacies are indeed continuous. Returning

to classroom practices, Alvermann, Hutchins, and

McDevitt (2012) explore dimensions of digital

literacies embedded in the principles of Web 2.0,

while also highlighting the value of turn-around

pedagogy as a catalyst for change. Focusing on

secondary English/Language Arts, Beach’s (2012)

research review offers empirical evidence on the

benefits, as well as challenges, of using digital (Web

2.0-based) tools in secondary classrooms, along with

implications for teachers and researchers. Completing

the group of feature articles, Karchmer-Klein and

Shinas (2012) conducted an original study with

graduate students (i.e., all of whom were in

education, with the majority practicing teachers),

which explored student understanding of

multimodalities through an analysis of student-

created, multimodal, and electronic texts.

Lastly, Leu and Forzani (2012) provide a

thoughtful, multifaceted discussion on the set of

articles within this special issue. Their discussion

both analyzes the unique and important contributions

of each individual article as well as synthesizes ideas

and issues traversing the articles collectively.

Interestingly, just as we outlined core principles of

Web 2.0 as an introduction, they delineate a set of

core principles of New Literacies theory as a

conclusion.

We are immensely grateful to these prominent

scholars who graciously agreed to take part in this

special issue. Their insightful and thought-provoking

articles yield profound contributions in advancing our

understanding of the substantial and relevant issues

of Web 2.0 and literacy, which permeate the lives of

students (and educators). It has been an honor to

work with such brilliant scholars and a privilege to

learn from them.

June 2, 2012 – 11:30 pm (Marla Mallette)

I end this day meeting my goal—

complete the revision of this editorial—my

timeframe was a bit off–not exactly before lunch,

nonetheless, the events that diverted my attention

in the past 24 hours have afforded me the

opportunity to experience the principles of Web

2.0 and multiple literacies.

After returning from Barnes and Noble with a

copy of the Times, I began my search. Oprah

announced Book Club 2.0 on Friday, June 1. She

made the announcement by: (a) posting a video

on her website (which within 24 hours, the video

and/or story were picked up by more than 100

news sites, and featured in most major

newspapers), (b) posting a message on Facebook

with a link to the video, and (c) sending a tweet

with link to the video. Taken together, and

recognizing Oprah has more than 7,000,000

followers on Facebook and nearly 12,000,000

followers on Twitter, this event epitomizes

‘Individual production and User Generated

Content” and “Harnessing the power of the

crowd” Yet, even more astounding—the time

factor—Book Club 2.0 launches on Monday,

June 4–a mere 3 days after being announced. My

next inquiry–gather information out the book she

selected, “Wild: From lost to found on the

Pacific Crest Trail” by Cheryl Strayed. On the

Amazon Best Seller list—a list updated hourly–

by midmorning, this book was ranked #21,

whereas on Friday it was ranked #126. Not

surprisingly, the book was in the top 10 on

Amazon’s Movers and Shakers (i.e., most growth

in 24-hours). At present, the book is ranked #9

on Amazon – “Data on an epic scale” indeed,

but also, the “Architecture of Participation” and

“Network Effects.” Thus, the only principle of

Web 2.0 I didn’t fully experience was

“Openness.” Certainly, accessing the analyzed

data was easy, but as Anderson (2007) noted,

users cannot access the actual data. Therefore,

knowledge of how many books were actually

sold and how these data truly determine best

sellers, remain a mystery for now, but not for

long, as the tools of Web 3.0/The Semantic Web /

Linked Data are developing, and clearly, for

good reason.

In theory, Book Club 2.0 is designed to include

multiple, multimodal, and new literacies within

the context of Web 2.0. But then there is the

forthcoming practice–will the participating

members posses the knowledge, skills, and

strategies to access, utilize, appreciate, and

incorporate these literacies?

In closing, we offer one last idea to contemplate;

which seems to be at the core of envisioning the

possibilities of Web 2.0 and literacy: change. If

change is viewed as categorically different, what is

and what was, become divisive and often create false

dichotomies. In contrast, if change is viewed from

Pierce’s philosophical position of synechism (i.e.,

everything is continuous, Houser & Klosel, 1992)

what is and what can be, are continuations of what

was.

MARLA H. MALLETTE AND PATRICK MTHETHWA

Spring 2012 iv RESEARCH IN THE SCHOOLS

References

Alvermann, D., Hutchins, R. J., & DeBlasio, R.

(2012). Adolescents’ engagement with Web

2.0 and social media: Research, theory, and

practice. Research in the Schools, 19(1), 33-

44.

Anderson, P. (2007, February). What is Web 2.0?

Ideas, technologies, and implications for

education (TechWatch Report). Bristol,

England: Joint Information Systems

Committee. Retrieved from

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/reports/2

007/twweb2.aspx

Barone, D. (2012). Exploring home and school

involvement of young children with Web

2.0 and social media. Research in the

Schools, 19(1), 1-11.

Beach, R. (2012). Uses of digital tools and literacies

in the English language arts classroom.

Research in the Schools, 19(1), 45-59.

Berners-Lee, T. (2006, July 28). Originator of the

Web and director of the World Wide Web

Consortium talks about where we've come,

and about the challenges and opportunities

ahead/Interviewer: Scott Laningham.

developerWorks Podcast Interview Series.

Retrieved from

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/podca

st/dwi/cm-int082206.txt

Dalton, B., & Smith, B. E. (2012) Teachers as

designers: Multimodal immersion and

strategic reading on the Internet. Research in

the Schools, 19(1), 12-25.

Houser, N., & Klosel, C. (Eds.) (1992). The Essential

Peirce, Volume 1: Selected Philosophical

Writings (1867-1893). Bloomington, IN:

Indiana University Press.

Howe, J, (2008). Crowdsourcing: Why the power of

the crowd is driving the future of business.

New York, NY: Crown Publishing.

Karchmer-Klein, R., & Shinas, V. H. (2012). 21st

century literacies in teacher education:

investigating multimodal texts in the context

of an online graduate-level literacy and

technology course. Research in the Schools,

19(1), 60-74.

Leu, D. J., & Forzani, E. (2012). New literacies in a

Web 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, …∞ world. Research in

the Schools, 19(1), 75-81.

O’Reilly, T. (2007). What Is Web 2.0: Design

patterns and business models for the next

generation of software. Communications &

Strategies, 65(1), 17-27.

O’Reilly, T. (Interviewer) & Berners-Lee, T.

(Interviewee). (2009). Web 2.0 summit 09:

An interview with Tim Berners-Lee

[Interview video file]. Retrieved from

O’Reilly Media:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY5sko

bffk0&feature=plcp

Serafini, F. (2012). Reading multimodal texts in the

21st century. Research in the Schools, 19(1),

26-32.

Vander Wal, T. (2007, February 2). Folksonomy.

Retrieved from

http://vanderwal.net/folksonomy.html