Wikis, to me, are the hallmark of Web 2.0. While the World Wide Web was originally used as a one-way conduit for information, Web 2.0 has extended the application of the internet to include two-way (or one might even argue multi-directional) sharing and collaboration of information. Where the original Web was very static, Web 2.0 tools make the internet, and all of the information it includes, very much dynamic and alive.
The first wiki I checked out was that of Westwood Schools, a college preparatory academy. The school's wiki was created as part of a classroom project and is a separate entity from the school's official web page (though they are linked to each other). Having browsed through it, I think that the wiki, as I mentioned above, is useful for group collaboration and sharing information. I don't necessarily think that the wiki is the best tool for posting or disseminating information. For example, in a classroom setting, I think a wiki is a great idea because it can allow students to provide each other with feedback, as well as bridge the distance-gap for group work when students are at home after school. Posting information, I think, is better suited for a standard webpage, because it doesnt allow for unnecessary two-way chatter and/or site vandalism. That is one thing in particular that I noticed about Westwood Schools' wiki; the majority of the posts were from students and had no real educational context at all. Along the same lines, wikis, unlike standard webpages, are high-maintenance, as they need to be closely monitored.
The sample AP World History wiki is a model example of how a wiki can be used for a classroom project. The assignment, based around the Holocaust, divides each class into small groups of students who represent a family from various regions/religions/ethnicities. The wiki is employed as a means of allowing the different groups to post and share information about their research and the development of their respective families. From what I could tell, much of the project was carried out online via the wiki.
After exploring both wikis and nings, I think my personal preference leans towards nings, simply because they are a bit more focused and exclusive, in that the site facilitator can be selective about who contributes and what is posted, rather than hosting a free-for-all that is a wiki.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is always about finding the right tool to do what you want to do. The work of that is that there are so many new tools popping up all of the time that it is really hard to keep up.
ReplyDeleteI have to say that for conversations I really prefer the NING. They allow for the conversation to flow naturally which can be a real challenge on the Wiki.
Ann