web 2.0 assignment

• CRM Asignment Help
• MBA Assignment Help
• Statistics Assignment Help
• Market Analysis Assignment Help
• Business Development Assignment Help
• 4p of Marketing Assignment Help
• Pricing Strategy Assignment Help
• CIPD Assignment Help
• SWOT Analysis Assignment Help
• Operations Management Assignment Help
• Corporate Strategy Assignment Help
• Change Management Assignment Help
• Supply Chain Management Assignment Help
• Human Resource Assignment Help
• Management Assignment Help
• Marketing Assignment Help
• Strategy Assignment Help
• Operation Assignment Help
• Marketing Research Assignment Help
• Strategic Marketing Assignment Help
• Project Management Assignment Help
• Strategic Management Assignment Help
• Marketing Management Assignment Help
• Business Assignment Help
• Business Ethics Assignment Help
• Consumer Behavior Assignment Help
• Conflict Management Assignment Help
• Business Statistics Assignment Help
• Managerial Economics Assignment Help
• Project Risk Management Assignment Help
• Nursing Assignment Help
• Clinical Reasoning Cycle
• Nursing Resume Writing
• Medical Assignment Help
• Financial Accounting Assignment Help
• Financial Services Assignment Help
• Finance Planning Assignment Help
• Finance Assignment Help
• Forex Assignment Help
• Behavioral Finance Assignment Help
• Personal Finance Assignment Help
• Capital Budgeting Assignment Help
• Corporate Finance Planning Assignment Help
• Financial Statement Analysis Assignment Help
• Accounting Assignment Help
• Solve My Accounting Paper
• Taxation Assignment Help
• Cost Accounting Assignment Help
• Managerial Accounting Assignment Help
• Business Accounting Assignment Help
• Activity-Based Accounting Assignment Help
• Economics Assignment Help
• Microeconomics Assignment Help
• Econometrics Assignment Help
• IT Management Assignment Help
• Robotics Assignment Help
• Business Intelligence Assignment Help
• Information Technology Assignment Help
• Database Assignment Help
• Data Mining Assignment Help
• Data Structure Assignment Help
• Computer Network Assignment Help
• Operating System Assignment Help
• Data Flow Diagram Assignment Help
• UML Diagram Assignment Help
• Solidworks Assignment Help
• Cookery Assignment Help
• R Studio Assignment Help
• Computer Science Assignment Help
• Law Assignment Help
• Law Assignment Sample
• Criminology Assignment Help
• Taxation Law Assignment Help
• Constitutional Law Assignment Help
• Business Law Assignment Help
• Consumer Law Assignment Help
• Employment Law Assignment Help
• Commercial Law Assignment Help
• Criminal Law Assignment Help
• Environmental Law Assignment Help
• Contract Law Assignment Help
• Company Law Assignment Help
• Corp. Governance Law Assignment Help
• Science Assignment Help
• Physics Assignment Help
• Chemistry Assignment Help
• Sports Science Assignment Help
• Chemical Engineering Assignment Help
• Biology Assignment Help
• Bioinformatics Assignment Help
• Biochemistry Assignment Help
• Biotechnology Assignment Help
• Anthropology Assignment Help
• Paleontology Assignment Help
• Engineering Assignment Help
• Autocad Assignment Help
• Mechanical Assignment Help
• Fluid Mechanics Assignment Help
• Civil Engineering Assignment Help
• Electrical Engineering Assignment Help
• Humanities Assignment Help
• Sociology Assignment Help
• Philosophy Assignment Help
• English Assignment Help
• Geography Assignment Help
• History Assignment Help
• Agroecology Assignment Help
• Psychology Assignment Help
• Social Science Assignment Help
• Public Relations Assignment Help
• Political Science Assignment Help
• Mass Communication Assignment Help
• Auditing Assignment Help
• Dissertation Writing Help
• Sociology Dissertation Help
• Marketing Dissertation Help
• Biology Dissertation Help
• Nursing Dissertation Help
• MATLAB Dissertation Help
• Law Dissertation Help
• Geography Dissertation Help
• English Dissertation Help
• Architecture Dissertation Help
• Doctoral Dissertation Help
• Dissertation Statistics Help
• Academic Dissertation Help
• Cheap Dissertation Help
• Dissertation Help Online
• Dissertation Proofreading Services
• Do My Dissertation
• Business Report Writing
• Programming Assignment Help
• Java Programming Assignment Help
• C Programming Assignment Help
• PHP Assignment Help
• Python Assignment Help
• Perl Assignment Help
• SAS Assignment Help
• Web Designing Assignment Help
• Android App Assignment Help
• JavaScript Assignment Help
• Linux Assignment Help
• Coding Assignment Help
• Mathematics Assignment Help
• Geometry Assignment Help
• Arithmetic Assignment Help
• Trigonometry Assignment Help
• Calculus Assignment Help
• Arts Architecture Assignment Help
• Arts Assignment Help
• Case Study Assignment Help
• History Case Study
• Case Study Writing Services
• Write My Case Study For Me
• Business Law Case Study
• Civil Law Case Study Help
• Marketing Case Study Help
• Nursing Case Study Help
• ZARA Case Study
• Amazon Case Study
• Apple Case Study
• Coursework Assignment Help
• Finance Coursework Help
• Coursework Writing Services
• Marketing Coursework Help
• Maths Coursework Help
• Chemistry Coursework Help
• English Coursework Help
• Do My Coursework
• Custom Coursework Writing Service
• Thesis Writing Help
• Thesis Help Online
• Write my thesis for me
• CDR Writing Services
• CDR Engineers Australia
• CDR Report Writers
• Homework help
• Algebra Homework Help
• Psychology Homework Help
• Statistics Homework Help
• English Homework Help
• CPM homework help
• Do My Homework For Me
• Online Exam Help
• Pay Someone to Do My Homework
• Do My Math Homework
• Macroeconomics Homework Help
• Research Paper Help
• Edit my paper
• Research Paper Writing Service
• Write My Paper For Me
• Buy Term Papers Online
• Buy College Papers
• Paper Writing Services
• Research Proposal Help
• Proofread My Paper
• Report Writing Help
• Story Writing Help
• Grant Writing Help
• CHCDIV001 Assessment Answers
• BSBWOR203 Assessment Answers
• CHC33015 Assessment Answers
• CHCCCS015 Assessment Answers
• CHCECE018 Assessment Answers
• CHCLEG001 Assessment Answers
• CHCPRP001 Assessment Answers
• CHCPRT001 Assessment Answers
• HLTAAP001 Assessment Answers
• HLTINF001 Assessment Answers
• HLTWHS001 Assessment Answers
• SITXCOM005 Assessment Answers
• SITXFSA001 Assessment Answers
• BSBMED301 Assessment Answers
• BSBWOR502 Assessment Answers
• CHCAGE001 Assessment Answers
• CHCCCS011 Assessment Answers
• CHCCOM003 Assessment Answers
• CHCCOM005 Assessment Answers
• CHCDIV002 Assessment Answers
• CHCECE001 Assessment Answers
• CHCECE017 Assessment Answers
• CHCECE023 Assessment Answers
• CHCPRP003 Assessment Answers
• HLTWHS003 Assessment Answers
• SITXWHS001 Assessment Answers
• BSBCMM401 Assessment Answers
• BSBDIV501 Assessment Answers
• BSBSUS401 Assessment Answers
• BSBWOR501 Assessment Answers
• CHCAGE005 Assessment Answers
• CHCDIS002 Assessment Answers
• CHCECE002 Assessment Answers
• CHCECE007 Assessment Answers
• CHCECE025 Assessment Answers
• CHCECE026 Assessment Answers
• CHCLEG003 Assessment Answers
• HLTAID003 Assessment Answers
• SITXHRM002 Assessment Answers
• Elevator Speech
• Maid Of Honor Speech
• Problem Solutions Speech
• Award Presentation Speech
• Tropicana Speech Topics
• Write My Assignment
• Personal Statement Writing
• Narrative Writing help
• Academic Writing Service
• Resume Writing Services
• Assignment Writing Tips
• Writing Assignment for University
• Custom Assignment Writing Service
• Assignment Provider
• Assignment Assistance
• Solve My Assignment
• Pay For Assignment Help
• Assignment Help Online
• HND Assignment Help
• SPSS Assignment Help
• Buy Assignments Online
• Assignment Paper Help
• Assignment Cover Page
• Urgent Assignment Help
• Perdisco Assignment Help
• Make My Assignment
• College Assignment Help
• Get Assignment Help
• Cheap Assignment Help
• Assignment Help Tutors
• TAFE Assignment Help
• Study Help Online
• Do My Assignment
• Do Assignment For Me
• My Assignment Help
• All Assignment Help
• Academic Assignment Help
• Student Assignment Help
• University Assignment Help
• Instant Assignment Help
• Powerpoint Presentation Service
• Last Minute Assignment Help
• World No 1 Assignment Help Company
• Mentorship Assignment Help
• Legit Essay
• Essay Writing Services
• Essay Outline Help
• Descriptive Essay Help
• History Essay Help
• Research Essay Help
• English Essay Writing
• Literature Essay Help
• Essay Writer for Australia
• Online Custom Essay Help
• Essay Writing Help
• Custom Essay Help
• Essay Help Online
• Writing Essay Papers
• Essay Homework Help
• Professional Essay Writer
• Illustration Essay Help
• Scholarship Essay Help
• Need Help Writing Essay
• Plagiarism Free Essays
• Write My Essay
• Response Essay Writing Help
• Essay Editing Service
• Essay Typer
• APA Reference Generator
• Harvard Reference Generator
• Vancouver Reference Generator
• Oscola Referencing Generator
• Deakin Referencing Generator
• Griffith Referencing Tool
• Turabian Citation Generator
• UTS Referencing Generator
• Swinburne Referencing Tool
• AGLC Referencing Generator
• AMA Referencing Generator
• MLA Referencing Generator
• CSE Citation Generator
• ASA Referencing
• Oxford Referencing Generator
• LaTrobe Referencing Tool
• ACS Citation Generator
• APSA Citation Generator
• Central Queensland University
• Holmes Institute
• Monash University
• Torrens University
• Victoria University
• Federation University
• Griffith University
• Deakin University
• Murdoch University
• The University of Sydney
• The London College
• Ulster University
• University of derby
• University of West London
• Bath Spa University
• University of Warwick
• Newcastle University
• Anglia Ruskin University
• University of Northampton
• The University of Manchester
• University of Michigan
• University of Chicago
• University of Pennsylvania
• Cornell University
• Georgia Institute of Technology
• National University
• University of Florida
• University of Minnesota
• Help University
• INTI International University
• Universiti Sains Malaysia
• Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
• University of Malaya
• ERC Institute
• Nanyang Technological University
• Singapore Institute of Management
• Singapore Institute of Technology
• United Kingdom
• Jobs near Deakin University
• Jobs Near CQUniversity
• Jobs Near La Trobe University
• Jobs Near Monash University
• Jobs Near Torrens University
• Jobs Near Cornell University
• Jobs Near National University
• Jobs Near University of Chicago
• Jobs Near University of Florida
• Jobs Near University of Michigan
• Jobs Near Bath Spa University
• Jobs Near Coventry University
• Jobs Near Newcastle University
• Jobs Near University of Bolton
• Jobs Near university of derby
• Search Assignments
• Connect Seniors
• Essay Rewriter
• Knowledge Series
• Conclusion Generator
• GPA Calculator
• Factoring Calculator
• Plagiarism Checker
• Word Page Counter
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Living Calculator
• Quadratic Equation
• Algebra Calculator
• Integral Calculator
• Chemical Balancer
• Equation Solver
• Fraction Calculator
• Slope Calculator
• Fisher Equation
• Summary Generator
• Essay Topic Generator
• Alphabetizer
• Case Converter
• Antiderivative Calculator
• Kinematics Calculator
• Truth Table Generator
• Financial Calculator
• Reflection calculator
• Projectile Motion Calculator
• Paper Checker
• Inverse Function Calculator

Web 2.0 Assignment: Positive Impact In The 21 st Century

Task: Prepare a web 2.0 assignment critically discussing the impact of Web 2.0 on social life, education, working and communication.

Introduction This web 2.0 assignment sheds light on the concept of Web 2.0 access in the 21 st century that has had significant effects both positive and negative on most people's lives. This has made it essential for each person to master Web 2.0 websites' use to avoid the negative aspects and tap only into the positive aspects of the new form of communication (Segaran, 2007). With Web 2.0 communication, your family, friends and work are never too far away, and most can be accessed through a mobile device. This has resulted in severe changes in how people communicate, socialise, and work, making it critical to correctly manage Web 2.0 (Fuchs, Boersma, Albrechtslund, & Sandoval, 2013). To evaluate the effects of Web 2.0 to the user, both the positive and negative impacts must be reviewed on this web 2.0 assignment about their impact on social life, education, work, and communication.

Social Life. Web 2.0 access has noticeably had the most significant effect on people’s social lives. Most people today access the internet with the sole objective of keeping in contact through social networks. Social networking is a relatively new concept and only made an appearance a few years ago but allowed people to gain instant communication with their loved ones and friends. While email was available for more extended periods, social networks use Web 2.0 access. This made it possible to establish instant communication possible, allowing people to now communicate and send files instantly across the internet (Tsekeris & Katerelos, 2015). According to the research performed on this web 2.0 assignments, this proved to be a significant hit while socialising since it delivered instant communication that provides expression. Web 2.0 has had a substantial impact on how people communicate, and today most people who own a smartphone need not worry since their family and friends are usually an arm’s length away from their contact. This has helped build stronger bonds between the people using social media and brought along some negative aspect.

While social media has been noted to keep friends and family an arm’s length away from communication, it has built huge rifts linked to promoting physical relationships. In the past, people communicated via phone and had a desire to travel and meet their loved ones and friends every few months or once a year (Candace, 2008). This was because verbal and written communication was not enough to satisfy the need to observe or see a person visually. It is evident on this web 2.0 assignment that today the social media delivers instant communication, image transfers and VoIP calls, resulting in people losing the interest and desire to travel and meet their loved ones. The readings obtained in this section of the web 2.0 assignment demonstrate that social media may positively promote instant communication. Still, it also impacts the actual relationship negatively.

Education and Business. Another area outlined in the web 2.0 assignment, which the Web 2.0 website has dramatically influenced, is the education and business world. Both these sectors have experienced significant changes to their performance due to involving the Web 2.0 to their operations. Once again, it's essential to understand that the technology's effect on the industry is directly linked to how the technology benefits or negatively affect the business.

What is the impact of the education field in regards to the case scenario of web 2.0 assignment? Today, the education sector is a significant beneficiary of the Web 2.0 technology since it helps connect the learner and teacher and delivers many materials to the teacher and student. The research utilised in this web 2.0 assignment signifies that each of the individuals dramatically benefits from the use of Web 2.0 technologies that assist the stakeholders in securing the required information and delivering critical information to the learners. But this is only true when the learner correctly uses the websites and utilises them to learn. Web 2.0 allows two-way communications to enable the student and teacher to connect over the internet and communicate directly and instantly (Michael, 2009). This feature can help people learn essential knowledge straight from their educators and mentors who can be consulted now over the internet without meeting them in person. Web 2.0 plays a massive role in each person’s development. Still, only when utilised correctly, there are also many features available on the internet, which could easily distract the individual. Games, music, and several other entertainment features and websites can distract the child while using the internet. This requires to be avoided to focus the individual focus mainly on harnessing the benefits of using Web 2.0 websites (Tatnall, 2009).

The Business World. The business world is also registering huge profits about the utilisation of Web 2.0 since it allows the businesses to secure instant communication between clients, companies and skilled employees. This has grown to be necessary since the client demands instant contact with the trades, which is made possible through Web 2.0. This helps build the customers confidence, which is very important towards retaining them in dealing with a company since they can establish instant communication. This allows the business to perform marketing and communication with the client in a more effective manner, which develops better relationships (Shuen, 2008). The Web 2.0 websites are also accessible directly from most mobile device that comes with and an array of communication applications supporting different communication mediums. These facts presented herein web 2.0 assignment can help boost a business’s performance and be highly distractive towards employee performance.

Today, many businesses have resorted to banning the mobile device at the office, due to them negatively affecting the companies and individual's performance. This is not experienced while utilising certain forms of internet communication like an email but more closely linked to Web 2.0, where people can access the Web 2.0 websites through a smart device. This is happening due to the ability to maintain two way communications will, which results in capturing the user’s attention, which affects their performance (Mehdi, 2012). As discussed in the context of web 2.0 assignment, Web 2.0 accesses through mobile device have been identified to be a significant cause of reduced performance at the workplace. They have forced many businesses to adopt rigorous approaches linked to managing mobile device and Web 2.0 portal while at work. There is no doubt that when utilized correctly, they can drive a company to experience unparalleled success. Still, the Web 2.0 websites and gadgets connecting to the websites are only beneficial when used correctly.

Communication. Communication is a primary requirement for every person, making it an integral part of our private, social and business lives. With this in mind, managing communication via Web 2.0 website has grown to become an essential requirement for each person. This is not limited to businesses but is also associated with our ethics. Each person with access to the form of communication should utilise this form of two-way communication responsibly. Due to communication being a necessity, it’s still essential for the individual to manage the communication medium responsibly without continually being managed and supervised (Brown, 2009). This is a personal ethical requirement and demonstrates an individual’s ability to utilise resources correctly. Failing to use and manage the resources will only result in seriously affecting productivity. This will only lead to the Web 2.0 websites and gadgets connecting to the internet being blamed for reduced performance.

Conclusion. The Web 2.0 website and application capable of accessing the website have been noted in the above context of web 2.0 assignment to bring along many benefits. Simultaneously, they can also severely damage a business’s reputation and must be managed and utilised correctly. With this in mind, each person must understand both the benefits and drawbacks of utilising Web 2.0 websites (Lincoln, 2009). The websites' use should then be focused on positive use, thus helping build the individual's ability to gain positive information from the website's utilisation rather than use them for entertainment.

Bibliography Brown, R. (2009). Public Relations and the Social Web: How to Use Social Media and Web 2.0 in Communications. Web 2.0 assignment Philadelphia: Kogan Page Publishers.

Candace, D. (2008). Social Software and Web 2.0 Technology Trends. London: IGI Global.

Fuchs, C., Boersma, K., Albrechtslund, A., & Sandoval, M. (2013). Internet and Surveillance: The Challenges of Web 2.0 and Social Media. New York: Routledge.

Lincoln, S. (2009). Mastering Web 2.0: Transform Your Business Using Key Website and Social Media Tools. Philadelphia: Kogan Page Publishers.

Mehdi, K. (2012). Cases on Performance Measurement and Productivity Improvement: Technology Integration and Maturity: Technology Integration and Maturity. Hersey: IGI Global.

Michael, T. (2009). Handbook of Research on Web 2.0 and Second Language Learning. London: IGI Global.

Segaran, T. (2007). Programming Collective Intelligence: Building Smart Web 2.0 Applications. Califonia: O'Reilly Media, Inc.

Shuen, K. (2008). Web 2.0: A Strategy Guide: Business thinking and strategies behind successful Web 2.0 implementations. Sebastopol: "O'Reilly Media, Inc.

Tatnall, A. (2009). Web Technologies: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. Web 2.0 assignment Hersey: IGI Global.

Tsekeris, I., & Katerelos, I. (2015). The Social Dynamics of Web 2.0: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Oxon: Routledge.

CHECK THE PRICE FOR YOUR PROJECT

Number of pages/words you require, choose your assignment deadline, related samples.

• Developing knowledge of the function and importance of healthy body systems
• (ICT320) Database programming assignment using NoSQL on MongoDB platform for Luxury-Oriented Scenic Tours
• Innovation and technology assignment analysing the implementation of IN-SITU MINING technology at Genesis Energy
• Data analysis assignment on predictive analysis, text mining, big data problems and artificial intelligence
• sequel programming languages: The Efficient and Flexible Language for Managing Relational Databases
• The Benefits of fit3139Flight Simulation in the Aerospace Industry: Improving Safety and Efficiency through Advanced Technology
• cyber security assignment on the types of security tools required to protect software infrastructure
• system testing assignment on testing of software systems
• Computer science assignment on upgrading the computers and the servers of Amcor
• JAVA Program assignment – improving young professional codding skills for future development
• (MDA 20009)Digital community’s assignment exploring the effects of digital communication on social affairs
• (INT1012)Demonstrating knowledge about the internet and HTML markup language in the computer assignment
• Identification of key drivers for Cloud computing assignment projects
• Research Methodology Assignment: Discussion of Data Analysis Methods
• Cyber security assignment exploring 10 OWASP risks
• Create a plan for data conversion and describe the procedures
• Cloud Computing Assignment on Cloud Migration, Privacy and Security
• (MIS605) System Analysis And Design Assignment: Online Student Enrolment Process For ABC University
• Network Security Assignment: Discussion On Information Security Attacks
• Report on Important Characteristics of Operating Systems and Their Functions
• Computer Forensics Assignment Analyzing A Murder Case
• Blockchain Technology Assignment: Q&A Based On MultiChain & Programming
• Artificial Intelligence Assignment: A Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence in Oncological Imaging
• (MIS201) Database Management System Assignment Analysing Academic Misconduct Case of ABC university

Looking for Your Assignment?

FREE PARAPHRASING TOOL

FREE PLAGIARISM CHECKER

FREE ESSAY TYPER TOOL

Other assignment services.

• SCM Assignment Help
• HRM Assignment Help
• Dissertation Assignment Help
• Marketing Analysis Assignment Help
• Corporate Finance Assignment Help

FREE WORD COUNT AND PAGE CALCULATOR

QUESTION BANK

ESCALATION EMAIL

To get answer.

Please Fill the following Details

Thank you !

We have sent you an email with the required document.

• Skip To Main Content
• Report an Accessibility Barrier
• Accessibility

Using Web 2.0 tools to engage learners

• Andrew Horne

Introduction

Udl alignment, what are web 2.0 tools, benefits of web 2.0 tools, choosing and using a tool with students, sample student work, limitations of web 2.0 tools, references & resources, joyce gulley, jeff thomas.

Web 2.0 tools are free digital programs that can be used for creating and sharing student-generated projects and products. They are interactive, multi-purpose, easy-to-use digital platforms that encourage students to collaborate with each other or create and share individualized response products.

Web 2.0 tools provide engaging ways students can interact with, and most importantly, learn from course material. They are particularly helpful when aligned to teaching and assessment exercises meant to increase student engagement, require students to summarize information, or verbalize insight into their conceptual understanding through means other than traditional writing exercises.

Web 2.0 tools also provide students an opportunity to interact with others as they share their knowledge. Students can collaborate with classmates to create response products, or they can share completed products with peers in their class, students in other sections, or other learners around the world. Web 2.0 tools create opportunities for students to share what they are learning with a wider audience.

This video provides a brief introduction to Web 2.0 tools:

After completing this module, you will be able to:

• List examples of Web 2.0 tools and discuss their applicability to the college classroom.
• Evaluate a potential technology tool for applicability to your learning objectives, class content, and student population to determine if it is a tool you will incorporate in your course materials and/or assignments.

This module aligns with: Provide Multiple Means of Action and Expression, Principle 1; Provide Multiple Means of Action and Expression, Principle 2; and Module Alignment with Provide Multiple Means of Engagement, Principle 3.

Module Alignment with Provide Multiple Means of Representation

While instructors may decide the core idea of what is to be shared, it is students that ultimately decide, and customize, how they represent details of the material. Students increase their time on task and fluency with content and technology as they interact with content and recreate connections to it. When students struggle how to express information, they are forced to face their (mis)understanding, which helps them better learn the material.

Module Alignment with Provide Multiple Means of Action and Expression

Students use (and improve their skill levels with) technology devices to capture their own words, images, sounds, and work as they express acquired knowledge. By expressing conceptual understanding through their own framework they make their own meaning.  Instructors can then verify correct application to students’ learning frameworks. For specific students (e.g., language deficient students) tools can serve as methods to share written or spoken understanding of concepts when they haven’t yet mastered subject specific vocabulary.

Module Alignment with Provide Multiple Means of Engagement

Using Web tools increases students’ autonomy and engagement with content as they identify what they know, value, and find interesting about it. Because students see and hear themselves when working with Web tools they often invest more time and energy, while simultaneously utilizing multiple modalities, to engage with content.

Instructional Practice

Web 2.0 tools can very broadly be defined as end-user applications that require dynamic interaction, social networking, or user interfacing between people and information. They almost always have accompanying websites and associated apps for smart devices. In a Web 2.0 environment users decide how they want to use, interact with, and create information. This contrasts with earlier Web 1.0 environments where one simply read static information on the Web (Morrison & Lowther, 2005).

In addition, users have the ability to generate and manipulate content from multiple locations in a Web 2.0 environment. Users can add images, videos, or links to other media content. Students have unlimited opportunities to individualize the content they embed in their products, and the ease of use of these tools encourages student creativity. Unlike traditional pen and paper type responses, students are not limited by their own artistic abilities, page-length, or word count limits. Students will often go beyond the basic expectations of an assignment because these tools facilitate students’ creative processes.

Familiar examples of Web 2.0 sites and tools include wikis and blogs ( PBworks  and   WordPress ), social networking sites ( Facebook   and   Twitter ), image and video hosting sites ( Flicker   and   YouTube ), and applications to generate Web content for education, business, and social purposes ( Wikipedia ,   Weebly , and   Instagram ). It is important for teachers to remember that the magic is not necessarily in the tool itself; teachers must first consider their objectives for the lesson as well as the purpose of the student response project. The right tool can help students synthesize their learning, engage more deeply with the content of a lesson, and interact with other learners in more meaningful ways than traditional response projects or assignments.

One of the benefits of Web 2.0 tools is their ease of use. Most students find these tools to be intuitive and user-friendly. Because of this, there is little time wasted in learning how to use the programs. The tools facilitate interactive learning and innovative responses to assignments and assessments. Students see their ideas take shape quickly, and they are rewarded with professional-looking results. It is also easy to edit the projects as they are being developed so students tend to take more risks during the creative process. This ease of use combined with the quality of the finished products increases students’ self-efficacy, and it motivates students to engage more earnestly and actively in the content of their responses.

Web 2.0 tools also can facilitate authentic interactions with content and with other learners. These tools offer students opportunities to solve real-world problems and to collaborate in meaningful ways with peers in face-to-face or online classrooms. Students have the freedom to customize their responses using multimedia or multiple modalities. Unlike a term paper or more traditional response project, no two projects look exactly alike. Students’ individual interpretations and representations of their conceptual understandings can easily be shared with others, thus increasing the learning opportunities for all.

The right Web 2.0 tool for the task is the one that matches the objectives of the lesson. The tool should not just be an “add-on,” but rather it should be a natural extension of the lesson that reinforces the skills or concepts taught. What do you want students to learn or to be able to do as a result of the lesson or unit of study, and what tool will help you achieve that goal?

There are a couple of useful websites that describe a variety of tools according to instructional purposes. One such website is   http://cooltoolsforschools.wikispaces.com/ . Another is   http://webtools4u2use.wikispaces.com/Finding+the+Right+Tool   These websites are organized by the types of tools, such as presentation drawing, video sharing tools, etc., and they provide links to the websites for different tools. Most tools can be adapted for a myriad of instructional or assessment purposes and subject areas. Five examples of specific tools, their applications, and sample student projects are provided below.

Described below are five tools and a brief summary of how each was used by students in a learning or assessment exercise. These specific tools were chosen because of their versatility and the fact they have no cost to download and use. They all have a “pro” version for a nominal fee. The exception is VoiceThread and it was chosen because it is commonly supported by many campus across the United States or can be purchased by individual instructors for a relatively low fee.

ShadowPuppet . This tool belongs to a group of tools known as digital storytelling tools. ShadowPuppet works for iOS devices like the iPhone and allows a user to capture images and then record a message over the image(s). An Android alternative is WeVideo. One example of its use is to have students summarize an exercise they have completed. Such a review allows instructors to use it when gathering students’ thoughts might be better, or differently, done verbally than through writing. The following example shows how students captured their work and additional thoughts through an assessment technique abbreviated by the acronym RERUN.

• Recall: Summarize what you did in this exercise.
• Explain: Explain the purpose of the exercise.
• Results: Describe the results of the exercise and what they mean (support claims with evidence).
• Uncertainties: Describe what you are still unsure about.
• New: Explain at least one interesting thing you learned (or at least one question you have).

Students’ captured recordings are stored on the ShadowPuppet website but can be downloaded as an mp4 video file, uploaded to YouTube as students complete their work, or forwarded as a viewable link from ShadowPuppet’s website. The creator can also delete the recording.

Examples connected to other disciplines:  Shadow Puppet, and other digital storytelling tools, can be used any time students need a way to organize their thoughts and communicate their findings to a wider audience. In a history class, students could present primary source documents and analyze their content. Anatomy students could create a digital storytelling presentation to discuss one of the body systems. Students in an English class could use digital storytelling to showcase their original poems with narration and a musical soundtrack.

Padlet . Padlet is a multipurpose tool acting as an electronic corkboard where students can post ideas, photos, images, videos, or documents. This digital corkboard is both versatile and easy to use. The user can control the privacy settings on the Padlet to allow others to add content or simply to view existing content. Viewers do not need an account to post comments, and the owner of the Padlet retains full control to moderate or delete comments. In the assignment displayed here, students created questions in advance of a Skype visit with a children’s book author. The link was shared with the author in advance so that he could see the types of questions students would be asking.

Examples connected to other disciplines:   Padlet could be used in any content area classroom for bell-ringer activities or exit tickets at the end of class. Marketing students could use Padlet as a corkboard to post effective print ads or links to digital ads. Political science students could use Padlet as a place to collect campaign slogans and reflect on their significance.

Thinglink . This tool is useful for sharing visual information. The user uploads an anchoring image, such as a map, photograph, or drawing. The user then inserts “tags” which link to additional information such as definitions, maps, images, or other websites. In the example   below , the student used images from a novel to illustrate vocabulary that is used in the book. The dark circles indicate where the viewer should click to access additional information.

Examples connected to other disciplines : Thinglink could be used as a getting acquainted activity; students could post pictures of their hobbies and interests and then share with classmates. Thinglink could be used as a tool for many different types of reports. For instance, when studying the lives of famous people in any discipline, upload an image of the subject and create links to this person’s accomplishments, noteworthy speeches, or historical events related to the subject. Similarly, Thinglink could also be used effectively with any type of mapping activity, such as identifying landforms or landmarks in a geographical location.

Weebly . Weebly is one tool in a family of tools that users use to create websites. Like many tools it offers a free and “pay for” version. Instructors and students can easily get what they need from the free version. Perhaps the most significant limitation is the inability to upload video with the free version. However, an easy work around is to upload videos to YouTube and connect the video to the Weebly site. One of the many useful features in Weebly’s setup includes the ability to design one’s website using a drag and drop tool bar. Examples of items that can be added include images, slideshows of images, text boxes, hyperlinked text, files, linked YouTube videos, maps, and linking Web elements containing embed codes. The image below links to a sample assignment with preservice elementary teachers. One of the course’s objectives is to provide an environment that models many of the teaching and assessment strategies future teachers can use in a classroom. Using their cell phones, students capture, and reflect on, these moments they build a website throughout the semester that includes their work, the strategies we model, and relay its connection to themselves and their future students. It, therefore, adheres to one of the more significant aspects of writing, learners should “write a little a lot” versus “write a lot a little.” That is, the more ongoing the writing the more students can remain engaged in processing and internalizing information. Additionally, if one is using other Web tools those products can be linked or embedded to their website.

Examples connected to other disciplines:   Weebly can be used to showcase student work in any discipline. In art classes, students could create digital portfolios of their work showing pieces they have created over time or in different media. History students might use Weebly to analyze a specific event and its impact on society. Students in an English class could share their reflections on assigned or free choice reading selections.

VoiceThread . Voicethread is a free tool to use for presentation of material. It can be used by the instructor to record announcements or lectures, and it can be used by students for individual or group projects. Voicethread can be a static one-sided presentation, or a collaborative tool where multiple users interact around a topic, an image, a Powerpoint presentation or other media. Students can leave audio, video, typed, or drawn comments using a computer, tablet, or cell phone. Voicethread has a computer-based platform, as well as apps for iOS and Android devices. The following example is one student’s presentation on a children’s book illustrator. The assignment required students to research an illustrator’s life and work. The student created a Powerpoint and then uploaded it to Voicethread. The student then provided an audio narration to elaborate on the slides, as well as music to enhance the presentation. Voicethread allows for viewers to comment on the student’s work in both a private mode (viewable by the project creator) and a public mode (viewable by anyone with the link to the project). The creator of the project can moderate the public comments or delete them entirely. Many universities have Voicethread integrated with their campus-wide learning management system, such as Blackboard, so that the posting, sharing, and grading of projects is seamless.

Examples connected to other disciplines:  Because of its interactive capabilities, Voicethread can be used in multiple disciplines, and it is especially helpful when students need to present their work and then receive feedback from classmates, the teacher, or anyone with whom the link is shared. For instance, students in a world language course could use Voicethread to practice their oral speaking skills. The instructor could then provide private comments to that student reinforcing correct pronunciation of vocabulary words. Science students could use Voicethread to create an oral report on any topic, and classmates could add written or oral comments reflecting on what they learned by listening to the report.

While Web 2.0 tools offer many advantages for instructors and students alike, they are not the perfect solution for all educational challenges. The tool must actually enhance the learning process, not simply add unnecessary tasks for students to complete. If students can communicate their understanding of the learning objectives without technology, then a more traditional response assignment may suffice.

Instructors must also consider all of the steps in the process of using the tool. Does a particular tool work on all types of computers and tablets, or will students need to use a certain type of device? Does the tool require students to create their own account, or does the teacher create a class account for students to use? Does the tool work with the Learning Management System (such as Blackboard or Course Compass)? Is the tool accessible for students with disabilities? Does the tool protect students’ privacy?

Instructors must also consider the complexity of the tool to be used and how much time it will take to teach the tool itself. Students who are experienced with technology will access new tools with greater ease than students who are timid with technology. In face-to-face classes, instructors can demonstrate how to use the tools and be present to help students troubleshoot any problems that arise. In distance learning courses, this process may be more cumbersome. Instructors can make screen shot videos to show students the step-by-step procedures, but some students have a low tolerance for troubleshooting problems on their own.

There is also a danger of over-using these tools. Even the most novel and engaging tool can become passé if it is assigned too often or used unnecessarily. Web 2.0 tools have a better chance of sustaining student engagement if they are used judiciously and purposefully.

Essentially, today’s college-aged students have been digital consumers since they were young children. They grew up playing and learning with technology on their gaming systems, computers, and ever-present digital devices. For them, the worlds of entertainment and education are blended. As teenagers they are spending more hours engaged with their digital devices than they are sleeping (Common Sense Media, 2016). A recent study highlights that they are also using digital devices in their personal lives, some are using it in their college coursework, and most desire to use them more in their college coursework (Pearson, 2015).

While learning in much of their P-12 learning experience has evolved to incorporate technology into learning and assessment, much of their university learning has failed to do so. One reason is because university-based education faces the challenge of conveying large amounts of information in a relatively short amount of time (traditionally about 45 clock hours over one semester). Traditional lecturing can be one effective means of accomplishing this. Yet, students’ previous educational worlds and students’ subsequent professional worlds have shifted to a paradigm of using technology in everyday experiences.

So, how can university professors bridge this gap? One answer lies in using everyday technology with which students are familiar (their phones or digital devices) in targeted ways that enhance, not deduce, the amount of time and quality interaction with content material. An outcome is a classroom that is rich in learning experiences designed for students (Niess, 2011).

It is important to note that one should only use technology when it enhances learning. The goal is not to keep students busy for the sake of doing something (Lux, Banger, & Whittier, 2011). Only when technology enhances learning can it be considered an asset to students and instructors. Therefore, instructors should ask themselves, “How is technology helping students learn better than a method not using technology.” If there is no answer then there is no need to use technology. Yet, if one can devise an experience that favorably answers the question then there are benefits to its use. Only two examples include an increased time spent on material outside of class and increased self-efficacy.

When technology is used with outside class readings that requires students to post responses, additional information related to the reading, interpretations of reading, etc. student arrive better prepared to study and analyze the material. The instructor also has a more focused idea of where the students are, or wish to go, in their learning. Learning with technology can also increase self-efficacy with the learning process because they spend more time with material. Studies have shown that self efficacy influences long term success even if it doesn’t translate to short term success academic achievement measured by test scores (Abbitt, 2011; Chai, Koh, & Tsai, 2010; Jamieson-Proctor, Finger, & Albion, 2010; Sadaf, Newby, & Ertmer, 2012).

Fortunately, there is a lesson design model to help us with this. It is the TPACK model and the most widely used model in designing lessons with technology. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) is a framework that connects how instructors should integrate pedagogy (strategies of teaching), content (the material to be taught and learned), and technology (what content or skills are needed to work with the content. The TPACK model is shown in Figure 1. Mishra and Koehler (2006) are credited with finalizing the TPACK the model by evolving Shulman’s Pedagogy and Content (PCK) only model (Shulman, 1986; Shulman, 1987). While some lesson might incorporate all three knowledge bases, it isn’t a requirement (Pumak, 2011).

The model implies that each knowledge bases impacts learning while they interact with one another (Abbitt, 2011; Chai, Koh, & Tsai, 2010; Jamieson-Proctor, Finger, & Albion, 2010). These interactions can be helpful or harmful. It can be helpful when instructors align specific pedagogical strategies based on the content to be learned (see the CASE Mnemonic Devices for Instruction module). It can be harmful when instructors incorporate an overly complicated technology exercise that results in students struggling with the technology at the expense of a focus on content. This is an example of how the inappropriate choice of one knowledge base comes at the expense of a second base.

Research into TPACK reveals that as instructors develop deeper understanding of one knowledge base they can with effort be much better at understanding the interaction with the remaining bases. And, as expected, the opposite is also true (Harris & Hofer, 2011; Pamuk, 2012). University professors with their deep content knowledge are ideal candidates to build lessons incorporating technology and pedagogical strategies to help students learn content. Teaching strategies (both with or without technology) need to be aligned to certain content. Instructors with deep content knowledge possess an ability to determine if, or how, specific Web tools can elicit learning in the concepts they are teaching. We conclude, by reminding the reader of the Focus Question,” How is technology helping students learn better than a method not using technology.” Relatively easy to implement Web 2.0 increases the chance at successful alignment, content learning, student engagement, and self-efficacy with material and the learning process.

Abbitt, J. T. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs about technology integration and technological pedagogical content knowledge (tpack) among preservice teachers. Journal Of Digital Learning In Teacher Education, 27(4), 134-143.

Chai, C., Koh, J., & Tsai, C. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers’ development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK), Educational Technology & Society, 13(4), 63-73.

Common Sense Media (2015). THE COMMON SENSE CENSUS: MEDIA USE BY TWEENS AND TEENS. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/the-common-sense-census-media-use-by-tweens-and-teens (last accessed March 8, 2017).

Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical content knowledge (tpack). Computers & Education, 57(3), 1953-1960.

Harris, J. B., & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (tpack) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers’ curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal Of Research On Technology In Education, 43(3), 211-229.

Jamieson-Proctor, R., Finger, G., & Albion, P. (2010). Auditing the tk and tpackconfidence of pre-service teachers: Are they ready for the profession?. Australian Educational Computing, 25(1), 8-17.

Lux, N. J., Bangert, A. W., & Whittier, D. B. (2011). The development of an instrument to assess preservice teacher’s technological pedagogical content knowledge, Journal Of Educational Computing Research, 45(4), 415-431.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.

Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. (2005). Integrating computer technology into the classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Niess, M. L. (2011). Investigating tpack: Knowledge growth in teaching with technology. Journal Of Educational Computing Research, 44(3), 299-317.

Pamuk, S. S. (2012). Understanding preservice teachers’ technology use through tpack framework. Journal Of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(5), 425-439.

Pearson Education (2015). Student mobile device survey 2015 national report: College students. Boston MA: Pearson Education.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Retrieved January 18, 2015, from http://marcprensky.com/articles-in-publications/

Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2012). Exploring pre-service teachers’ beliefs about using Web 2.0 technologies in K-12 classroom. Computers & Education, 59(3), 937-945.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

About the Author

Joyce Gulley, Professor of Teacher Education, works with prospective and practicing teachers to identify high quality children’s literature to promote literacy and student engagement with text using technology. Her enthusiasm and student-centered teaching have led to numerous teaching awards and serving as a faculty teaching consultant across her campus.

Jeff Thomas, Professor of Teacher Education, works with prospective and practicing elementary teachers to promote integration of inquiry-based science, children’s literature, and technology. His teaching focuses on providing learners experiences that use technology to organize, and make their own meaning, from material being explored.

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

What Is Web 2.0?

Understanding web 2.0.

• Advantages and Disadvantages

Web 2.0 vs. Web 1.0

Web 2.0 vs. web 3.0, web 2.0 components.

• Applications

The Bottom Line

• Marketing Essentials

What Is Web 2.0? Definition, Impact, and Examples

Investopedia / Joules Garcia

Web 2.0 describes the current state of the internet, which has more user-generated content and usability for end-users compared to its earlier incarnation, Web 1.0. Web 2.0 generally refers to the 21st-century internet applications that have transformed the digital era in the aftermath of the dotcom bubble .

Key Takeaways

• Web 2.0 describes the current state of the internet, which has more user-generated content and usability for end-users compared to its earlier incarnation, Web 1.0.
• It does not refer to any specific technical upgrades to the internet; it refers to a shift in how the internet is used.
• There is a higher level of information sharing and interconnectedness among participants in the new age of the internet
• It allowed for the creation of applications such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Reddit, TikTok, and Wikipedia.
• Web 2.0 paved the way for Web 3.0, the next generation of the web that uses many of the same technologies to approach problems differently.

The term Web 2.0 first came into use in 1999 as the internet pivoted toward a system that actively engaged the user. Users were encouraged to provide content, rather than just viewing it. The social aspect of the internet has been particularly transformed; in general, social media allows users to engage and interact with one another by sharing thoughts, perspectives, and opinions. Users can tag, share, post, and like.

Web 2.0 does not refer to any specific technical upgrades to the internet. It simply refers to a shift in how the internet is used in the 21st century. In the new age, there is a higher level of information sharing and interconnectedness among participants. This new version allows users to actively participate in the experience rather than just acting as passive viewers who take in information.

Because of Web 2.0, people can publish articles and comments on different platforms, increasing engaged content creation and participation through the creation of accounts on different sites. It also gave rise to web apps, self-publishing platforms like  WordPress , Medium, Substack, as well as social media sites. Examples of Web 2.0 sites include Wikipedia, Facebook, X, and various blogs, which all transformed the way the same information is shared and delivered.

History of Web 2.0

In a 1999 article called Fragmented Future, Darcy DiNucci coined the phrase Web 2.0. In the article, DiNucci mentions that the "first glimmerings" of this new stage of the web were beginning to appear. In Fragmented Future, DiNucci describes Web 2.0 as a "transport mechanism, the ether through which interactivity happens."

The phrase became popularized after a 2004 conference held by O'Reilly Media and MediaLive International. Tim O'Reilly, founder and chief executive officer (CEO) of the media company, is credited with the streamlining of the process, as he hosted various interviews and Web 2.0 conferences to explore the early business models for web content.

The interworking of Web 2.0 has continually evolved over the years. Instead of a single instance of Web 2.0 having been created, its definition and capabilities continue to change. For example, Justin Hall is credited as being one of the first bloggers, though his personal blog dates back to 1994.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Web 2.0

The development of technology has allowed users to share their thoughts and opinions with others, creating new ways of organizing and connecting with other people. One of the largest advantages of Web 2.0 is improved communication through web applications that enhance interactivity, collaboration, and knowledge sharing.

This is most evident through social networking, where individuals armed with a Web 2.0 connection can publish content, share ideas, extract information, and subscribe to various informational feeds. This has brought about major strides in marketing optimization as more strategic, targeted marketing approaches are now possible.

Web 2.0 also brings about a certain level of equity. Most individuals have an equal chance of posting their views and comments, and each individual may build a network of contacts. Because information may be transmitted more quickly under Web 2.0 compared to prior methods of information sharing, the latest updates and news may be available to more people.

Disadvantages

Unfortunately, there are a lot of disadvantages to the internet acting more like an open forum. Through the expansion of social media, we have seen an increase in online stalking, doxing , cyberbullying, identity theft , and other online crimes. There is also the threat of misinformation spreading among users, whether that's through open-source information-sharing sites or on social media.

Individuals may blame Web 2.0 for misinformation, information overload, or the unreliability of what people read. As almost anyone can post anything via various blogs, social media, or Web 2.0 outlets, there is an increased risk of confusion on what is real and what sources may be deemed reliable.

As a result, Web 2.0 brings about higher stakes regarding communication. It's more likely to have fake accounts, spammers, forgers, or hackers that attempt to steal information, imitate personas, or trick unsuspecting Web 2.0 users into following their agenda. As Web 2.0 doesn't always and can't verify information, there is a heightened risk for bad actors to take advantage of opportunities.

Web 1.0 is used to describe the first stage of the internet. At this point, there were few content creators; most of those using the internet were consumers. Static pages were more common than dynamic HTML , which incorporates interactive and animated websites with specific coding or language.

Content in this stage came from a server’s file system rather than a database management system. Users were able to sign online guestbooks and HTML forms were sent via email. Examples of internet sites that are classified as Web 1.0 are Britannica Online, personal websites, and mp3.com. In general, these websites are static and have limited functionality and flexibility.

Dynamic information (always changing)

Less control over user input

Promotes greater collaboration, as channels are more dynamic and flexible

Considered much more social and interative-driven

Static information (more difficult to change)

More controlled user input

Promoted individual contribution; channels were less dynamic

Consider much more informative and data-driven

The world is already shifting into the next iteration of the web (appropriately dubbed "Web 3.0"). Though both rely on many similar technologies, they use the available capabilities to solve problems differently.

One strong example of Web 3.0 relates to currency. Under Web 2.0, users could input fiat currency information such as bank account information or credit card data. This information could be processed by the receiver to allow for transactions. Web 3.0 strives to approach the transaction process using similar but different processes. With the introduction of Bitcoin, Ethereum , and other cryptocurrencies, the same problem can be solved in a theoretically more efficient way under Web 3.0.

Web 3.0 is more heavily rooted in increasing the trust between users. More often, applications rely on decentralization, letting data be exchanged in several locations simultaneously. Web 3.0 is also more likely to incorporate artificial intelligence or machine learning applications.

Focuses on reading and writing content

May be more susceptible to less-secure technology

May use more antiquated, simpler processing techniques

Primarily aims to connect people

Focused on creating content

Often has more robust cybersecurity measures

May incorporate more advanced concepts such as AI or machine learning

Primarily aims to connect data or information

There is no single, universally-accepted definition for Web 2.0. Instead, it's best described as a series of components that, when put together, create an online environment of interactivity and greater capacity compared to the original version of the web. Here are the more prominent components of Web 2.0.

Wikis are often information repositories that collect input from various users. Users may edit, update, and change the information within a web page, meaning there is often no singular owner of the page or the information within. As opposed to users simply absorbing information given to them, wiki-based sites such as Wikipedia are successful when users contribute information to the site.

Software Applications

The early days of the web relied upon local software being installed on-premises. With Web 2.0, applications gained a greater opportunity to be housed off-site, downloaded over the web, or even offered as a service via web applications and cloud computing . This has shepherded a new type of business model where companies can sell software applications on a monthly subscription basis.

Social Networking

Often one of the aspects most thought of when discussing Web 2.0. Social networking is similar to wikis in that individuals are empowered to post information on the web. Whereas wikis are informational and often require verification, social networking has looser constraints on what can be posted. In addition, users have greater capabilities to interact and connect with other social networking users.

General User-Generated Content

In addition to social media posts, users can more easily post artwork, images, audio, video, or other user-generated media. This information shared online for purchase or may be freely distributed. This has led to greater distribution of content creator crediting (though creators are at greater risk for their content being stolen by others).

Crowdsourcing

Though many may think of Web 2.0 as allowing for individual contribution, Web 2.0 brought about great capabilities regarding crowdsourced, crowdfunded , and crowd-tested content. Web 2.0 let individuals collectively share resources to meet a common goal, whether that goal be knowledge-based or financial.

There is no single universally accepted definition for Web 2.0 or Web 3.0. Because of its expansive nature, it's often hard to confine the boundaries of Web 2.0 into a single simple definition.

Web 2.0 Applications

The components above are directly related to the applications of Web 2.0. Those components allowed for new types of software, platforms, or applications that are still used today.

• Zoom, Netflix, and Spotify are all examples of software as a service (SaaS) . With the greater capability of connecting individuals via Web 2.0, off-premise software applications are exponentially more capable and powerful.
• HuffPost, Boing Boing, and Techcrunch are blogs that allow users to input opinions and information onto web pages. These pages are informative similar to Web 1.0; however, individual contributors have a much greater capability in creating and distributing their own informative content.
• X, Instagram, Facebook, and Threads are social media networks that allow for personalized content to be uploaded to the web. This content can then be shared with a private collection of friends or with a broad social media user base.
• Reddit, Digg, and Pinterest are also applications that allow for user input. These types of applications are more geared towards organizing social content around specific themes or topics, much like how original forums used to.
• YouTube , TikTok, and Flickr are even more examples of content sharing. However, specific applications specialize in the distribution of multimedia, video, or audio.

What Does Web 2.0 Mean?

Web 2.0 describes how the initial version of the web has advanced into a more robust, capable system. After the initial breakthrough of the initial web capabilities, greater technologies were developed to allow users to more freely interact and contribute to what resides on the web. The ability for web users to be greater connected to other web users is at the core of Web 2.0.

What Are Examples of Web 2.0 Applications?

The most commonly cited examples of Web 2.0 applications include Facebook, X, Instagram, or Tiktok. These sites allow users to interact with web pages instead of simply viewing them. These types of websites extend to sites like Wikipedia, where a broad range of users can help form the information that is shared and distributed on the web.

Is Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 the Same?

Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 use many of the same technologies (AJAX, JavaScript, HTML5, CSS3). Web 3.0 is more likely to leverage even more modern technologies or principles in an attempt to connect the information to drive even greater value.

In the early days of web browsing, users would often navigate to simple web pages filled with information and limited-to-no ability to interact with the page. Today, the web has advanced and allows for users to connect with others, contribute information, and have greater flexibility in how the web is being used. Though Web 2.0 is already shaping the way for Web 3.0, many of the fundamental pieces of Web 2.0 are still used today.

Web Design Museum. " Web 2.0 ."

Darcy DiNucci. " Fragmented Future ."

O'Reilly. " Web 2.0 and the Emergent Internet Operating System ."

University of Notre Dame of Maryland. " History of Blogging ."

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

Online Class: Web 2.0

• 21 Exams & Assignments
• 5 Hours average time

Course Description

"Web 2.0" is a course that's designed for people who want to make sure they are ready for the next change in the Internet.  While Web 1.0 started by giving people information they could easily access, Web 2.0 stepped in to help people engage.

While many online users may not have realized it, the static web pages of the past were limiting their experience.  As a result, online conversations weren't happening, and people began to lose interest.  Once the dot.com bust happened in 2001, designers wondered if there were ways to get people excited about the Internet again – and that's where Web 2.0 tools started to emerge.

Some of the online tools that Web 2.0 uses include blogs, social media, tagging, Wiki sites, RSS, podcasts, and more. Within the "Web 2.0" course, you will learn more about the basics of these tools, how to use them, and when you might want to get professional help for your goals.

Even though most of the conversation about Web 2.0 revolves around business and marketing uses, individual users can also benefit – and they may already be benefitting without realizing it.

With examples, lesson summaries, and quizzes, "Web 2.0" is designed to help you find out where your place in the Web 2.0 movement you might be.  Since Web 3.0 seems to be coming into the picture more quickly, it never hurts to find out what's already working for audiences online – and how you can join the conversation too.

• Completely Online
• 6 Months to Complete
• 24/7 Availability
• Start Anytime
• PC & Mac Compatible
• Android & iOS Friendly
• Accredited CEUs

Course Lessons

Lesson 1: introduction.

Lesson 2: What Web 2.0 Is

Lesson 3: history of web 2.0, lesson 4: benefits of taking your website to the next level, lesson 5: how things work, lesson 6: blogs, lesson 7: podcasts, lesson 8: interactive social media, lesson 9: tagging, lesson 10: the wiki model, lesson 11: rss, lesson 12: creating the user experience with professional help, lesson 13: continuing customer engagement/dynamic content strategies, lesson 14: conclusion, learning outcomes.

• Define what Web 2.0 is.
• Describe benefits of taking your website to the next level.
• Summarize blogs, podcasts, and interactive social media.
• Describe tagging, the Wiki mode, and RSS.
• Summarize methods of continuing customer engagement using dynamic content strategies.
• Demonstrate mastery of lesson content at levels of 70% or higher.

Additional Course Information

• Document Your Lifelong Learning Achievements
• Earn an Official Certificate Documenting Course Hours and CEUs
• Verify Your Certificate with a Unique Serial Number Online
• View and Share Your Certificate Online or Download/Print as PDF
• Display Your Certificate on Your Resume and Promote Your Achievements Using Social Media

Choose Your Subscription Plan

Related courses.

• Course Catalog
• Group Discounts
• Gift Certificates
• For Libraries
• CEU Verification
• Medical Terminology
• Accounting Course
• Writing Basics
• QuickBooks Training
• Proofreading Class
• Sensitivity Training
• Excel Certificate
• Teach Online
• Terms of Service
• Privacy Policy

Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology pp 747–758 Cite as

Web 2.0 Applications and Practices for Learning Through Collaboration

• Yu-Chang Hsu Ph.D. 5 ,
• Yu-Hui Ching Ph.D. 5 &
• Barbara L. Grabowski Ph.D. 6  
• First Online: 01 January 2013

30k Accesses

19 Citations

1 Altmetric

This chapter provides a review of the theoretical bases and international research on the uses of Web 2.0 applications for learning through collaboration. Web 2.0 applications empower users with a venue for personal expression, sharing, communicating, and collaborating with others, thus offering enriched opportunities for learning. In our review, we found evidence of engaging and effective uses of Web 2.0 applications such as blogs, wikis, collaborative documents and concept mapping, VoiceThread, video sharing applications (e.g., YouTube), microblogging (e.g., Twitter), social networking sites, and social bookmarking that applied contemporary and foundational educational theory. We also identified opportunities and challenges associated with learning through collaboration with Web 2.0 applications, which can inform research directions and areas to explore for ECT researchers.

• Learning through collaboration (LtC)
• Affordances

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

 Over 500,000 mobile apps for iPhone in Apple’s AppStore ( http://www.apple.com/iphone/apps-for-iphone/ , retrieved December 21, 2011) and over 380,000 for Android phones in Android Market ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_Market , retrieved December 21, 2011).

Augustsson, G. (2010). Web 2.0, pedagogical support for reflexive and emotional social interaction among Swedish students. The Internet and Higher Education, 13 , 197–205.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Barnett, M., & Squire, K. (2001). Constructing virtual worlds: Tracing the historical development of learner practices. Cognition and Instruction, 19 (1), 47–94.

*Bell, P., & Winn, W. (2000). Distributed cognitions, by nature and by design. In D. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environment (pp. 123–145). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Google Scholar  

Bower, M., Woo, K., Roberts, M., & Watters, P. A. (2006). Wiki pedagogy—A tale of two wikis . Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET 06), Sydney, Australia.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32–34.

Burke, S. C., & Snyder, S. L. (2008). YouTube: An innovative learning resource for college health education courses. The International Electronic Journal of Health Education, 11 , 39–46.

Burnett, M. (2008). Integrating interactive media into the classroom: YouTube raises the bar on student performance . Paper presented at the Allied Academies International Conference, Reno, NV. Retrieved June 23, 2012, from http://208.106.163.107/Public/Proceedings/Proceedings23/AMS%20Proceedings.pdf .

*Ching, Y.-H., & Hsu, Y.-C. (2011). Design-grounded assessment: A framework and a case study of Web 2.0 practices in higher education. In J. Waycott & J. Sheard (Eds.), Assessing students’ Web 2.0 activities in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology , 27 (Special issue, 5), 781–797.

Chuang, H. (2010). Weblog-based electronic portfolios for student teachers in Taiwan. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58 (2), 211–227.

Cole, M. (2009). Using wiki technology to support student engagement: Lessons from the trenches. Computer & Education, 52 , 141–146.

*Dillenbourg, P. (Ed.). (1999). Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches . London: Pergamon.

*Dohn, N. B. (2009). Web 2.0: Inherent tensions and evident challenges for education. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4 , 343–363.

Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). Tweeting the night away: Using Twitter to enhance social presence. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20 (2).

Elgort, I., Smith, A. G., & Toland, J. (2008). Is wiki an effective platform for group course work? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24 (2), 195–210.

Ellison, N. B., & Wu, Y. (2008). Blogging in the classroom: A preliminary exploration of student attitudes and impact on comprehension. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17 (1), 99–122.

Facebook. (2012). Statistics: People on Facebook . Retrieved June 23, 2012, from http://newsroom.fb.com/content/default.aspx?NewsAreald=22 .

Ferdig, R., & Trammell, K. (2004). Content delivery in the ‘blogosphere.’ T.H.E. Journal . Retrieved June 23, 2012, from http://www.thejournal.com/articles/16626 .

Fessakis, G., Tatsis, K., & Dimitracopoulou, A. (2008). Supporting “learning by design” activities using group blogs. Educational Technology & Society, 11 (4), 199–212.

Grant, L. (2009). ‘I DON’T CARE DO UR OWN PAGE!’ A case study of using wikis for collaborative work in a UL secondary school. Learning, Media and Technology, 34 (2), 105–117.

Greeno, J., & the Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project Group. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53 , 5–26.

Gunawardena, C. N., Hermans, M. B., Sanchez, D., Richmond, C., Bohley, M., & Tuttle, R. (2009). A theoretical framework for building online communities of practice with social networking tools. Educational Media International, 46 (1), 3–16.

Haase, D. (2009). The YouTube makeup class. The Physics Teacher, 47 (5), 272–273.

Honeycutt, C., & Herring, S. C. (2009). Beyond microblogging: Conversation and collaboration via Twitter. System Sciences, 1 , 1–10.

Hsu, Y.-C., & Ching, Y.-H. (2011). Microblogging for strengthening a virtual learning community in an online course. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 3 (4), 375–388.

Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., & Haywood, K. (2011). The 2011 horizon report . Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.

Kabilan, M. K., Ahmad, N., & Abidin, M. J. Z. (2010). Facebook: An online environment for learning of English in institutions of higher education? The Internet and Higher Education, 13 , 179–187.

Karasavvidis, I. (2010). Wiki uses in higher education: Exploring barriers to successful implementation. Interactive Learning Environment, 18 (3), 219–231.

Kear, K., Woodthorpe, J., Robertson, S., & Hutchinson, M. (2010). From forums to wikis: Perspectives on tools for collaboration. The Internet and Higher Education, 13 (4), 218–225.

Kerawalla, L., Minocha, S., Kirkuk, G., & Conole, G. (2009). An empirically grounded framework to guide blogging in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25 (1), 31–42.

Ladyshewsky, R. K., & Gardner, P. (2008). Peer assisted learning and blogging: A strategy to promote reflective practice during clinical fieldwork. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24 (3), 241–257.

Lave, J. (1985). Introduction: Situationally specific practice. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 16 , 171–176.

*Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

*Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Lin, H., & Kelsey, K. D. (2009). Building a networked environment in wikis: The evolving phases of collaborative learning in a wikibook project. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40 (2), 145–169.

Luckin, R., Clark, W., Graber, R., Logan, K., Mee, A., & Oliver, M. (2009). Do Web 2.0 tools really open the door to learning? Practices, perceptions and profiles of 11–16-year-old students. Learning Media and Technology, 34 (2), 87–104.

Luehmann, A. L., & Tinelli, L. (2008). Teacher professional identity development with social networking technologies: Learning reform through blogging. Educational Media International, 45 (4), 323–333.

MacBride, R., & Luehmann, A. L. (2008). Capitalizing on emerging technologies: A case study of classroom blogging. School Science and Mathematics, 108 (5), 173–183.

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software . Retrieved June 23, 2012, from http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228 .

Pauschenwein, J., & Sfiri, A. (2009). Adult learner’s motivation for the use of micro-blogging during online training courses. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 5 (1), 22–25.

*Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligences and design for education. In G. Solomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Pfaffman, J. A. (2007). Computer-mediated communications technologies. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 226–230). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Philip, R., & Nicholls, J. (2009). Group blogs: Documenting collaborative drama processes. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25 (5), 683–699.

Rebertson, I. (2008). Learners’ attitudes to wiki technology in problem based, blended learning for vocational teacher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24 (4), 425–441.

Schunk, D. H. (2008). Learning theories: An educational perspective (5th ed.). New York, NY: Prentice Hall.

Sharma, P., & Xie, Y. (2008). Student experiences of using weblogs: An exploratory study. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 12 , 137–156.

Shoffner, M. (2009). Personal attitudes and technology: Implications for pre-service teacher reflective practice. Teacher Educational Quarterly, 36 (2), 143–161.

*Stahl, G., Koschmann, T., & Suthers, D. (2006). Computer-supported collaborative learning: An historical perspective. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 409–426). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Tan, Y. H., Teo, E. H., Aw, W. L., & Lim, W. Y. (2005). Portfolio building in Chinese language learning using blogs. Proceedings of the BlogTalk Downunder 2005 Conference, Sydney, Australia, May 19–22 . Retrieved June 23, 2012, from http://iresearch.edumall.sg/iresearch/slot/u110/pubs/blogtalk.pdf .

Tu, C.-H., Blocher, M., & Ntoruru, J. (2008). Integrate Web 2.0 technology to facilitate online professional community: EMI special editing experiences. Educational Media International, 45 (4), 335–341.

Tudge, J., & Scrimsher, S. (2003). Lev S. Vygotsky on education: A cultural-historical, interpersonal, and individual approach to development. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 207–228). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Vratulis, V., & Dobson, T. M. (2008). Social negotiations in a wiki ­environment: A case study with pre-service teachers. Educational Media International, 45 , 285–294.

Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P., & Wheeler, D. (2008). The good, the bad and the wiki: Evaluating student generated content for collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39 (6), 987–995.

Wikipedia. (2012). Twitter . Retrieved April 1, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter

Xie, Y., Ke, F., & Sharma, P. (2008). The effect of peer feedback for blogging on college students’ reflective learning processes. The Internet and Higher Education, 11 , 18–25.

Zorko, V. (2009). Factors affecting the way students collaborate in a wiki for English language learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25 (5), 645–665.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Boise State University, 1910 University Drive, Boise, ID, 83725-1747, USA

Yu-Chang Hsu Ph.D. & Yu-Hui Ching Ph.D.

Pennsylvania State University, 6336 E Bryerly Drive, Hereford, Arizona, 85615, USA

Barbara L. Grabowski Ph.D.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yu-Chang Hsu Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

, Department of Learning Technologies, C, University of North Texas, North Elm 3940, Denton, 76207-7102, Texas, USA

J. Michael Spector

W. Sunset Blvd. 1812, St. George, 84770, Utah, USA

M. David Merrill

, Centr. Instructiepsychol.&-technologie, K.U. Leuven, Andreas Vesaliusstraat 2, Leuven, 3000, Belgium

Research Drive, Iacocca A109 111, Bethlehem, 18015, Pennsylvania, USA

M. J. Bishop

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Hsu, YC., Ching, YH., Grabowski, B.L. (2014). Web 2.0 Applications and Practices for Learning Through Collaboration. In: Spector, J., Merrill, M., Elen, J., Bishop, M. (eds) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_60

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_60

Published : 22 May 2013

Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY

Print ISBN : 978-1-4614-3184-8

Online ISBN : 978-1-4614-3185-5

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Sciences and Law Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Search form

• Formative Research
• Digital Strategy
• Design and Development
• Rapid Cycle Evaluation
• Presentations
• Other Resources
• Job Openings
• Partner With Us

Publications

June 1, 2010

This report presents findings from a two-year investigation of the ways in which Web 2.0 tools and social networking technologies are being used to support teaching and learning in classrooms across the United States. With funding from Intel®, the Education Development Center's Center for Children and Technology (EDC/CCT) interviewed or visited over 30 educators in 22 different schools throughout the country as they employed these tools in their classrooms in innovative ways. We also spoke with and observed a number of students in these schools.

Currently, there is much discussion and excitement about Web 2.0 in education, but we still know very little about how these tools actually work in the classroom. Therefore, the goal of this research was simply to interview and observe educators and students who are experimenting with these tools in the classroom to see what uses are emerging and to explore the learning affordances of blogs, wikis, and other Web 2.0 tools.

Over the two years of our research, the sample of teachers was drawn from the Intel® Teach Essentials course and the network of master teachers and training agencies that has grown up around that program. Through this network of educators, we sent out a request for volunteers to teachers that are experimenting with Web 2.0 technologies in their classrooms. During the first year we recruited 12 individual teachers, but for the second year we targeted districts with larger groups of teachers experimenting with Web 2.0 and were able to reach 27 educators across three districts.

Our report is divided into two sections: (1) a summary of some of the most frequent Web 2.0 applications we encountered, and (2) a discussion of different themes and issues concerning the use of Web 2.0 tools in classrooms that emerged from all the interviews and visits.

The first section of this report presents a catalog of the range of tools that we observed teachers using or that teachers reported using. We discuss the most salient examples in more depth, but we also present tables listing all the tools and defining how teachers reported using them. Web 2.0, a term we use almost every day, is actually an ambiguous concept referring to a large and shifting set of technological tools. We sought to solve the definition problem by limiting ourselves to the tools we encountered in our visits and grouping the tools into loose categories according to the teachers' pedagogical goals for them. Our list is not meant to be exhaustive. We divided the resources into the following four categories:

• Tools that create or support a virtual learning environment.
• Tools that support communication and cultivate relationships.
• Resources to support teaching and learning.
• Tools enabling students to create artifacts representing what they are learning.

The second part of this report discusses and interprets our observations about the use of these tools. The initial thrust of the research was intended to identify broad themes and to help demonstrate the extent of Web 2.0 use across a variety of classrooms and a range of teachers and students. While this project did not aim for a set of definitive findings, the following key themes emerged that will be a useful starting point for further and deeper research.

Our overall finding is that these tools show potential to transform many aspects of teaching when web2.0 teachers are thoughtful about how they use the tools and they are blended with careful instructional designs.

Innovative teachers are using the networked nature and ease of Web 2.0 to create virtual extensions of their classrooms.

Teachers and schools we visited are using different Web 2.0 tools or programs to create virtual spaces or networks that support and enrich their pedagogical goals, both at the classroom and the district level, and increase educational capacity by extending learning beyond the physical walls of the classroom. These virtual extensions are a daily part of teaching and learning in their classrooms.

The Web 2.0 tools that teachers are selecting are very easy to use, and this ease of use appears to be a key factor in the decision to use any individual tool.

A salient feature of this current generation of technologies is the relative ease with which users can create products and virtual spaces. From teachers creating virtual classrooms to support teaching and learning to fluid communication among students, teachers, and parents to students doing online activities to mashing up products from different programs, learning how to use the technology was seldom a focal point of the activity. Nor was much time spent logging into sites, designing spaces, or dealing with "decorative" aspects of creating products. In fact many teachers reported not using Web 2.0 tools that could not be embedded into their own virtual spaces, required a complex login, or presented any other type of roadblock to use.

Educators are using Web 2.0 tools to promote new avenues of communication among teachers, students, and the community in ways that can strengthen the community of learners.

When the assignment is meaningful and supports the learning objectives, Web 2.0 tools are being used to increase communication (not just dissemination of information) in ways that strengthen the educational community and help to center classroom-and out-‐of-‐classroom-conversation on issues and topics that support and deepen learning. We examine the following four lines of communication in the report: (1) communication among students, (2) communication between students and teachers, (3) communication with parents, and (4) communication among educators.

As the networked nature of Web 2.0 begins to blur our traditional boundaries between school/home, public/private or youth/adult culture, it presents an emerging challenge.

Web 2.0 technologies are fundamentally reshaping and realigning many aspects of the communication loop: the people with whom teachers, students, and parents communicate; how they communicate; what they communicate about; and where and when they communicate. These ongoing processes bring to the fore exciting opportunities and novel challenges for educators. As schools use these technologies to build communities, the old boundaries between public and private, in school and out of school, and youth culture and adult culture are melting away and being redrawn.

RELATED PUBLICATIONS

How companies are benefiting from Web 2.0

Over the past three years, we have tracked the rising adoption of Web 2.0 technologies, as well as the ways organizations are using them. This year, we sought to get a clear idea of whether companies are deriving measurable business benefits from their investments in the Web. Our findings indicate that they are.

Nearly 1,700 executives from around the world, across a range of industries and functional areas, responded to this year’s survey. 1 1. McKinsey Quarterly conducted the survey online in June 2009 and received 1,695 responses from executives across industries, regions, and functional specialties. We asked them about the value they have realized from their Web 2.0 deployments in three main areas: within their organizations; externally, in their relations with customers; and in their dealings with suppliers, partners, and outside experts.

Their responses suggest why Web 2.0 remains of high interest: 69 percent of respondents report that their companies have gained measurable business benefits, including more innovative products and services, more effective marketing, better access to knowledge, lower cost of doing business, and higher revenues. Companies that made greater use of the technologies, the results show, report even greater benefits. We also looked closely at the factors driving these improvements—for example, the types of technologies companies are using, management practices that produce benefits, and any organizational and cultural characteristics that may contribute to the gains. We found that successful companies not only tightly integrate Web 2.0 technologies with the work flows of their employees but also create a “networked company,” linking themselves with customers and suppliers through the use of Web 2.0 tools. Despite the current recession, respondents overwhelmingly say that they will continue to invest in Web 2.0.

Web 2.0’s Power Curves

Web 2.0 technologies improve interactions with employees, customers, and suppliers at some companies more than at others. An outside study titled “Power Law of Enterprise 2.0” analyzed data from earlier McKinsey Web 2.0 surveys to gain a better understanding of the factors that contribute most significantly to the successful use of these technologies.

The findings demonstrate that success follows a “power curve distribution”—in other words, a small group of users accounts for the largest portion of the gains. According to our research, the 20 percent of users reporting the greatest satisfaction received 80 percent of the benefits. Drilling a bit deeper, we found that this 20 percent included 68 percent of the companies reporting the highest adoption rates for a range of Web 2.0 tools, 58 percent of the companies where use by employees was most widespread, and 82 percent of the respondents who claimed the highest levels of satisfaction from Web 2.0 use at their companies.

To improve our understanding of some underlying factors leading to these companies’ success, we first created an index of Web 2.0 performance, combining the previously mentioned variables: adoption, breadth of employee use, and satisfaction. A score of 100 percent represents the highest performance level possible across the three components. We then analyzed how these scores correlated with three company characteristics: the competitive environment (using industry type as a proxy), company features (the size and location of operations), and the extent to which the company actively managed Web 2.0. These three factors explained two-thirds of the companies’ scores.

Furthermore, while all of the factors are slightly correlated with one another—for example, there are more high-tech companies in the United States than in South America—each factor by itself explains much of why companies achieved their performance scores. Management capabilities ranked highest at 54 percent, meaning that good management is more than half of the battle in ensuring satisfaction with Web 2.0, a high rate of adoption, and widespread use of the tools. The competitive environment explained 28 percent, size and location 17 percent. Parsing these results even further, we found that three aspects of management were particularly critical to superior performance: a lack of internal barriers to Web 2.0, a culture favoring open collaboration (a factor confirmed in the 2009 survey), and early adoption of Web 2.0 technologies. The high-tech and telecom industries had higher scores than manufacturing, while companies with sales of less than $1 billion or those located in the United States were more likely to have relatively high performance scores than larger companies located elsewhere.

While the evidence suggests that focused management improves Web 2.0 performance, there’s still a way to go before users become as satisfied with these technologies as they are with others. The top 20 percent of companies reached a performance score of only 35 percent (the score increased to 44 percent in the 2009 survey). When the same score methodology is applied to technologies that corporations had previously adopted, Web 2.0’s score is below the 57 percent for traditional corporate IT services, such as e-mail, and the 80 percent for mobile-communications services.

This year, for the first time, we have consolidated the data from our Web 2.0 research into an interactive graphic (see Business and Web 2.0: An interactive feature ). With just a few clicks, users can compare technologies, usage, satisfaction, and much more across all three survey years.

Benefits of Web 2.0

Web 2.0 technologies can be a powerful lure for an organization; their interactivity promises to bring more employees into daily contact at lower cost. When used effectively, they also may encourage participation in projects and idea sharing, thus deepening a company’s pool of knowledge. They may bring greater scope and scale to organizations as well, strengthening bonds with customers and improving communications with suppliers and outside partners.

This year’s survey turned up strong evidence that these advantages are translating into measurable business gains (Exhibit 1). When we asked respondents about the business benefits their companies have gained as a result of using Web 2.0 technologies, they most often report greater ability to share ideas; improved access to knowledge experts; and reduced costs of communications, travel, and operations. Many respondents also say Web 2.0 tools have decreased the time to market for products and have had the effect of improving employee satisfaction.

Looking beyond company borders, significant benefits have stemmed from better interactions with organizations and customers. The ability to forge closer ties has increased customers’ awareness and consideration of companies’ products and has improved customer satisfaction. Respondents also say they have been able to burnish their innovation skills, perhaps because their companies and customers jointly shape and cocreate products using Web 2.0 connections. Some respondents report that these customer interactions have resulted in measurable increases in revenues.

Respondents cite similar gains resulting from better ties to suppliers and partners. Highest on that list of benefits is the ability to gain access to expertise outside company walls more quickly. These respondents also cite lower costs of communication with business partners and lower travel costs.

We also asked respondents to specify the percentage improvement they experienced for each reported benefit across all three benefit classes. The median level of gains derived from internal Web 2.0 use ranged from a 10 percent improvement in operational costs to a 30 percent increase in the speed at which employees are able to tap outside experts.

Greater knowledge and better marketing

How companies are using Web 2.0

Web 2.0 delivers benefits by multiplying the opportunities for collaboration and by allowing knowledge to spread more effectively. These benefits can accrue through companies’ use of automatic information feeds such as RSS 2 2. Really Simple Syndication. or microblogs, of which Twitter is the most popular manifestation. Although many companies use a mix of tools, the survey shows that among all respondents deriving benefits, the more heavily used technologies are blogs, wikis, and podcasts—the same tools that are popular among consumers—(Exhibit 2).

Among respondents who report seeing benefits within their companies, many cite blogs, RSS, and social networks as important means of exchanging knowledge. These networks often help companies coalesce affinity groups internally. Finally, respondents report using Web videos more frequently since the previous survey; technology improvements have made videos easier to produce and disseminate within organizations.

Respondents who report that Web technologies have strengthened their companies’ links to customers also cite blogs and social networks as important. Both allow companies to distribute product information more readily and, perhaps more critically, they invite customer feedback and even participation in the creation of products.

Similarly, among those capturing benefits in their dealings with suppliers and partners, the tools of choice again are blogs, social networks, and video sharing. While respondents tell us that tapping expert knowledge from outside is their top priority, few report deploying prediction markets to harvest collective insights from these external networks.

A mix of technologies

Who benefits

Regardless of industry, executives at companies that use more Web 2.0 technologies also report greater benefits. Comparing respondents’ industries, those at high-technology companies are most likely to report measurable benefits from Web 2.0 across the board, followed by those at companies offering business, legal, and professional services (Exhibit 3). Companies with revenues exceeding $1 billion—along with business-to-business organizations—are more likely to report benefits than are smaller companies or consumer companies. Among functions, respondents in information technology, business development, and sales and marketing are more likely to report seeing benefits at various levels than are those in finance or purchasing. IT executives, in general, are more focused on using Web tools to achieve internal improvements, while business development and sales functions often rely on the technologies to deliver better insights into markets or to interact with consumers.

Regionally, respondents in North America and India are most likely to claim that they are reaping benefits from their companies’ use of Web 2.0. These respondents also report higher levels of technology usage in general. Respondents in North America and China report the highest customer benefits. Those from India and China, meanwhile, are more likely to report benefits flowing from their interactions with customers and partners.

Where the benefits are

The networked company

These survey results indicate that a different type of company may be emerging—one that makes intensive use of interactive technologies. This networked organization is characterized both by the internal integration of Web tools among employees, as well as use of the technologies to strengthen company ties with external stakeholders—customers and business partners.

As such, companies reporting business benefits also report high levels of Web 2.0 integration into employee workflows. They most often deploy three or more Web tools, and usage is high throughout these organizations (Exhibit 4).

Half of respondents report that Web 2.0 technologies have fostered in-company interactions across geographic borders; 45 percent cite interactions across functions, and 39 percent across business units.

This integrated internal use of Web 2.0 is also the model for interactivity outside the company. The survey results suggest that networked organizations have created processes and Web platforms that serve to manage significant portions of these external ties. Respondents reporting measurable benefits say their companies, on average, have Web 2.0 interactions with 35 percent of their customers. These companies forged similar Web ties to 48 percent of their suppliers, partners, and outside experts. An organizational structure that’s more porous and networked may make companies more resilient and adaptive, sharpening their ability to access knowledge and thus innovate more effectively.

Web 2.0 in the work stream

Managing adoption

Many companies experiment with Web 2.0 technologies, but creating an environment with a critical mass of committed users is more difficult. 3 3. See Michael Chui, Andy Miller, and Roger P. Roberts, “ Six ways to make Web 2.0 work ,” mckinseyquarterly.com, February 2009. The survey results confirm that successful adoption requires that the use of these tools be integrated into the flow of users’ work (Exhibit 5). Furthermore, encouraging continuing use requires approaches other than the traditional financial or performance incentives deployed as motivational tools. In the Web community, status is often built on a reputation for making meaningful contributions. Respondents say informal incentives incorporating the Web ethos, such as ratings by peers and online recognition of status, have been most effective in encouraging Web 2.0 adoption. They also say role modeling—active Web use by executives—has been important for encouraging adoption internally.

Integrating for success

Looking ahead

Web 2.0 use by companies seems to be developing hardy roots. Over half of the companies in this year’s survey plan to increase their investments in Web 2.0 technologies, while another quarter expect to maintain investments at current levels.

Among respondents whose companies have gained measurable business benefits from Web 2.0, the current downturn has increased interest in the technologies, presumably because companies count on extending their gains.

Across three major usage categories (internal, customer, and partner/supplier), about a third of all respondents have not yet achieved business benefits, either because they aren’t using Web 2.0 for one of those purposes or because they have yet to learn how to achieve measurable benefits with the tools they are using. Yet satisfaction with Web 2.0 is high among all users. This suggests that Web 2.0 has plenty of room to grow as more companies strive to capture benefits.

The contributors to the development and analysis of this survey include Jacques Bughin, a director in McKinsey’s Brussels office; Michael Chui, a consultant in the San Francisco office; and Andy Miller, an associate principal in the Silicon Valley office.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Business and Web 2.0: An interactive feature

Managing beyond web 2.0, six ways to make web 2.0 work.

Four Web 2.0 Collaborative-Writing Tools

from Educators' eZine

According to Wikipedia, the term collaborative writing refers to work created by a group collaboratively rather than by one person individually. Collaborative writing is useful for projects, for peer-editing, and for many other writing tasks limited only by teacher/student imagination. Web-based collaborative writing tools may be used by teachers to provide feedback on student assignments, to make suggestions and comments on a projects and highlighting required changes to a member of the project.

In general, collaborative writing tools provide flexibility and usefulness. Collaborative writing tools can vary, ranging from the simplicity of a wiki to more advanced systems. Many web-based writing tools have features that mimic the typical formatting and editing facilities of a standard word processor. Some may offer live chat, live markup and annotation, co-editing, and version tracking.

Finally, collaborative writing and Web 2.0 work together seamlessly. Collaborating students need not be in the same room, or even the same school/city/state/country. And their work, usually password-protected, may be accessed from any Internet-enabled computer. So a student, or team of students, may begin work on a school computer and continue working after the school day on any other Web-enabled computer, whether that computer is physically at a youth center, at a library, or in the student's home. These are the basic advantages of Web 2.0 tools; so now let's look at four of them.

Google Docs

Google Docs , formerly Writely, is probably the most popular of these tools. It is a free service allowing users to create both word processing AND spreadsheet documents for collaboration. The best part is that there is no need to install any software. Students access their work from anywhere, on any Internet-enabled computer whether at home, at school, at the local library, etc.

Tech & Learning Newsletter

Tools and ideas to transform education. Sign up below.

To begin using Google Docs, a user needs a Google account. Setting up such an account is simple, and once done it becomes a one-size-fits-all matter, as the same log-in may be used for all of Google's many, and growing, features. Go to the Google Docs main page and click on the Get Started button to create a user account.

The program is similar in format to Microsoft Word 97-2003 and Microsoft Excel 97-2003. There is a basic toolbar containing the standard tools for editing documents: undo, redo, cut, copy and paste. The toolbar also contains the basic styles and alignments: bold, italic, underline, left alignment, center alignment, and right alignment.

To begin have students click on "New Document" or "New Spreadsheet". Note that students can upload files already created by clicking on the "Upload" link.

Students click on the tabs within Google Docs to insert images, links, comments, tables, a bookmark, a separator, and special characters. They can also make edits, and check on the number of revisions to a document.

As with all programs it is essential to 'save early and often.' But it is important that the first time a student saves a document she/he knows what formats are available, including the following formats: HTML, RTF, Word, OpenOffice, PDF, and Text.

The File Tab with its Save As options

Zoho Writer

Zoho Writer is an online word processor allowing for writing, sharing, and collaboration. What makes Zoho Writer stand out is the ability to post documents to a blog, as well as export and import documents in a variety of file formats such as Word (DOC), SXW, Portable Document File (PDF), ODT, Rich Text File (RTF), TXT and HTML. It allows for accessing, editing, and sharing from anywhere with whomever you choose and locking, or protecting, documents while working in shared mode.

To access Zoho's many tools, simply go to Zoho Writer and complete the free registration process.

Zoho writer's toolbars

Another great feature of Zoho Writer is its Template Library featuring templates for quizzes, newsletters, resumes, and more.

Other Zoho Products

Zoho offers a number of other products that a student and teacher can explore and use to collaborate. There are:

• Collaborative spreadsheets at Zoho Sheet ,
• Collaborative chats at Zoho Chat ,
• Collaborative presentation tools at Zoho Show ,
• Collaborative Wiki-building tools at Zoho Wiki ,
• Collaborative organizing tools at Zoho Planner .

Writeboard, another collaborative writing tool, claims it provides students with a place to edit collaboratively but also roll back to a previous version to compare the new with the old.

Simply log in to Writeboard to create a document for collaboration. Each document is itself called a "writeboard," and is password-protected so that only members of the group may access it. See below:

One of the disadvantages of using Writeboard is that student do not get a "What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG) editor for formatting. It does not contain any toolbars like Google Docs and Zoho. Instead, Writeboard provides a simple text area that allows a student to format text using the program's formatting codes. For example, adding underscores before and after a word will produce italic text. You will find it easy and fairly intuitive to use.

ThinkFree Online

Finally, there's ThinkFree (www.thinkfree.com), a Web 2.0 tool using both asynchronous javascript and XML, better known as AJAX, and Java technology. In short ThinkFree is Office without the Microsoft. It is a collection of free online applications that support and contain most features found in Word, PowerPoint, and Excel. ThinkFree provides a user with up to 1GB of online storage and more importantly they offer online collaboration so students and teachers can edit files at anytime on his or her own computer.

The first step to using ThinkFree Online is to log in to the site and click on the Sign Up button to create an account.

ThinkFree has three major components. The blue icon is for ThinkFree Write , the green icon is for ThinkFree Calc , and the orange is for ThinkFree Show .

Once a student clicks on the Thinkfree Write icon, the application requests a file name and the option to use a Quick Edit or Power Edit mode, After working on a collaborative writing assignment, it is essential that students save the document. In addition to saving files in a number of formats, student can also upload document from variety file formats such as MS Office. So even if a student does not have Internet access, she/he can use MS Word to create and/or edit and then upload that document for future collaborative efforts.

Learning Features

The developers of ThinkFree Online indicate that it will be free as it is supported by banner ads, which are contextual ads based on what's in your document (similar to Google's Gmail ad strategy), and search ads. ThinkFree developers also hope to entice users into upgrading to premium services like additional storage and ad-free operation for a fee. Finally, ThinkFree offers a section titled "Get Ideas From Others" , featuring ways others are using the service, including classroom teachers.

The online web-based collaborative writing tools discussed above, including Google Docs, Writeboard, ZohoWriter, and ThinkFree, offer an easy way for students to collaborate on projects, reports and other assignments. Their 'go-anywhere-anytime' nature demonstrate the best of Web 2.0.

Collaborative Writing Tools: Comparison Summary

File Types Support

Text, Images

Software/Web-Based

Web-Based (Java)

Public/Private

Email Updates

Spell Check

Export/File Formats

DOC and XLS

DOC,PDF, HTML and RTF

DOC, DOCX,PDF, HTML XML and TXT

Email: Julia Vandermolen

How Sal Khan Uses AI To Teach

Many Schools Use Edtech That Puts Student Privacy at Risk. Here’s What They Should Do Instead

Edtech Show & Tell: April 2024

Most Popular

By Sascha Zuger 21 March 2024

By Erik Ofgang 21 March 2024

By Michael Gaskell 19 March 2024

By Frank Pileiro 15 March 2024

By Ray Bendici, Diana Restifo 14 March 2024

By Diana Restifo 13 March 2024

By Erik Ofgang 11 March 2024

By Stephanie Smith Budhai, Ph.D. 11 March 2024

By Luke Edwards 11 March 2024

By Erik Ofgang 7 March 2024

By Michael Gaskell 4 March 2024

We are raising $50,000 during the month of March.

In the spirit of transparency to equitable access to news focused on education. Our website is free and we will not use a paywall. So we rely on donations to fund out work. Donate here .

The Educators Room

Empowering Teachers as the Experts

Using Web 2.0 Tools to Increase Student Engagement

“I couldn’t come up with an idea.”

“I didn’t have a chance to talk to my group!”

“What was the homework?”

“I was confused…”

“I’m not sure if my students understood the lesson today.”

“Where can my students best showcase their work?”

These are all questions and excuses I’ve heard from students and teachers, and I’m so happy that advances in technology have helped to decrease these issues in many schools. Today I’ll share some of the best Web 2.0 tools that I personally use in my classroom to combat these problems!

When I was in middle school , I remember clearly that feeling of dread wash over me when I got home if I left my precious planner in my locker. I was diligent about writing down my assignments, but sometimes in my insane rush to not miss the bus, I’d accidentally leave my sticker decorated planner on the top shelf of my locker. I remember I would beg my parents to take me back to school to go get it, usually at 8:00 at night when everyone was long gone. My teachers didn’t always update the “Homework Hotline” on their voicemail, and I was pretty much out of luck when it came to finding out was due, unless I braved it, busted out the white pages, and made a phone call (but never during dinner time of course!) to a fellow classmate. For my Type A personality, having the technology we do today would have been a lifesaver! However, many teachers don’t utilize these amazing tools because they have never heard of them, or their schools aren’t pushing this level of technology just yet. Many of the tools I’m sharing today are free or have a free component that will allow you to at least try it out. All of them I feel are very user-friendly and easy to implement with students in your classroom as early as tomorrow!

Padlet is a virtual bulletin board that can be used in so many different ways. Most often, it can be used for brainstorming, sharing ideas, and collaborating. It is updated in real-time, and can be displayed on a classroom web page. I have used this with my students to have them brainstorm ideas for their Genius Hour projects, and also to give each other compliments during a social-emotional learning exercise. The brainstorming was wonderful, because I had insight into what they were interested in learning about during Genius Hour, and students that were struggling to come up with ideas were inspired by what others posted. What I loved most about the second activity was that students could see all of the compliments, and they would often refer to certain comments, and it was something they continued to do way past the actual activity. Parents could also see these, as I embedded the Padlet to their classroom Weebly Page. Padlet can be used to reinforce many concepts, such as examples of different types of themes in literature, real world examples of figurative language, or even quotes from literature that are inspiring, or maybe even feature a grammar concept your class is currently learning.

2. Schoology / Edmodo

Up until this year, I used Edmodo with my classes with great success, and then my school district adopted Schoology this year. Both are basically the same concept, with only a few small differences, but function on the same level. I have loved using this with my classroom, and there are a few features I love more than others. Basically, both are platforms for students and parents to communicate with the teacher. It looks like a form of social media, but is safe and private for students to use. The thing I love most is that I can upload all of my materials and they are available for students. There are also no limits on storage that I’ve encountered, and I’ve uploaded everything this year. Classes are grouped and separate, and students can submit assignments through both platforms. In both Schoology and Edmodo, you can comment and annotate on student work, and they can resubmit the assignment, without having to print out a copy, ever!

I can also answer questions for students, and continue classroom discussions that we have during the class period. One of my fondest memories using Edmodo was when we did virtual literature circles. One of my students was absent on her day to lead the discussion, and she was still able to participate from home during the class period (which she chose to do on her own, she wasn’t expected to). It was incredible to see the level of dedication she had to being there for her peers, and to watch them be able to interact with her. One student shared her thoughts out with their group, and then the discussed them and responded to her. Ultimately, the best part about this is that you do not need a subscription to use Edmodo or Schoology, they are absolutely free for teachers!

3. Google Apps for Education

4. Socrative and Mastery Connect

These are two different websites, but are from the same developer, and both focus on assessments.

If your school allows students to use their cell phones in class, this is a major bonus, because students can use Socrative via their phone! It’s a great way to do paperless exit slips in class. It can also do short quizzes, space race, or even poll students. I love using this app to see quickly that students understand a concept, or even get their feedback on a lesson we did in class. The results are then tallied and sent to me in a chart, and I can use this information to guide my lesson planning.

Mastery Connect may be the best tool I have ever used, as it saved me so much time grading I can’t even begin to thank them enough for creating it. I upload my tests to Mastery Connect, and create the answer key. Students take the test using a Test ID, and not only do I get their scores automatically when they finish, they do as well. What is so great about this is that their scores are divided into Mastery Levels which you can set. In my classroom, if a student gets “Red” (Below Mastery), they must immediately fill out a “Request to Retest” form, and turn it in to me before the end of the period. If they receive “Yellow” (Near Mastery), they can choose to retake the test or not (most choose to retake), and if they received “Green” (Mastery), they know they are good to go. My personal grading philosophy is that students should have a chance to master the material, which is why I always make students retake their tests. This also encourages students to take ownership of their learning and reflect on why they received the score that they did. Teachers can also search assessments from others across the country.

Mastery Connect is free up to ten questions, and if you pay for the subscription you can also assess data across your classes, and do an item analysis of individual questions. This feature helps me determine if a question might not be valid, especially if multiple students miss it. I no longer spend my Friday nights grading vocabulary tests, which is what makes the price absolutely worth it for me!

I hope you find these tech tools helpful and something that you can use in your classroom. Make it a goal to experiment and try one or two out before the end of the school year!

Related posts:

Jennifer White

I am a middle school Language Arts teacher, pushing my students each day to their fullest potential... More by Jennifer White

Join the Conversation

• Pingback: Using Web 2.0 Tools to Increase Student Engagem...

I haven’t used Mastery – how do you structue ELA tests with it? That’s always my problem…I don’t do multiple choice. I’ve used Flubaroo and like how it works, too. I’m interested in digitizing my ISN – you should write a post on what you’ve done!

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Leave a comment

• HTML Tutorial
• HTML Exercises
• HTML Attributes
• Global Attributes
• Event Attributes
• HTML Interview Questions
• DOM Audio/Video
• HTML Examples
• Color Picker
• A to Z Guide
• HTML Formatter
• Differences between HTML specification and Browser’s Implementation
• Explain different markup languages other than HTML
• How to create links to sections within the same page in HTML ?
• How to create a nested webpage in HTML ?
• How to add a browser tab icon (favicon) for a website ?
• Can I Add Multiple <tbody> Elements in Same Table in HTML ?
• How to change Background Color in HTML ?
• Troubleshooting HTML Form Controls: Resolving the 'Invalid Form Control' Error
• Can we Create a Nested Form in HTML ?
• How to use the HTML reserved character ?
• Describe the various components of URL
• Explain the layout structure of HTML
• What is the meaning `HTMLDivElement`?
• How to Prevent the Display of “Getting Framed" in HTML ?
• How to Make a Vertical Line in HTML
• How to change the text color & size by accessing the HTML element ?
• How to validate input field in the HTML Form ?
• How to Set Checkboxes Readonly in HTML ?
• Which input type is used to hide the input field to be displayed in HTML Form ?

What is Web Forms 2.0 ?

An HTML form is a special part of a web page that contains certain controls, including labels, text fields, password fields, hidden fields (used by the software), radio buttons, checkboxes, fieldsets, legends, and submit buttons. During the interaction with these forms, users provide all the necessary information for the server to process. Currently, client-side scripting is used for effects and simple validation (usually using Javascript), but HTML5 will reduce the need for this materially in the near future.

What Is Web Forms 2.0

HTML5 form elements are supported by many browsers, although some of them differ in their compatibility and display features. This article explores both the main components of an HTML5 website form and those new features designed to make HTML more user-friendly.

HTML5 Input Element (Text):

E-mail: It will only accept email values. Input fields that need to contain an email address should use this type. When you try to submit a simple text, it only asks for an email address in the format [email protected].

Number: This field accepts only numerical values. The step attribute specifies the precision, which defaults to 1.

Time: The time (hour, minute, second, fractional second) is encoded according to ISO 8601.

Week: A date that is composed of a weekday and a year is encoded according to ISO 8061.

Month: According to ISO 8061, dates consisting of a year and a month are encoded.

Date: A date (year, month, day) is encoded using the ISO 8601 standard.

Example:   

datetime-local: Date and time encoded in ISO 8601 (year, month, day, hour, minute, second, fraction of a second) without time zone information.

Example:  

Week: A drop-down calendar lets the user choose a week and year from the week input type.

range: For input fields, the range type is used to represent a range of values.

URL: It can only accept URL values. In this type of field, URL addresses should be entered. Those who submit simple text entries must specify the URL, either http://www.example.com or http://example.com

The <output> element:

• HTML5 introduced a new element called <output> to represent the output of different types of scripts, like the ones written by a script.
• An output element’s for the attribute is used to specify a relationship between that element and other elements in the document that influence the calculation.
• A space-separated list of IDs of other elements is the value for this attribute.

Web Form2.0 Attributes:

1. placeholder attribute

• HTML5 introduced a new attribute called placeholder.
• With placeholder attributes on <input> and <textarea> elements, users are able to know what they can enter in the field.
• The placeholder text cannot contain line-feeds or carriage returns.

2. autofocus attribute

• This is a simple one-step pattern that can be easily programmed in JavaScript as soon as the document loads. When the form loads, it automatically focuses on a particular field in the document.

3. required attribute:

• The required attribute is used in place of Javascript validations.
• Due to this attribute, Javascript is now only required for client-side validations where an empty text box cannot be submitted.

Please Login to comment...

• HTML-Questions
• Web Technologies
• 10 Best Tools to Convert DOC to DOCX
• How To Summarize PDF Documents Using Google Bard for Free
• Best free Android apps for Meditation and Mindfulness
• TikTok Is Paying Creators To Up Its Search Game
• 30 OOPs Interview Questions and Answers (2024)

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?