Carla Arena writes:
Well, first I must confess that being comfortable and having a high IQ on the Web is not about the services you use and how often you connect, but how you're using it to connect to others and learn. Anyway, I had fun with your form, but I'd change it to a Web2.0 version using a google docs form, rather than an excel program that you have to download. Just an idea...Steve Tuffill writes:
Well Manish - I scored a 73 in your Excel spreadsheet-based test. I tend to agree with Carla though. It may have been more appropriate in a Web 2.0 based environment like Google Docs. And certainly the figures would speak volumes about the trends of using the technology which we are all studying so closely.Roberta Miller writes:
I would be interested to see what everyone scored on this test. Are you planning on making this capable of aggregating the data centrally?
Also, what exactly does my 73 score tell you (or anyone else for that matter) about me?
So I have to say I was really disappointed in this. I find am having trouble finding the "greatness" or importance of "Web 2.0". I generally don't tend to respond to posts I read, but I am trying to break out of my this and start voicing my opinion.Catherine Fitzpatrick writes:
I think you did a great job in creating the form, and it was fun participating so in that sense it was a success. After reading the questions though I felt a little let down. "Is that all there is to Web 2.0?"
I scored a 42 by the way. There were some questions I had to leave blank though because I couldn't find the appropriate answer.
Added later: I sent the form to my 21 year old to she scored 27. What does it all mean?
I'm with Roberta on this, though I scored 83, more than double her score, but I have even MORE of a sense of "Is that all there is?"George Siemens writes:
And she's right, that the answers are too pat. For example, it could ask me if I like or trust wikis -- I would say "no," although I'm forced to use them. She could ask if I actually show up on Facebook, which I don't much, etc. It doesn't chart usage.
And even if it does, there isn't really the hard question that needs to be asked: do you get paid to do this? Does this pay out to you? Does this get used in your job that pays you? And the answer for most people will be a resounding NO. I'm lucky it does pay out some modest amount for me, but nowhere near my value per hour spent at some other occupation.
I'm with you (Roberta) on "is this all there is to web 2.0". At best, these tools are an instantiation of a longer cycle of change. When schools create new reforms based on the current fad/flavour, they do themselves and their "stakeholders" a disservice. I would just as soon do without web 2.0. But, it seems, that we need umbrella terms that encapsulate complex ideas. So discussions of participation, openness, technologies, read/write web, etc. get pressed into a term. And once we adopt the term, it in itself becomes a limiting influence to new innovation.
The common threads in all these are some answered questions and suggestions:
- So what do the scores mean?
- Is that all there is to Web 2.0?
- How often do you connect is more important than just having a registered user ID on the services.
- Should be online on Google docs or something similar.
- Would be great to see other’s scores.