Critical Evaluation of the 4C’s


The ASU’s library channel shows interesting and innovative – at least to me- uses of social networking media to enhance and improve it’s role and function within the University life.

But is the ASU successful at utilising Web2.0 technologies as well as the underlying concepts of the 4C’s (collaboration, conversation, community and content creation)?

Let’s begin with the 1-minute videos, which are posted on the library channel.  These are short, informative, interesting, humorous and fun.  They update the image of the library whilst informing students and the public on various topics. Do they incorporate the 4C’s?  Collaboration is only occurring on the level behind the scenes between the presenter, camera person and presumably the librarian.  Collaboration with the audience is not occurring though.  Similarly, a conversation is not happening and there is no interactivity between the presenter and the audience.  However a conversation may occur after viewing a video between viewers and also between the viewer and library/librarian as they utilise the information presented. The community is addressed by effectively getting the audience in to and using the library. A community is not created though of people watching videos. This is true also of content creation.  The content is one way from the library to the audience.

Let’s look at the library’s Facebook page. It appears to incorporate all the 4C’s. A conversation is created and ongoing with the freedom to go in the direction of any of the viewers as well as the library.  Whilst a lot of the content may initially be uploaded by the library, this can be added to and other content uploaded by the Facebook users.  The library is able to also build on its community within the Facebook platform.  Finally there is capacity for collaboration to occur easily in this platform as well.

Another of the library’s Web 2.0 tools is the Twitter account.  It appears to also incorporate the 4C’s in a way very similar to Facebook.  The major difference is Twitter is limited in its length of posts. The home page for the Twitter account is also more limited than that of Facebook.  For the purpose of the library I believe both Twitter and Facebook allow it to achieve the 4C’s.  Twitter is perhaps more immediate in its reach.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: