Search News


Browse Archives

News

Washed Up

August 6, 2010

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Google Wave was supposed to make class discussions richer and more coherent. It was supposed to make research collaborations easier. It was supposed to break down walls between offices, disciplines, countries. It was even supposed to give learning-management systems such as Blackboard a run for their money.

Instead, it is kaput. Just over a year after being rolled out, the much-hyped Wave has crashed on the shores of indifference and is now set to recede into obscurity. Google said Thursday that it will stop selling Wave as a product and close the host website by the end of the year, citing a dearth of users.

Google Wave was a Web-based platform where groups could have conversations (live and asynchronous), share media files and documents, and collaborate on projects. It was marketed as an antidote to e-mail threads, where information is more liable to get lost, discussions are fragmented, and people can get cut out of the loop by accident. As far as the breadth of what it could do, Wave stacked up favorably against the prevailing collaboration technologies — e-mail, Google Docs, wikis, and asynchronous discussion forums.

The expectations for Wave were as high in academe as anywhere else when it debuted in May 2009. Some higher ed bloggers suggested that professors might use Wave as a foundation for “whole interactive courses.” Citing chatter from enthusiastic early adopters, the education blog ReadWriteWeb suggested that collaborative note-taking on Wave “will lead to smarter, better performing students.” Some even mused that Wave could challenge learning-management systems — if not their information-management features, then perhaps their online classrooms. “Because Wave includes so many modes of communication and inter-operates with other applications, it could significantly enhance the way students collaborate and communicate,” read a primer from Educause, the higher-ed technology group.

A number of professors experimented with Wave. Raymond Schroeder, director of the Center for Online Learning, Research, and Service at the University of Illinois at Springfield, used Wave to bring together students from two of his classes — one on the cultural impact of the Internet and another on energy studies — to discuss how the prevalence of the Internet ties into perceptions of energy sustainability. Kathleen Fitzpatrick, a professor of English and media studies at Pomona College, made collaborative note-taking a requirement for one of her courses. Both Schroeder and Fitzpatrick reported encouraging results. “To a person, [the students] liked it,” wrote Fitzpatrick in a blog post. “Most of the students seemed to catch the enthusiasm of the instructors in using this technology,” wrote Schroeder. He says his university also used Wave in public health and public administration courses.

Why the Washout?

Schroeder and Fitzpatrick were, alas, in the minority. A study released in May by the Babson Research Group and Pearson revealed Wave to be one of the least popular Web 2.0 tools among professors; fewer than half of respondents had heard of Wave, and not even 5 percent used it. The number of adopters in academe was “not as many as we had hoped,” a Google spokesman told Inside Higher Ed on Thursday. He would not say what specific criticisms Google had heard from its academic customers about Wave. (Joshua Kim, an Inside Higher Ed blogger on educational technology, suggests that part of the problem may have been too much hype and not enough of a connection between Wave's services and what academics most wanted.)

“The platform was too complicated and too clunky for most users and uses, and it didn't integrate well with the ways people actually use the web today, nor did it fill a gap that wasn't being served by other technologies,” offers Fitzpatrick, noting that she was nevertheless saddened to hear Google had decided to shut it down.

“My feeling is that Wave was mostly misunderstood, and not least by its own development team,” she says. “If the Wave team had pitched the package differently, it might have succeeded. They described it as a redesign of e-mail, integrating this form of communication with newer social technologies — but that… made it seem as though Wave was meant to be a general-purpose communication technology that everyone would want to adopt.” Realistically, its uses were narrower, she says — group work relating to specific projects, mainly.

Schroeder agrees that the sophistication of the tools in Wave might have scared away some non-techie professors. “For those who took time to learn the capabilities, it was truly a game-changer,” he says. “But for those who could only tolerate a ten-minute learning curve, it was frustrating and confusing.”

Steve Bragaw, a professor of American politics at Sweet Briar College, last fall mused on that Wave might take a bite out of the learning-management market. Bragaw says he still thinks cloud-based learning-management tools are the wave of the future, but that this Wave just did not function well enough to turn those early adopters into evangelists. “It was twitchy, and it crashed a lot,” he says. “If you’re going to use it in the classroom, it’s got to be reliable.”

Still, Bragaw says he thinks there is a market for Wave-like technology on college campuses, and that if a company is able to develop a product that works smoothly and is not so scary to academics, it could gain a following. And he would not be surprised if that company is Google.

For the latest technology news from Inside Higher Ed, follow IHEtech on Twitter.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Washed Up

  • Invitation Strategy Doomed Wave
  • Posted by bphil at U. of Toledo on August 6, 2010 at 7:00am EDT
  • If they were targeting the higher ed. market--and I thought they were--the invitation strategy doomed the Wave. We were supposed to be able to invite colleagues and students to waves of conversation and collaboration that were able to grow exponentially, but instead the first few months were like dry CB channels in 1972, lone voices chirping "hello" into the Web 2.0 void.

    The alien interface was an obstacle, but not insurmountable. Oh well. Back to the old habits...

  • Inter-institutional Collaboration
  • Posted by Ray Schroeder , Director of Center for Online Learning, Research and Service at University of Illinois at Springfield on August 6, 2010 at 8:30am EDT
  • In the referenced collaboration on the Internet and energy sustainability - the one class was my online class from the University of Illinois at Springfield, and the other was at the Institute of Technology in Sligo Ireland. Brian Mulligan and Seán Conlan of the Sligo Institute added their students to a Wave with my students - creating a great trans-Atlantic interinstitutional collaboration without the hassles of battling the red tape of logging into some other institution's LMS. It was a simple, seamless collaboration that enabled synchronous and asynchronous multi-media exchanges.

    Of course, Wave has not required invitations for months now. One can integrate waves into web pages. And, the stability is far better than it was when we first began experimenting with it ten months ago. While there was not a mass market for a free, advertising supported implementation of Wave, there certainly is a market for this kind of technology in higher education. Discussions abounded (and still do) comparing Wave to the established fee-based LMS, web conferencing, and other tools that we use at most colleges and universities.

    Since Wave is open source, the options are wide open for those who might seek to build upon it to create a tool that will serve the education market.

    -Ray Schroeder

  • I liked Wave
  • Posted by Sean Lancaster , Professor at Grand Valley State University on August 6, 2010 at 8:30am EDT
  • I used Wave every day socially with friends and quite often in collaboration with colleagues (e.g., great during grant writing or working with a team to carry out grant objectives). But I also used Wave to replace all of my class discussions in my online classes. I stopped using the Moodle discussion forum and shifted all class discussions to Wave late last year. Wave wasn't without it's problems and beta feel, but it worked really well for our needs. I presented to others about using Google Wave, but the caveats I typically noted had to do with the difficulty in creating a class Wave (i.e., students had to sign up themselves and often their email would switch to @googlewave.com and they didn't even know it so it was hard to find them). Once you had all students included, it was difficult to manage student participation. That is, if you had 15 Waves in a semester then going back to grade an individual student was very difficult as you couldn't easily look up all of the user's posts and had to instead go back through everything. This is where a typical dedicated discussion forum can far exceed Wave. I'll miss Wave, but I expect something to come along and provide similar synchronous and asynchronous function in a cloud.

  • Graceful transition required
  • Posted by Brian Mulligan , Open Learning Coordinator at Institute of Technology Sligo on August 6, 2010 at 9:15am EDT
  • As a collaborator with Ray Schroeder in testing Wave as an educational tool, even I was skeptical of its stated objective of replacing email. What I felt the system needed was a way allowing people to move very gradually into Wave without changing significantly their normal communication methods (which is by far mostly email - the news of email's death has been greatly exaggerated). One way might be the hosting of conversations in Wave that easily include people, including late adopters in the conversation via email and without registration (eg using a specific email address for the conversation). Now that is only one suggestion, which might or might not work, but what struck me most was that there was not much evidence that Google was trying to provide such a gentle transition path.

    It has been my observation over the last 35 years of using computers that, despite the wishful thinking of us early adopters, there are rarely revolutions in IT. It took a long time to get everyone in our organisation to adopt email (perhaps 10 years or more). Most change seems to be evolutionary. If you're not paying attention and then you notice the change, it often seems to be revolutionary, but more often than not it has been a gradual change over a number of years.

    Google has stated that it intends to use the technologies and ideas from Wave in other products. Perhaps this will provide such an evolutionary path that might bring us to a tool that is virtually identical to Wave. I would love a discussion track for all messages attached to specific Google Docs. Perhaps the every Doc might have a wave attached. That would certainly make me more inclined to use it (Are you listening, Google).

    So having used Wave, and liked it, I would like to know if others would have suggestions for an evolutionary strategy that would take us from email to a Wave-like environment.

  • sluggish wave
  • Posted by Melissa on August 6, 2010 at 10:45am EDT
  • I think Wave died not from indifference, but from its own weight. It was supposed to be revolutionary, but instead, I discovered something that looked a lot like a chat room with extra stuff. Visually, it wasn't cohesive, and I found it to be just…cumbersome. After a few attempts to use it, I just stopped. Frankly, although I consider myself fairly tech-savvy, I felt like I was fumbling around with it. I never could get a grasp on what, exactly, I was supposed to be doing with it.

  • Enthusiasm isn't enough
  • Posted by MathProf on August 6, 2010 at 11:45am EDT
  • So the students liked it because they caught the professor's enthusiasm? That's called the Hawthorne effect. Hey, I have techniques that work for me with my students, I'm excited about the techniques, the students catch on and enjoy what I'm doing. Am I an innovator? Yes, but only within my own little universe.

    My students are in four-person study groups and solve problems collaboratively. They communicate with each other by talking and writing with graphite-in-wood-based technologies. I measure their progress with oral quizzes directed towards the groups and with paper-based exams directed towards individuals. The students enthusiastically praise my innovative methods on end-of-course evaluations, and do better in the course to which mine is prerequisite than students from more traditional classes. But one thing is clear: in the hands of an instructor who thinks this is a lousy way to teach, these "technologies" will not work. Think about this.

  • innovation and the academy
  • Posted by San Joaquin , research nerd at SLAC on August 6, 2010 at 1:15pm EDT
  • I think perhaps the product needed some beta testing from an enthusiastic group of early adopters and then a committed overhaul based on their feedback before it was declared dead. I also think perhaps the development team misjudged the technology adoption curve for a higher education population--it's not as fast as some others because implementations have to run with the academic calendar. It means you basically get 2 times a year to add something new and then evaluate its usefulness. Wave barely made it through the early adoption stage to begin tapping the tech-friendly market in academia. A little feasibility study can be very helpful for new products like this.