Week 4: Web 2.OH!

  • The Hsu et al. chapter identifies different categories of Web 2.0 tools and how they accommodate student learning (specifically table 1). What is your perspective on the classification and application of tools based on your own knowledge and work with various Web 2.0 tools?

    “The concept marks the transition of the Web from the “Webas-information-source” to the “participatory Web,” encouraging user participation, creation, and sharing, beyond simple retrieval of information (Decrem, 2006; Wikipedia, 2007e).”

Although I am fairly familiar with Web 2.0 tools and use them in the classroom and at home on a regular basis, I hadn’t ever thought of their categorization.  Table 1 in the chapter gives a good basis for someone looking to create these categories for their web 2.0 tools.

The chapter places the first emphasis on folkonomy and the art of “tagging” information. I understand how this can be a collaborative process as it helps with the search of information and the formation of a summary for the text. However, considering this a form of cognitive tool where learning is being created is a bit of a stretch.  Many of my students, because they are required too, tag information; my colleagues do also.  It’s a great way to get back to information later.  However, cognitive development isn’t always at the forefront of these tags. Maybe a form of self-evaluation if the teacher facilitates and gives feedback on the tags?

However, I love wikis.  I love learning from wikis. I love watching my students create wikis. I love evaluating wikis. I love having my students work with wikis. Wikis are a learning experience of collaboration. Students can input information, change information and then start all over again.  My students collaborate on Presidential Campaign Wikis.  They help each other, learn from each other and work with all sorts of web 2.0 tools in the process. And through the social environment, cognition for each student is increased.

“Blogs give voices to the masses.”  This quote epitomizes what is going on with the web right now.  People that would have had to have coding HTML skills can now find a webpage that allows them to share their thoughts openly.  People now, more than ever, can read and analyze the opinions of others around the world.  It allows for reflection, which is one of the basic pieces of learning. So in this case, I completely agree with its place on Table 1 – processing, self regulation and reflection.


  • What do you see as the most significant insights about application of technology into the classroom based on this chapter?

I really enjoyed the tips for using Web 2.0 tools at the end of the chapter.  As a (fairly) new teacher, I’ve been exposed to many of the web 2.0 tools out there. But I still get nervous changing an entire lesson if it isn’t going to go as planned.  I use wikispaces a lot.  After a three week project, one that I also completed with students for the last two years in a row, on the day students were to go onto my wikispaces and view all of the other political parties created, wikispaces had shut down the ability to openly share webpages without paying a fee.  It’s disheartening to think that a web 2.0 program that I took so many hours of my life to plan and create a lesson for, has changed its ways.  It makes us less likely to use these tools because of how unreliable they can be.

The one tip at the end of the chapter was the best.  Get the students excited!  The more they believe their work will be shown and reviewed and discussed, the more likely they are to get involved and engage in learning.

2 thoughts on “Week 4: Web 2.OH!

  1. Melissa Glenn

    I can relate to the issue you ran into with the free tool moving to a paid tool and ruining your lesson plan. My students use a purchased program that gives them access to practice quizzes, videos, etc. I recommended that they use this tool to prepare for an in class quiz, and right before the quiz, Hurricane Sandy hit NYC and the program was not available for several days. My students really got mad at me (for a natural disaster)!
    I’m excited about your comments about wikis. I have very little experience with using wikis. I have issues with group work due to so many problems I had with it in my own education and it also doesn’t tend to work as well due to the nature of the course I teach. I need to keep an open mind about how I may use wikis as a teacher as we learn more about them this summer.

  2. Rachel H Tan

    I appreciate your thoughts about folksonomy being less of a cognitive tool. My contact with Web 2.0 was very sudden, as in a major career switch that plunged me into this trend in learning. As I have not really learned to reference webs meaningful I did not use this feature much at all. Hence for me I see it as a cognitive tool with which I should make more use of going forward.
    BTW Phil, are we able to see the tag cloud for this site? Is it something you have to turn on?

    About “It’s disheartening to think that a web 2.0 program that I took so many hours of my life to plan and create a lesson for, has changed its ways. It makes us less likely to use these tools because of how unreliable they can be” – during an ICT training for a senior teachers program, the vendor caution that open tools are experimental and will change often (including it being from free to paid if I might add) therefore teachers should have this in mind and grasp the concept of technology rather than learn the specifics of how to use a tool.

    I am of the opinion that your efforts has not gone to waste because you know how to develop a lesson for web 2.0 – it then becomes a matter of looking for another open tool, perhaps the Google Edu App.

Comments are closed.