After reading the articles and deciphering the table, group one believed that the chart did a nice job of supporting the cognitive processes that Web 2.0 can provide. Cheryl thought that it spoke her “teacher language” and provided good examples of which tools to use. As a whole, we were surprised to see it so organized and well thought out and believed that it is valuable in showing both technologically-impaired teachers and also expert technology teachers, classifications for different Web 2.0 tools.
Interestingly enough, two of our group mates took different stances on “tagging” as a metacognitive tool. Marie believed that tagging was a great way to allow “the learner to define and classify the information/resource they are viewing.” She connected her love of tagging information on Pinterest to something that the students could use in the classroom. Courtney, on the other hand, believed that tagging could be used in the collaborative sense but not necessarily to create using Web 2.0 tools. She did understand how tagging could be used as a tool for the students to organize information..
Jordan and Courtney both discussed the short lifespan of Web 2.0 tools. Jordan focused on the scaffolding of curriculum and the understanding that another program will take the place of the one we are using today. Courtney gave an example of a Wikispace project that she had completed for two years with her students until, abruptly, this year when Wikispaces was charging to view publicly.
As a group, we all saw the collaborative and creative ways that Web 2.0 tools can be used to foster learning and increase participation. We discussed, as a whole, the resistance that is occurring and will continue to occur with Web 2.0 tools that are forever changing and create a steep learning curve for teachers.