Group 1 – Week 4

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.

2 thoughts on “Group 1 – Week 4

  1. Rachel H Tan

    Phil’s perspective on tagging and the metacognitive activity (identification of key concepts in reading) helps me understand why I don’t tag as much as I should. After reading a good long piece of writing I have to go back and reflect before I can tag in a way that is meaningful to me. Consequently I omit that important step in tagging that would serve to help me find stuff. I need to breakthrough my handicap in this age of Web 2.0

    I know I could use a code to mark important facts/category of info on the margin of a hard copy – I tried that in 2009 but it slows down my reading. By the way, this is a remarkable class of writers and thinkers – I enjoy reading your posts even if I did not have a chance to comment. Thanks all

  2. Phil

    I see tagging working in both ways. It can work metacognitively by prompting students to reflect on what they just wrote and identify what they see as key concepts and then pull those out via tagging. It can work as a collaborative tool if students were to collaboratively author a post and then collaboratively decide which words should be identified as tags.

Comments are closed.