Navigation briancsmith's tweets
|
Re: Web 2.0 Rants & Perspectives
Look in just about any educational technology offering in professional development catalogs across the country and you'll likely come across a title with "Web 2.0" in it. The term is clouded with confusion. I was reminded of this when the following floated down my Twitter stream today from "contributaries" Sylvia Martinez (@smartinez) & Ben Grey (@bengrey).
  Ben's post includes an experience at a technology conference where he heard the confusion first hand from teachers wondering what the heck Web 2.0 is and means. He includes a suggestion: If we used terminology that is exponentially more clear from the outset, such as “Interactive Web” or “Social Learning Web”, we would effectively make more headway and likely allow more students access to these experiences in their everyday learning opportunities.I've written before about how I'm trying not to use the term. Since then, I'm not convinced of the likelyhood of a shift based on new terms. Does changing a name change the game? What I do find interesting is Sylvia's take from her That’s hot - Web 2.0 and the empty vessel post: So themes like Classroom 2.0 and School 2.0 become a shared idea with no real meaning. They signal that something is changing without anyone having to say exactly what that is. We can all agree that “Classroom 2.0″ is a good thing, because each of us fills that empty vessel with our own idea of what a new version of a classroom looks like.To me, this says that we all have to internalize, individually, what's changing today from the perspective of the learning goals of our classrooms. There is no one recipe for using "Web 2.0" in or out of classrooms. The most
|
Recent blog posts
|
