One of the first Web 2.0 tools I encountered was that of HTML (hypertext markup language) a number of years ago in graduate school. I was an early adopter of using the Internet, but everything was text-based back then (you typed as I'm doing now, and any info you received was delivered as typed context). While in graduate school, Mozilla came into being and the gui (graphical user interface) was advanced. One of my classes in educational media required us to create our own web page, so I had the opportunity to utilize HTML in its infancy to create a web page with "fancy" fonts, colors and a few graphics. I imagine what I created would be less sophisticated than what kids in school can do today now that software exists to do the heavy lifting (we had to type in all the instructions to get the display we were hoping for). In viewing Michael Wesch's The Machine is Us/ing Us (http://www.pbs.org/teacherline/courselinks/aXD844/), I can see how much further we've advanced with the advent of XML (extensible markup language). Web pages are so much more personalized and flexible than ever before.
I believe Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/) to be a Web 2.0 tool. I do utilize this resource to some extent for content as I prepare lessons, and will permit students to include it as one of their references when submitting reports. Wikipedia has some excellent information available. But...since readers of Wikipedia can serve also as editors of Wikipedia content, mischief sometimes ensues and I caution my students to exercise good judgement in assessing validity of content.
In the same mindset, Google (https://www.google.com/) is something I check frequently. It is a very comprehensive search engine. My students rely on it to find leads. I've used other search engines over the years, such as Alta Vista, Dogpile and Metacrawler. It seems Google is becoming ubiquitous when folks talk about making searches. I find myself at times leery of Google when I find that sites can pay Google to emphasize their presence. And, Google results are occasionally somewhat biased in the field of politics.
As I am writing this blog post, I'm smiling as I think of how I am violating info I received from one of our Web 2.0 references, Ten Tips for Writing a Blog Post (http://www.problogger.net/archives/2005/12/30/tens-tips-for-writing-a-blog-post). I think the tips given were dead-on, but by no means am I able to accomplish the requirements of our assignment in 250 words or less. I'll keep that limit in mind for non-classwork :)
Other Web 2.0 resources I've utilized include streaming videos from Discovery Streaming (https://clark.discoveryeducation.com) and Annenberg Learner (http://learner.org/). These sites provide excellent resources which help students understand content. It is nice to be able to show a short video so the students can see what you've been talking about. After (and sometimes during) the video, I engage the students in discussion about what they've viewed and find a better grasp obtained than simply if I had relied solely on notes.
On a final note, lest I make too great a mockery of the "250 words or less" tip, I've found excellent interactive simulations using the Internet. Interactive simulations are available in all of the fields I am teaching (chemistry, physics and the geosciences). For example, in Physics I Honors, we are concluding our unit on momentum. A useful resource to demonstrate how changing variables can affect elastic and inelastic collisions is found at http://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/collision-lab. We do labs in class (and for the record for folks who read my POST 1 for this week and knew my class used smart devices to visually record the experiments to better determine exactly how high spheres of various materials bounced) there is a limit to what materials you have available, what surfaces you can test, and the height from which you can drop spheres. Interact simulations provide the opportunity to try variations unavailable in the classroom
No comments:
Post a Comment