I just used Wordle to input my last set of report cards. the resulting glyph is here: http://tracevidence.edublogs.org/2008/08/23/the-wordle-debate-and-report-cards/

I found it interesting which words I repeated most often. I can see some areas where I’m going to need to change, to make the readability of my report cards a little better.

Wordle is obviously not the future in English instruction. It’s obviously not ever going to be a necessary inclusion in the classroom. Only a couple people in the already tiny, unrepresentative world of the edublogosphere have presented anything near a level of enthusiasm about Wordle to make me look askance, but even they pose no threat to the effectiveness of any reasonable teachers, nor, most likely, to their own. Just like most other things web 2.0, it’s just a neat trick that may have some value depending on your teaching style.

The real context – and ability to challenge/create it – exists inside the professional teacher’s mind while constructing authentic academic challenges, followed by the students’ own minds if we offer provisions for their rhetorical/reflective input as well.

Case closed as far as I’m concerned. The value of this “discussion,” or most of the other discussions about 2.0 tools, could have been summed up with those words alone. The only tools truly worth decrying are those that not only have no value regardless of the context, but those that have a detrimental impact regardless of the context.

Personally, I hate op-eds (except that I love them, but I digress). What really keeps me coming back to anyone’s blog are the nuts and bolts posts that offer actual examples of how such technologies can be effectively (or ineffectively) used in a classroom. Don’t get me wrong, I love a good debate, even if it has no actual pedagogical value, but one can only eat so many intellectual twinkies. Just one man’s questionably useful opinion, of course.

I think basically if Larry F. can make a dancing elf work as an education tool, then *maybe* it’s less what the tool is than how it is used in the hands of a good teacher. I have a great new Wordle, YouTube, LitCrit lesson coming up that I think Christian will love (no telling how you’ll take it).

Part of why I’m using 2.0 tools is they are more flexible, and better designed than the educational materials I’m given. It’s just striking me as funny that we are so skeptical of Web 2.0 (which is fine), but we take as a given that the official materials given to us by the state are just fine. It’s like comparing Wikipedia to Britannica and assuming that the paper encyclopedia is correct, so we focus on the mistakes in Wikipedia and assume the accuracy of Britannica.

I just got new ones for grade 8 history and the text/objectives were aligned perfectly with the state curriculum, so i’m excited to see the improvements.

Many times, it seems like a racket. Standards change, requiring the purchase of new textbooks, particularly in New York state with departments.

1. State objectives (mine are completely out of whack with them to the point where a text designed for 5th and 6th graders is being used in fourth grade);

2. How students learn (http://mrpullen.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/everyday-math-and-spiraling/)

3. Effectiveness (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/beginning_reading/open_court/index.asp)

I have no issue with you asking how these Web 2.0 tools are being used in the classroom, THAT is a good conversation. What I have not seen is critical commentary on what we are given as text. I can recall one instance where you said something about your text being well aligned with standards.

Are you not having that conversation because it’s (a) too easy; (b) too Quixoti-esque, or a waste of time since you can’t fight city hall; (c) it’s better because it’s designed for it’s intended use? Or (d) is it just too boring to talk about? Inquiring minds want to know and all.

The “the goals of profit-driven Web 2.0 applications and the goals of educators only align accidentally” should make us think critically about what we are using and how we are using it. The fact that expensive texts are also only aligning accidentally should make us pissed off as heck.
—–

BTW: Many Eyes has added Wordle to it’s lineup. It already had a tag cloud that was being used not just to look at tags, but also text passages. (http://flowingdata.com/2008/08/13/many-eyes-adds-wordle-to-its-visualization-toolbox/) I think that Wordle and activities of this sort were getting the interest of stats and data design types, not just teachers.

1. State objectives (mine are completely out of whack with them to the point where a text designed for 5th and 6th graders is being used in fourth grade);

2. How students learn (http://mrpullen.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/everyday-math-and-spiraling/)

I have no issue with you asking how these Web 2.0 tools are being used in the classroom, THAT is a good conversation. What I have not seen is critical commentary on what we are given as text. I can recall one instance where you said something about your text being well aligned with standards.

Are you not having that conversation because it’s (a) too easy; (b) too Quixoti-esque, or a waste of time since you can’t fight city hall; (c) it’s better because it’s designed for it’s intended use? Or (d) is it just too boring to talk about? Inquiring minds want to know and all.

BTW: Many Eyes has added Wordle to it’s lineup. It already had a tag cloud that was being used not just to look at tag clouds, but also text. (http://flowingdata.com/2008/08/13/many-eyes-adds-wordle-to-its-visualization-toolbox/) so I think that Wordle and activities of this sort were getting the interest of stats and data design types.