I found both of the articles to be interesting but in different ways. In the article on asynchronous discourse, I was a bit puzzled about the need to anonymous postings, especially at the age of the participants This reminds me of another brought up in the study of a member of my group in the Interviewing class. She is interested in studying a class on Superintendents which is mainly online and purposefully masks the identity (including gender, I believe) of the participants. In both these cases, I wonder about issues of trust and social presence in these online classes. Also, through anonymity. are you encouraging behavior or actions that might not actually be part of the norm of an identified online participant. People often have differences in their online and offline personalities, but through anonymity and masking, are you allowing for greater skewing? I understand in both instances reasons for doing it. Allowing anonymous posting allows people to feel more comfortable to ask "silly" questions In the class, it was to try and help people understand racial, and ableness biases.
The GIS/GPS article was interesting because it raises the possibility of using these technologies is social studies, geography, science, and even business. I really think people have barely scratch the surface looking at how these technologies with the various map and census overlays can be used to teach people about economics and business patterns, settlement patterns, urban design, and issues about the environment.
The Web 2.0 Seminar I attended was useful in that it provided some actual examples of blogs, social bookmarking, and podcasting used in class settings. The reflection blog is an example of what they speakers were presenting. It would have been nice if the seminar would have touched a bit on wikis and collaborative work/project spaces as that is the area of collaboration technologies that interests me the most.Posted by danil003 at April 19, 2006 3:41 PM