I know not every tool of value is listed there. VoiceThread is missing, so is FlikrStorm. And some of these tools just leave me scratching my head: Plol- the Pablic Library or Law (hmm, help with praking tickuts?) and Foamy which asks, “Do you owe someone a beer?”.

I am really curious about what drives the creativity behind these apps. Are people inventing tools to create a need or do these tools meet real needs that can’t be addressed any other way? And does this matter? Maybe the true creativity comes after the fact when people find uses for applications that the inventor hadn’t imagined.

Dan Meyer blogged about Animoto and Wordle, suggesting that beyond the cool factor, which shouldn’t be a factor, they have little value in education:

…for classroom purposes we need to stop judging these tools on the quality of their output rather on the rigor of their input and the interpretation of their output.

(Dan did recant his complete rejection of Wordle when a reader named Rich used it to calculate the mode of a set of numbers.)

To Dan’s criteria, I would add that using a tool should create a positive change–in the way a person (user or viewer) thinks, feels, or perceives. And the quality of change determines the value of that tool. In this context, change = learning.

Recently, Sue Waters presented a workshop on personal learning networks, and shared reader responses about their most important tools in creating and sustaining their networks. I said that RSS, Diigo, Nings like Classroom 2.0, and blogging conversations were my lifeline tools. She created the diagram here to show reader responses. Sue, Elaine Talbert, and other contributors may have convinced me of the value of Twitter, and I may take it up before the summer is over.

I am going to use Wordle with my Gr. 6 students: in math for demonstrating mode and the birthday paradox (suggested by Jason Dyer), and in language arts using this clever idea for puzzles from Winston Breen. And maybe, just maybe my students will find another purpose for the tool that no one has thought of yet. That would be cool.

Meg talked about how change happens through networks of relationships. Hierarchy is never the way to organize-it is antithetical to natural systems. It looks good on paper, and gives the illusion of order or connectedness, but it is not the way people truly operate. It happens the way Margaret Mead described it, through conversations among people who share the same passion: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

So, this is order:

And this is connection:

I am attracted to Wheatley’s humane view of the world. At first blush the classic org chart model seems to be the logical way to organize for resilience, efficiency, and success. But here’s what she says about that:

…I see the need to create organizations where people can bring their whole selves. Unless we create organizations where all of us feel we can contribute in multiple and unexpected ways, the organization cannot survive into the future. There is no way to be adaptive and resilient without having everyone engaged in the work. No one person is smart enough. No one group can respond fast enough. If we are not making it up as we go along, tinkering and experimenting with solutions, we will not survive.

Quoted in School Administrator, Jan, 1995, interview and article by Elizabeth Donohoe Steinberger

The message I take from this is that we are all invited to lead in our schools, and lead from our own passions. Meg’s elegant definition of a leader, someone who wants to help, opens the door for everyone to contribute. If we wait for or expect those in positional authority to do the changing, it ain’t gonna happen.

This idea also speaks to the simplicity and power of Web 2.0. It allows anyone and everyone to contribute in multiple and unexpected ways. Random links create real connection, and suddenly a pattern emerges. Yes,

it appears complex, but zoom in or zoom out and you can see uncomplicated, elegant relationships that form a whole community.

David Truss gets me thinking:

…our digital world has made it much easier to have an incredible impact on a global scale. The world isn’t so much ‘flat’ as it is woven.

We are all weaving this web of relationship, one connection at a time.

Images: IBM/Tabulating Machine Co. organization chart by Marcin Wichary Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic

Schiller Labs by Empty Streets Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic

Woven Ball by exfody Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic