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.

Is it just content?

It’s certainly important to me–after all, I am reading to learn and reflect on what others are saying. I appreciate practical advice on how to use 2.0 tools from people like Ann, Sue Waters, and Paul Hamilton. Other bloggers expand my understanding about the “big ideas” in learning and technology. David Warlick, David Truss, and Dina Strasser make me think.

What about design?

I must admit, some blogs make me a little crazy. I’m just not good with visual distractions like Vokis (the flapping hair in particular), animated advertisements, or really crowded sidebars. There are some pretty elegant sites out there, ones that are easy on the eyes. Dan Meyer’s blog fits this category.

The Tone

I am not sure if there is another word to describe this–is it attitude? Some blogs have a respectful presence, an ethic that builds community–Dean Shareski and Clarence Fisher come to mind. I think in part it is the way they handle new ideas and how they respond to people who comment on their blogs. I get the sense I would like to work with these folks. I bet they would make great colleagues. Some blogs are feisty, poking at the establishment, or offering up contrarian opinions. Good.

Then there are a few blogs that leave me feeling squirmy. The tone is superior, dismissive, too cool–and rude. Yes, I do read them. I have a morbid curiosity about them, I guess. What would it be like to share a staffroom with them? Would I feel safe?

Blogs I don’t (yet) read

I would love to see more blogs by classroom teachers who are not tech specialists, who are using 2.0 tools effectively in the content areas. I’d love to find blogs by drama teachers or art teachers who just blog, but don’t necessarily use technology directly. And I want to read more student blogs by kids who are not just responding to teacher prompts. I better get searching.

So, what are your criteria?

How do you choose your blogroll?

Image: I Love Books by Weeping-Willow under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic license