Even the sturdiest of buildings fall, just as the strongest of metaphors have a weak side. Comparing teaching to architectural work is not a perfectly fitting comparison to make. The weakness of this metaphor I have realized is that it is hard to go in depth about the characteristics of the Web and technologies. I was unable to fully describe the complexity of the Web in this metaphor since the tools of an architect are fairly straight forward and concrete. These tools could represent Web 2.0 technologies, but not the interconnected attribute of the Web itself (in my opinion). I also wish that this metaphor left more room for the students (construction team) to take charge. But because an architect sets out a plan of construction in advance, it was hard to come up with ways in which the construction team (students) got to decide/shape their own learning.
The metaphor of architectural work, however, does represent the creative process that technologies allow to happen in a classroom. It also does a great job at representing the role of a teacher, which is to make the plan (possibly by using tools previously discussed) and then let the students (construction team) take over. The architect serves somewhat as a guide to the construction team. The metaphor also allows for the construction of knowledge to be huge part of the process which is crucial in my opinion. If the final product (the building) is viewed as the meaningful lessons learned in a classroom, the architectural process resembles that of a class working together towards meaningful knowledge through cooperative learning.
Although as previously mentioned, the metaphor has its weak side, I did enjoy trying to make it more complex from beginning to end. Overall, it has served a great purpose in helping to determine what the most important elements are in a technology-mediated learning environment.