Analyzing the Benefits of Web 2.

0 Tools

Web 2.0 Teaching Tools: Effective or Not?

Analyzing the benefits of Web 2.0 Tools in the classroom
Ashley Bonte Chuck Devlin Mary Lanham
EDET 780 May 29, 2014
Introduction and Objective
In order to become fully literate in todays world, students must
become proficient in the new literacies of 21st Century technologies. With
digital forms of expression and electronic texts replacing printed texts, we
are seeing new forms of literacies emerging. This places a challenge on
teachers as they plan lessons and seek out the best resources and learning
strategies. Luckily, educational technologists have made great advances in
developing tools for educators to use in and out of the classroom.
Web 2.0 is the latest revolution in technology. This new bubble that
we are in means quite a few things. First, the web is more socially
connected. Access through blogs, wikis, podcasts, RSS feeds, and others
makes it possible for people to communicate in a new form. While the
original intention of the Web as stated by Sir Tim Berners-Lee was to
connect people, we are seeing this done in a more proficient and satisfying
web. Now, we know that there are so many different types of blogs and
wikis, that we have access to a variety of tools when it comes to
instructional strategies. The next aspect to look at is what kind of access do
students have to technology in the classroom.
Currently, Lexington County School District 1 has an initiative to create
twenty-first century global citizens. In doing this, they believe Instructional
Technology is responsible for facilitating the use of educational technology in
each school. According to their Instructional Technology information page,
the end-result of efforts [of Instructional Technology] is to foster studentachievement through the implementation of technology in collaborative,
student-centered classroom environments. The Department for Instructional
Technology is comprised of a director, district technology trainer, and an
administrative assistant. Of the 21 schools in the county, there are 15
Technology Integration Specialists available to serve by helping implement
technology into the curriculum. All middle and high school students are
issued an iPad and the elementary schools have access to iPads as well.
Currently, work is being done on developing an infrastructure to be able to

Analyzing the Benefits of Web 2.0 Tools

have 1:1 in Elementary Schools across the district. With this kind of
technology widely available and in almost every single students hands, we
know that the possibilities for learning and taking advantage of the abundant
online tools is now feasible.
These factors bring up the following questions:
1. Are Web 2.0 Tools effective in the classroom, or are
they causing a distraction?
2. Are Web 2.0 Tools replacing teacher-made lessons,
or are they an extension to the lessons?
Times are changing and we must ensure students are college and
career ready. We are in a digital age and therefore must use our resources
to our advantage in teaching and enhancing learning. However, are we
effectively evaluating the tools we are using? Are these tools truly enhancing
learning, or are they more of a distraction?
Review of Relevant Literature:
What are Web 2.0 Tools?
The term Web 2.0 was first used in January 1999 by Darcy DiNucci in
an article she was writing. She considered that the current web was only an
embryo of what was to come. She stated at that time that we are just
starting to see how the web may develop. She felt that the web would move
from a screen of graphics and text to a device where interactivity happens.
She stated that the Internet might appear on computer screens, TV sets, car
dashboard, your cell phone, handheld machines and your microwave oven.
These statements from 1999 have rung true. Web 2.0 tools are
everywhere, the places she mentioned and a few she may have never
imaged, your refrigerator, your thermostat, your security alarm, and in some
cases your whole house can be connected to the Internet. As the Internet
has developed it has transformed from a screen with text and graphics to a
series of programs that allow users to interact and create their own content.
When mainstream individuals began using the Internet they were able to
view content, but for the most part web page design and development was
left for professionals using sometimes complicated programs. Over the years
however it has developed into more of a social web.
Tools have been created allowing non-computer experts to modify the
web. The tools that have been developed are referred to as Web 2.0 tools.
There are tools that allow us to interact with one another face to face like
Skype and Google Hangout; programs that allow us to carry on discussions
over a chat like Instant Messenger, and Yahoo Chat; we are able to send out
2

Analyzing the Benefits of Web 2.0 Tools

our thoughts instantly to our friends, family and followers on programs like
Twitter. A tool called instagram allows us to instantly upload photos with
comments for the world to see. Tools like Google drive allow us to
collaborate in real time with others on a document, powerpoints or
spreadsheets. Programs like Blackboard and Edmodo allow teachers and
students to have access to their coursework, grades, etc, from virtually
anywhere.
With the creation of these, and many other tools the web has become
a place to share thoughts, conduct research, or stay in touch with others.
Our research is going to focus on four tools that can be used in educational
settings these tools are Webquest, Wiki, Blogging, and VoiceThread. Are
these tools enhancing learning, or causing distractions to the traditional
classroom setting.
WebQuest as a Web 2.0 Tool
WebQuests are an instructional strategy created by educational
technologists as a tool to help students learn through the Internet.
Webquests allows students to collaboratively learn through differentiated
instruction. It is also an inquiry-based activity where students can
authentically work across multiple disciplines. Almost all the information that
learners interact with comes from the Internet. Tom March gave an excellent
definition of a Webquest. He gave this definition:
A WebQuest is a scaffolded learning structure that uses links to
essential resources on the World Wide Web and an authentic task to
motivate students investigation of a central, open-ended question,
development of individual expertise and participation in a final group
process that attempts to transform newly acquired information into a
more sophisticated understanding. (March, 2006)
Many educators such as literacy teachers and researchers are
impressed with the impact of WebQuests inside the classroom. Literacy
researchers have found WebQuests to be an important bridge between
content literacy and technology literacy (Ikpeze & Boyd, 2007). There are
strategic ways that this is done. A typical WebQuest activity is done first by
students using the Internet to locate information on a given topic. Next,
research is done individually before collaborating with others on small group
activities. Results are shared and integrated at the conclusion of the project.
This helps develop a problem-solving mind-set to doing research on the
Internet (Leung, 2013).

Analyzing the Benefits of Web 2.0 Tools

WebQuests are a great concepts, but there are some noted
disadvantages along with the numerous advantages. First, the constantly
changing nature of the Internet may mean some of the online resources in a
WebQuest become obsolete or are removed from the internet. This is an
obvious factors that teachers need to be aware of when creating webquests.
The Internet does change as it advances. Therefore, teachers need to allow
the time to check and update links on the webquest. There are also options
available where sites can be downloaded and stored remotely. This will allow
for changes, without affecting access to a site.
The second disadvantage is that webquests require learners to already
have a certain level of reading ability. Part applies to the younger students in
grades 1-3. Obviously, these young students cannot be expected to jump on
the Internet on a WebQuest and learn-away. Instead, solutions such as
involving parents, and incorporating sites such as PBS.org are offered. There
is still the issue with students in upper elementary classes who do not read
on grade level. Instead of looking at this struggle as a disadvantage, the
motivating factors can help explain WebQuests positive aspects for these
students.
Eighty-six percent of users of a common WebQuest building site,
Zunal, agreed the accessibility to sites and students low reading ability are
still disadvantages today. However, there are excellent solutions to combat
these issues. Other researchers found things like the difficulty to find
suitable sites or WebQuests take up a lot of class time to be disadvantages
as well. But of all the work done by Leung and Unal in 2013, there is
evidence to prove these are no longer the case (Leung, 2013).
The advantages to WebQuests are so numerous, but may not be seen
by teachers immediately. For example, WebQuests help learners concentrate
on information rather than looking for it. They also appeal to various
learning styles and encourage critical thinking skills while promoting
students computer competency.
Wiki as a Web 2.0 Tool
Wiki is a unique tool that has been implemented in many classrooms
to increase student collaboration and group planning. It is user-friendly and
allows students to express their ideas and work toward a common goal. The
main purpose of a wiki is to create a structured learning environment
centered around process. The wiki is designed to encourage users to
produce meaningful content that can be drafted and edited by all members.

Analyzing the Benefits of Web 2.0 Tools

Within the school environment, particularly elementary students and
teachers, the wiki serves as a means of communicating and building a
spectacular learning web; however, with any good product, there are always
some drawbacks.
The wiki, as noted by some supporters, helps to create a childcentered environment, where the student has the power to imagine and
learn without boundaries. For example, child-centered teaching in the
United States can be seen as the kind of education that is carried out by
children, and thus, childrens work is based on childrens current needs and
interests (Lee, 2012). The wiki does just that for many elementary
students. In fact, teachers report on how valuable the wiki is in creating and
maintaining active discussion groups, and that these groups can meet
beyond the classroom. Moreover, the groups have autonomy, for there is no
teacher facilitating the discussion (Steele, 2008 ). The wiki places the power
in the hands of the students. Students, as early as fourth grade, are able to
schedule meeting dates and times and keep a running record of each
members participation (Lee, 2012). Not only is the wiki helping students
collaborate but it is also teaching students responsibility and accountability.
Collaboration is not only a benefit to using wikis; strengthening
students writing is another positive aspect that teachers often utilize the
wikis for in their classrooms. In a research study that consisted of
seventeen elementary teachers, the author examined the wikis
effectiveness. Of these seventeen teachers, 115 wikis were being used
among their upper elementary students. The study indicated that the
teaching associated with the wiki geared toward strengthening peer
collaboration and ownership of learning particularly that of writing (Lee,
2012). Noticeably, the word ownership was used to describe the students
writing progression. Each teacher was interviewed and asked about their
perception of wikis. The comments did vary; however, there was one
common thread among the seventeen teachers:
It is truly amazing to see my [her] students realize how they can
improve their own writing. They enhance their writing by
themselves without my requests after comments and ideas
from their peer. They just want to work. It leads to the childrens
academic improvement and a great improvement in the quality
of their work in writing. (Lee, 2012)
What a remarkable revelation for these students and teachers. Students
often struggle with writing just a simple paragraph, but to witness these

Analyzing the Benefits of Web 2.0 Tools

students take the initiative to improve their own writing, it is truly a selling
point for many teachers who are reluctant to use wikis in their classrooms.
Although the wiki has helped to improve collaboration and student
writing, there were some negative comments from the teachers. The biggest
comment was based on accessibility of the tool; some students did not have
access to the wiki to collaborate with their group members and so were not
able to benefit from the group discussion and writing process. These
students did not have internet accessibility at home and so were extremely
limited when using the wiki. For this reason, the teachers stated that it was
hard to make an assignment knowing that some students could not access
the wiki from home (Lee, 2012). The teachers felt that it was unfair to
these students.
Aside from the students limited accessibility, some teachers indicated
that there has always been a fear factor when teachers question if they
can learn something new (Steele, 2008). These teachers indicated that such
a fear resulted from teachers themselves and their confidence of mastering a
new thing. Hence, this masked fear often resulted in the teachers
discontinuing the use of the wiki and going back to their traditional means of
enforcing collaboration, such as in-class cooperative groups and peer
partners (Steele, 2008). The study noted that when teachers received
administrative support and training they were able to face the fear.
The wiki is such a striking tool that is being embraced by teachers who
want to establish and maintain high expectations for group collaboration and
writing assignments. It creates a learning environment that can be
extended beyond the classroom. Students do not use the wiki for
entertainment; instead, they use it to complete group activities and improve
their writing. The wiki is a tool that will continue to be a valuable tool within
the 21st Century Classroom.
Blogging as a Web 2.0 Tool
The traditional role of a teacher is being transformed into that of a
facilitator. Because of this, the teacher is no longer in control of the learning
to the same extent as before. However, blogging is still an effective Web 2.0
tool that can allow students to be active participants, take part in
metacognition, all while the teacher is monitoring and guiding the process
(Teo, 2008). A teacher is able to build personal learning environments giving
students high levels of choice and control over their learning and activities.

Analyzing the Benefits of Web 2.0 Tools

There are a number of incentives that come with using blogs as an
instructional strategy. In most cases, teachers and students alike reflect
enthusiasm when it comes to using blogs during the learning process (Lee &
McLoughlin, 2007; Redecker, 2009; Safran, 2007). There are, however, some
studies that have found users who do not prefer this method of learning as
they are more skeptical of the process. While they agree that there is a
growing interest in Web 2.0 Tools in formal education settings, they question
the participation and collaboration aspects of Web 2.0 tools and how these
work in the typical classroom setting (Cole, 2009). As technology advances,
there is evidence to support the belief that the ideology behind formal
education will catch up to the current need and beliefs (Lee & McLouglin,
2007).
Another incentive for using blogs is the opportunity for learners to
have more control over ones learning process. Current research teaches
metacognition, the act of thinking about your thinking. If we teach students
to do this, are we giving them the opportunity to practice it as well? Having
a greater amount of control guides the learning process to more fullfiling
places academically than the places that a strict curriculum would allow for
(Redecker, 2009).
The typical blog-based environment is one in which students publish
reflections on course material, engage in discussions with others, and submit
assignments through person spaces. Blogs can take on a variety of forms.
The outcomes are the main focus as students find support in social and
personal learning, develop a sense of ownership in their work and projects,
and the chance to archive learning products (Cole 2009).
Multiple studies have been done evaluating the effectiveness of blogs
in the classroom. Questionnaires are the most common form of evaluation.
In an attempt to measure students attitudes towards blogs, an accurate
picture is misrepresented as the knowledge gained is not accounted for
(Shahsavar, 2012).
Dron and Bhattacharya put it perfectly when they said, The students
and teachers continue to escape from walled gardens of institutional learning
environments to the Web 2.0 jungle (2007). If blogs are going to be used
to facilitate learning, it must be done with the learners best interest in mind.
Organization and known outcomes must be established prior to the
beginning of the learning process (Reupert, 2011).
VoiceThread as a Web 2.0 Tool

Analyzing the Benefits of Web 2.0 Tools

Technology is a versatile tool that can truly enhance student
achievement and build a secure future for students of all ages. Effective
technology allows students to reach their greatest heights. Teachers
evaluate technology to envision if it has the capabilities to influence students
in a positive way. There is one Web 2.0 tool that really speaks volumes of
what true technology should embody. This Web 2.0 tool is VoiceThread; it
provides students with an opportunity to truly listen to their fellow
classmates comments and make logical connections to one another.
VoiceThread is a web based learning tool that can boost the learning
skills and motivation of struggling students as they work with multimedia to
explore subject areas, express their ideas, and share informationand all at
their own pace and learning level (Gillis, Luthin, Parette, Blum, 2012).
Panettieri (2013) described VoiceThreads as interactive media albums that
are essentially online slide shows of images, documents, or videos that
enable viewers to comment on any slide by typing, recording an audio or
video comment, or drawing on the image itself. Voice Thread has helped
some students who are easily disturbed, academically challenged, and those
with other issues, such as timidity. Subsequently, current trends in education
emphasize the importance of meeting the needs of all learners; thus, this
Web 2.0 tool provides teachers with a strategy to help these students. In
fact, there are some students who cannot read or express themselves orally.
It is remarkable how VoiceThread gives timid students a voice and the
motivation to perform at a higher level.
Furthermore, there are students who developed powerful habits of
relying on their teachers for work completion (Gillis et al., 2012).
Unfortunately, these students do not have the skills necessary to complete
assignments that involve formal discussion or extensive writing. When these
students are asked to complete assignments on their own, they are not able
to and therefore do not gain the targeted skill. When this occurs, school
engagement and learner codependence suffer among this particular student
population. This innovative technological tool can be used to promote
student engagement, motivation, and ultimately enhance the quality of the
learning experience for students with disabilities (Gillis et.al., 2012).
Imagine giving a student a voice, a way to express opinions, a way to
become an active participant in a classroom.
VoiceThread is currently being used in local Special Education classes.
The students in these classes are delighted to have a tool that can make
them feel like champions. It gives them an opportunity to reach their goals

Analyzing the Benefits of Web 2.0 Tools

and become a member of the class. They work with the tool to improve
their communication skills and improve their writing skills for their core
classes. It helps the students feel more connected to the other students
within their classrooms. According to Panettieri (2013), more students need
to participate more actively in digital discussions than in the classroom.
Panettieri agrees (2013) that students don't have to be the loud one or the
popular one to participate in a web based discussion. He believes teachers
can encourage students' enthusiasm by pushing them to engage in free
writing and free expression, activities he thinks are often overlooked.
Because VoiceThread is so motivating, students with distinct disabilities are
willing to complete writing assignments that were once burdensome and
intimidating.
Panettieri (2013) states one teacher commented about VoiceThread:
"If I asked them, 'Take out a piece of paper and do some writing about your
thoughts on the Sudan, or injustice,' I probably wouldn't get much." Yet the
teachers VoiceThread on the Darfur conflict drew sixty-plus comments from
thirty-six of his fifty-three students. This is a typical story of teachers who
see a complete change in their students motivation after using VoiceThread,
for it allows these students to explore writing in a non-threatening
atmosphere without feeling discouraged about the feedback from peers or
and the teacher. This innovative tool boosts shyness and increases
participation and motivation among the most struggling students. It
becomes a safety net for many students who would not have the courage to
present their ideas in other traditional methods.
Research Questions
As we develop our study we need to ensure we are asking the right
questions thus ensuring the appropriate data is collected. Some data
collection can focus on perceptions and feelings however that information is
sometimes difficult to quantify. If our queries ask our participants to answer
questions on a Likert Scale our data will be easier to compare, contrast and
consider. The questions we intend to address are:
1. Are Web 2.0 Tools effective in the classroom, or are they causing
a distraction?
2. Are Web 2.0 Tools replacing teacher-made lessons, or are they
an extension to the lessons?

Analyzing the Benefits of Web 2.0 Tools

Answers to these research questions will be addressed in sections
appearing on a likert scale. To address the first question, Are Web 2.0 Tools
effective in the classroom, or are they causing a distraction?
Our questions will focus on resources i.e. have you explored incorporating
any web 2.0 tools into the classroom; does the classroom have enough
resources to implement web 2.0 tools; if presenting a new topic requires
increased supervision at the computer stations are you able to find
assistance; has the district purchased the tool you have considered or are
free options available; have you attempted to visit the site in your
classroom, do school filters permit you to access the page; are you able to
download programs to your computers, or is an administrative password
required; can you complete the course work in your classroom or is the
computer lab a better alternative; is scheduling class time in the computer
lab easy to achieve, we would end this section with an open ended question
allowing our participants to give us added feedback to be used in our report.
Are there additional factors that could lead to web 2.0 tools being a
distraction?
Our second question, Are Web 2.0 Tools replacing teacher-made
lessons, or are they an extension to the lessons? would be answered by a
series of questions focusing on teacher knowledge. Those questions would
be, Have you received training on any web 2.0 tools; do you have personal
control over the content you present or must you stay within narrow district
developed guidelines; Are you comfortable with technology; With the
exception of technology that is required for your job (blackboard, email) do
you spend any time on web 2.0 tools; Have you encountered any Web 2.0
tools that are appropriate for your content and grade level; Do your students
currently collaborate on projects for your classroom; Are you already
enhancing your lessons with Web 2.0 tools like wiki; Have you attempted to
use Web 2.0 tools only to encounter technical difficulties; is school
level/grade level training available to support you if wanted to increase your
amount of technology in the classroom.
Design
Our study will be an experimental design approach where observations
and teacher voice are the main means for evaluation. Student voice will be
heard in observations as well as through a pre and post test on content. To
begin we will select participants that consist of entire science classes in
grades 3-5 from three elementary schools that match the criteria for

10

Analyzing the Benefits of Web 2.0 Tools

supplementing their teaching with Web 2.0 Tools. These science teachers will
implement specific tools to enhance their science lessons for the second
semester. We chose one content area to focus on so that have a control in
which data can be compared.
Each teacher will be offered training on their specific Web 2.0 Tool.
These professional development courses will consist of 3 meetings and an
allotted time of an hour. They will also be given literature to study and use to
enhance their planning. Technology Integration Specialist from the district
will lead the three meetings or select appropriate webinars. We will reach out
to teachers who are already familiar with these tools, but know that in
reality, professional development will need to offered in order to make the
most of our study. A log will be kept to track all trainings, meetings with the
technology integration specialist, and additional readings.
Teachers will also be asked to complete two surveys. The first will be
comprised of demographic questions as well as prior experience with
technology and course content. The second will ask reflective questions on
the semester as a whole in regards to the effectiveness of the tool, or lack
thereof.
All students will be given a pretest on the content. This pretest will be
written using the South Carolina State Standards for science. It will be given
to students to take a month prior to the beginning of the second semester
when the actual observations and teachings begin. They will then participate
as they would normally, with the only change being implementation of the
Web 2.0 tool, or the absence of it. At least four, 50 blocks a week will be
dedicated to the subject. For classes using a specific Web 2.0 tool, at least
20 minutes per week must be dedicated to student use of the tool.
The semester is comprised of 18 weeks. Every three weeks, an
unannounced observation will be done by the schools Technology Integration
Specialist to observe the teacher during the Science lesson. The lesson will
be videotaped and the observer will take anecdotal notes. The lesson
recording and notes will then be sent to the researchers to transcribe and
make additional notes.
At the end of the semester, the pre-tests, post tests, a total of six, 50
minute video tapes from each class, sign in sheets indicating the type and
length of teacher training, and two teacher surveys will be collected.
Setting and Participants

11

Analyzing the Benefits of Web 2.0 Tools

As noted in our design, we have decided to use three elementary
schools in Lexington School District 1. We selected these schools due to a
close similarity in their populations including socioeconomics and academic
scores. These three schools are Midway Elementary, New Providence
Elementary, and Lake Murray Elementary. At each school, four classes in
grades 3-5 will participate. This is a total of 12 classes, 3 of which will use
not Web 2.0 tool at all in their Science lessons. The other teachers in these
classes in each grade will plan his or her science lesson using a specific Web
2.0 tool as indicated in the chart below.

Midway

New Providence

Lake Murray

No Web 2.0 Tool

3rd Grade

4th Grade

5th Grade

WebQuest

3rd Grade

3rd Grade

Wiki

4th Grade

4th Grade

Voicethread

5th Grade

5th Grade

Blogging

5th Grade

4th Grade

3rd Grade

The reason we chose the participants this way is to ensure that enough
data can be collected. We will have a controlled 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade
classroom that does not use Web 2.0 tools to teach their science content.
This way, when we have two classes who did use the tool to compare to the
one class that did not use the tool.
Materials and Instrumentation
The following materials will be needed:
Pretest based on current SC Science Standards
Posttest that simply randomizes questions from the pretest
Survey to compile demographics and technological background
on teaching participants
Survey to answer research questions (see section above)
Our teaching participants will be asked to participate in a survey that
will be housed within google docs. The survey will be accessible to anyone
with the correct hyperlink and screening questions will be housed at the
beginning of the document so erroneous respondents can be screened out

12

Analyzing the Benefits of Web 2.0 Tools

during data analysis. The survey will be available during a 30 day window
following the end of the school year.
It is vital that we have the cooperation of each schools Technology
Integration Specialist. They will provide us, the evaluators, with the insight
into each teachers classroom. While their notes and videos will be forwarded
to the evaluation team, they will be the ones offering the training as they
have a better idea as to what the need for their students in their school is.

Procedure
As noted above, the study will last for a complete semester, which is
18 weeks. Based on the subjects of the study, we estimate that all students
within the classes will participate in the lessons.
The teachers will ensure that the controlled groups within the 3rd, 4th,
and 5th grades classes do not have any access to the Web 2.0 tools. In fact,
the Technology Integration Specialist (TIS) will monitor and enforce this very
stringently. The TIS will report any violation.
Along with monitoring the controlled groups, the TIS will monitor the
other groups to ensure that the teachers are using the Web 2.0 tools. From
these close observations, we will have a more absolute comparative results
between the pretest and posttest. If teachers stray away from the
prescribed design, the results may be misinterpreted, thereby damaging the
research study.
When the observers conduct evaluations, the teaching objective(s) will
be recorded as well as the amount of time spent on each lesson. The
observer will also need to record student engagement and rather or not the
technology impeded the students from learning the science objectives.
Student engagement will help us answer our research question as to
whether Web 2.0 tools are effective teaching tools or distractible toys.
The main objective of the TIS will be to monitor the teachers to ensure
that four 50-minute blocks are being utilized in all the groups. Each teacher
must abide by this stipulation to ensure that all students are exposed to the
science level at equal intervals. We realize that these procedures cannot be
successful if the participating teachers do not follow the design.

Data Analysis Procedures

During the beginning of the study, we will receive the pre-tests from
all 12 groups. We will score these and compare the data to ensure that all
13

Analyzing the Benefits of Web 2.0 Tools

groups have a low knowledge on the subject. Consideration will be given to
changing the groups if they are extremely strong on the subject. This will
help establish our controlled variable. The chart above under setting and
participants may be reworked after taking the pretest results into
consideration.
Once we receive the teacher demographics, we will closely monitor the
training and help that comes from the Technology Integration Specialists. If
we notice a teacher who is stronger with a certain Web 2.0 tool, we will
make adjustments as needed.
During the study, we will drop in to monitor the videos and notes from
the Technology Integration Specialists (TIS) as they send them tri-weekly. At
this time, we will offer suggestions on how to use the Web 2.0 tool more
effectively, if the TIS is unable to do so. While we are not observing a Web
2.0 tool in three of the 12 classrooms, we will still offer support to keep
consistency. The TIS will still observe these classrooms as basic technology
such as a smartboard and document camera will be utilized. The lack of
technology is really the observation point in these cases.
Once our posttest results are received, we will compare the data to the
initial test given. We will chart the growth in each class. The purpose is to
observe the two classes using a specific Web 2.0 tool to locate similarities
that could account as strengths or weaknesses. We will also use our
controlled class of the same grade level to make comparisons on the
difference the Web 2.0 makes.
Teacher surveys are important because the teacher is the facilitator. If
a tool proved effective but took an unreasonable amount of time on the
teachers part to prepare or use, this needs to be taken into account. We will
take their reflections and thoughts seriously and look for trends among the
tools and in the specific upper elementary grade.

Conclusion
Throughout this study we have focused on the positive and negative
implications of Web 2.0 tools in the school setting. Our question To Web or
Not To Web is addressed by the teachers survey and observations. Training
programs have been implemented to assist those who need to improve their
skill set with Web 2.0 Tools. The survey results will demonstrate the success
teacher are having with Web 2.0 tools. The comparison of data between
our control group and the experimental group will provide excellent
documentation addressing our primary questions.
14

Analyzing the Benefits of Web 2.0 Tools

1. Are Web 2.0 Tools effective in the classroom, or are they causing
a distraction?
2. Are Web 2.0 Tools replacing teacher-made lessons, or are they
an extension to the lessons?
Continued exploration into these results could be the subject of future
studies, as the web will continue to evolve into Web 3 and 4.0. As the
technology advances we need to ensure that our primary issues are being
addressed and the student body is critically thinking as they prepare for
college or the world of work.

15

Analyzing the Benefits of Web 2.0 Tools

References
Barry Brucklacher & Belinda Gimbert (1999) Role-Playing Software and
WebQuests-What's Possible with Cooperative Learning and Computers,
Computers in the Schools: Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice,
Theory, and Applied Research, 15:2, 37-48, DOI:
10.1300/J025v15n02_05
Beauchamp, Gary, and Steve Kennewell. "Interactivity in the Classroom and
Its Impact on Learning." Science Direct. Computers and Education,
Apr. 2010. Web. 22 May 2014.
Clark, W., Graber, R., Logan, K., Luckin, R., Mee, A., Oliver, M. (2008). KS3
and KS4 learners' use of Web 2.0 technologies in and out of school Summary. Becta: leading next generation learning, 1-11.
Cleborne D. Maddux (2002) The Web in Education, Computers in the
Schools: Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and Applied
Research, 19:1-2, 7-17, DOI: 10.1300/J025v19n01_02
Cole, M. (2009). Using Wiki technology to support student engagement:
Lessons from the trenches. Computers & Education, 52(1), 141146.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.003
Gillis, A., Luthin, K., Parette, H., & Blum, C. (2012). Using VoiceThread to
Create Meaningful Receptive and Expressive Learning Activities for
Young Children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40(4), 203-211.
Ikpeze, C.H. & Boyd, F.B. (2007). Web-based inquiry learning: Facilitating
16

Analyzing the Benefits of Web 2.0 Tools

thoughtful literacy with WebQuests. The Reading Teacher, 60, 644654.
Kong, S. C., Chan, T.-W., Griffin, P., Hoppe, U., Huang, R., Kinshuk, Looi,
C. K., Milrad, M., Norris, C., Nussbaum, M., Sharples, M., So, W. M. W.,
Soloway, E., & Yu, S. (2014). E-learning in School Education in the
Coming 10 Years for Developing 21st Century Skills: Critical Research
Issues and Policy Implications. Educational Technology & Society, 17
(1), 7078.
Lee, L. (2012). A Learning Journey for All: American Elementary Teachers'
Use of Classroom Wikis. Journal Of Interactive Online Learning, 11(3),
90-102.
Leung, C., & Unal, Z. (2013). Advantages and Disadvantages of Classroom
Instruction with WebQuests: Connecting Literacy and Technology.
Journal Of Reading Education, 38(2), 31-38.
Luckin, Rose, Kit Logan, and Wilma Clark. "KS3 and KS4 Learners' Use of
Web 2.0 Technologies in and out of School - Summary." Digital
Education Resource Archive. Becta Leading the Next Generation, July
2008. Web. 21 May 2014.
March, T. (2006). What WebQuests are (really). BestWebQuests.com
Retrieved from http:// bestWebQuests.com/what_WebQuests_are.asp
Panettieri, R. C. (2013). VoiceThread: Learning Beyond the Classroom
Walls. Radiologic Technology, 84(6), 642-644.

17

Analyzing the Benefits of Web 2.0 Tools

Redecker, C., Ala-Mutka, K. Bacigalupo, M., Ferrari, A., & Punie, Y. (2009).
Learning 2.0: The impact of Web 2.0 innovations on education and
training in Europe (Final report). Seville : European Commission-Joint
Research Center-Institute for Porspective Technological Studies.
Reupert, Andrea, and Barney Dalgarno. (2011) "Using Online Blogs To
Develop Student Teachers' Behaviour Management Approaches."
Australian Journal Of Teacher Education 36.5: 48-64. ERIC. Web. 25
May 2014.
Riedel, Chris. "THE Journal." Top 10 Web 2.0 Tools for Young Learners --.
THE Journal, 02 Feb. 09. Web. 23 May 2014.
Shahsavar, Zahra, and Bee Hoon Tan. "Developing A Questionnaire To
Measure Students' Attitudes Toward The Course Blog?." Turkish Online
Journal Of Distance Education 13.1 (2012): 200-210. ERIC. Web. 25
May 2014. Retrieved from: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ976950
Steele, Poppy. (2008), "Technologies Such as Wikis in the Classroom."
Online Submission ERIC, EBSCOhost. Web. 26 May 2014.
Teo, T., Lee, C., & Chai, C. (2008), Understanding preservice teachers
computer attitudes: applying and extending the technology acceptance
model. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 24(2), 128143.
Tomberg, V., Laanpere, M., & Lamas, D. (2010). Learning flow

18

Analyzing the Benefits of Web 2.0 Tools

management and semantic data exchange between blog-based
personal learning environments. HCI in Work and Learning, Life and
Leisure (pp. 340-352).
Ullrich, C., Borau, K., Luo, H., Tan, X., Shen, L., & Shen, R. (2008). Why
Web 2 . 0 is good for learning and for research : Principles and
prototypes. Proceedings of the 17th international conference on World
Wide Web (pp. 705714). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (2006).
Educational design research, chemistry & biodiversity (Vol. 1, pp.
18291841). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and
technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 53(4), 523.
Wilson, S. (2007). PLEs and the institution. Scotts Workblog. Retrieved from
http://zope.cetis.ac.uk/members/scott/blogview?
entry=20071113120959
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic
achievement: An overview. Educational psychologist, 25(1), 325.

19