Running head: INTERNET INTEGRATION ASSIGNMENT: WEB 2.

Internet Integration Assignment: Web 2.0 Justin Keith Georgia Southern University - Georgia OnMyLine FRIT 7330: The Internet In Schools - Summer 2012 Dr. Lucilia Green

INTERNET INTEGRATION ASSIGNMENT: WEB 2.0 Internet Integration Assignment: Web 2.0

When considering the internet, one of the most popular items is currently Web 2.0. Web 2.0 is defined in many different ways, but is mainly considered to be an experience on the internet that is interactive in nature, found in the form of wikis, blogs, forums, etc, and that is more than simply accessing information. While technology and the internet in general has not successfully been proven to aid in student achievement, there is some interesting research being done on Web 2.0 applications that show student achievement may actually be positively impacted by Web 2.0 applications. The research articles that are represented in this paper help to show how Web 2.0 applications may actually positively impact student achievement. The discussion concerning the use of Wikis to promote student achievement is of particular interest, however Wikis are not the soul source of improving student achievement where Web 2.0 is concerned. The articles discuss research done with teachers, librarians, college students, and some reference secondary students. While my focus is to show improvement in achievement among secondary students, much of the research is transferable to that setting. Johnston (2012) points out that findings include that a significant number of teacher librarians do not feel competent with (emerging technologies such as web 2.0 tools). However, O'Bannon (2012) shows that Web 2.0 applications such as Wikis do increase knowledge and that significant gains in achievement could be made through the use of Wikis. Wallace (2012) points out that Web 2.0 softwares give students opportunities to construct new knowledge from their researched information. While past research has found it difficult to prove that technology has caused an increase in student achievement the research that is currently being done on Web 2.0 applications seems to show that the applications do increase student achievement. Communication between teachers, school administration, students, and parents is a key component in improving student achievement and Thomas (2012) states that teachers and school administrators can use text messaging (such as Twitter) to communicate with parents regarding a variety of school related messages like class assignments, attendance and updated school information. Hadjerrouit (2012) points out that Wikis, whether used individually or in group settings can play an important role in evaluating the students contributions, and can enhance student achievement. In addition, Luhtala (2012) points out that Peer review teaches students to accept and embrace their shared responsibility in the teaching and learning process. It is not always easy to tell exactly what a student has learned and

INTERNET INTEGRATION ASSIGNMENT: WEB 2.0

sometimes learning may not be evident for some time. Ray (2012) points out that success will be at least partially defined by what kindergarten through high school students can do after they leave public schools rather than what they do when theyre in our classrooms. Currently in education, there is a push to move more in the direction of internet based applications. The nature of Web 2.0 is one of the primary reasons for this push. Administrators and teachers have noticed that many of the Web 2.0 applications available hold student attention and allow the students to interact with the application instead of simply accessing information. In addition, many of the Web 2.0 resources are free to use and in a time in which funds are extremely tight Free can be very attractive. As I have explored Web 2.0 tools first hand, I have been impressed with the sheer amount of tools that are currently available. Not only are there many tools available, but they are also fun to use and work with. The tools are made with the intention that they be easy to use and so that almost any user can produce their own work in some form or fashion. Part of the attraction to these tools is the process of learning how to use them and then using them to create something that looks as though it may have been produced by a professional. There are many merits to Web 2.0 tools. While there are some Web 2.0 tools that cost money, most of the tools are free and easily accessible. The tools are easy for most people to learn how to use. The work that can be created using these tools can look very professional. Because the tools are interactive, the user is taking an active part in their own learning as they use the tools. Many of these tools are also able to be used together, or mashed, so that the final production is a morph of more than one Web 2.0 tool. Unfortunately, there are some barriers when implementing these tools in education. Many of the tools require the user to sign up with the provider to receive access to their tools. Many younger students do not have email addresses that are required during the sign up processes and teachers are not allowed to aid the students in obtaining their own email addresses due to school system policies. Information sharing is also a worry for many administrators because when signing up to use some of these applications there is fine print that explains that by agreeing to their conditions the user agrees to let the provider sell or disperse their information. Many of the applications also use an exorbitant amount of internet bandwidth, which could cause issues with some school district networks. Because many of the applications are free to use, they rely on advertisements to fund them. While the advertisements are usually not a problem

INTERNET INTEGRATION ASSIGNMENT: WEB 2.0

for older students, they can be called into question for younger students. And finally, many school systems have network policies and internet filtering in place that make the use of some Web 2.0 applications impossible. Due to the quality of these tools, the impact that they are already making, their cost, and the impact on student achievement it is clear that Web 2.0 tools are here to stay and will most likely become more popular. As Web 2.0 tools develop and more people begin making conscious decisions to use the tools, it is possible that software such as Microsoft Office could become a thing of the past. As more research is completed and more data is available concerning the relationship between Web 2.0 and student achievement, more school systems, school administration, teachers, and students will begin to embrace the use of Web 2.0.

INTERNET INTEGRATION ASSIGNMENT: WEB 2.0 References

Hadjerrouit, S. (2012). Investigating technical and pedagogical usability issues of collaborative learning with wikis. Informatics in Education, 11(1), n/a. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1004896548?accountid=10661 Jabr, N. H. (2011). Social networking as a tool for extending academic learning and communication. International Journal Of Business & Social Science, 2(12), 93-102. Johnston, M. P. (2012). Connecting teacher librarians for technology integration leadership. School Libraries Worldwide, 18(1), 18-33. http://search.proquest.com/docview/921332140?accountid=10661 Lo, M., Ramayah, T. T., & Tai Ching, H. (2011). Modeling user satisfaction in e-learning: A supplementary tool to enhance learning. Review Of Business Research, 11(2), 128-133. Luhtala, M. (2012). Rocking your library world. Knowledge Quest, 40(3), 14-19. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1016284978?accountid=10661 Meyer, N. (2010). Collaboration success for student achievement in social studies: The washington state story. Teacher Librarian, 37(4), 40-43. O'Bannon, B. G. (2012). Creating/developing/using a wiki study guide: effects on student achievement. Journal Of Research On Technology In Education, 44(4), 293-312. OBrien, C., Aguinaga, N. J., Hines, R., & Hartshorne, R. (2011). Using contemporary technology tools to improve the effectiveness of teacher educators in special education. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30(3), 33-40. http://search.proquest.com/docview/903807139?accountid=10661 Ray, M. (2012). A blip in a word cloud - unless we act. Teacher Librarian, 39(4), 56-57,71. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012394951?accountid=10661 Thomas, K. M., & Mcgee, C. D. (2012). The only thing we have to fear is... 120 characters. TechTrends, 56(1), 19-33. doi:10.1007/s11528-011-0550-4 Wallace, V., & Husid, W. (2012). Learning to the second power: Inquiry-based collaboration and learning commons. Teacher Librarian, 39(3), 25-29. http://search.proquest.com/docview/924163567?accountid=10661