Qualitative Action Research Project Rubric Required Element Introduction Target The paper provides a clear description of the

relevant details about your project, the source of the problem to be studied, the context, and YOUR interest and/or bias about the study are provided. The research questions are meaningful, well written and describe who, what, when, and how. The review of literature clearly situates the problem to be studied within a research context, summarizes timely and key research already known about the problem, and provides a framework for change and action. The participants in the setting are described in terms of relevant identity markers (gender, age, race, teaching experience), and their group dynamics. Initials or pseudonyms are used as appropriate. The sources of data for your study are described and when applicable are included as a labeled appendix. Justification for the use of each data source is provided with appropriate references. The data collection methods you employed are clearly described and justified to meet the needs of your research question/s, enough so that another reader would understand your rationales and procedures. This section clearly details how you analyzed your data, including your methods to Acceptable There are some details about context, problem, or personal interest that are unclear. Unacceptable There are some details about context, problem, or personal interest that are missing or poorly explained. The research questions are missing or are poorly explained. The review of literature is missing two or more of the required elements, or is poorly written.

Research Questions

Review of Literature

The research questions are vague and do not include important information. The details provided in the review of literature are missing or are unclear about one of the required elements.

Participants

The participants in the setting are described, the description is lacking important details about one of the elements.

The participants are not described or this section is poorly written.

Data Sources

The data sources are listed and described, but justification is lacking or not clear.

The data sources are listed, but not well described or justified.

Data Collection

The data collection methods are provided, but some detail is missing or unclear.

The data collection methods are vague or poorly written and missing important elements.

Data Analysis

The data analysis section is provided, but some detail is

The data analysis procedures are vague or poorly written and

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3

ensure accuracy and validity. Data Narrative The paper has a clearly developed narrative that: expresses the key assertions and warrants found from the data, including identification of the data sources, communicates how the data relates to the research questions, supporting evidence is clearly and concisely provided, related to the review of literature when applicable. ReflectionThe reflection explores what Conclusions has been learned from the project and suggests how future decisions might be affected from this new understanding. Quality of The paper engages the reader, Writing uses vivid language, is clear, uses appropriate conventions (grammar, spelling, ect.), uses appropriate APA citations. missing or unclear. The data narrative is provided, but some details or one element is missing or unclear. missing important elements. The data narrative is vague or poorly written and missing important elements.

The reflection is provided but is lacking details and personal input.

The reflection is vague or poorly written and missing important elements.

The paper is somewhat clear and engaging, but has some minor writing issues.

The paper is unclear, poorly writing and does not met graduate standards.

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3

Incorporating Web 2.0 Tools in K-3 Readers Workshop Megan Schweingruber Bowling Green State University EDTL 6530

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3

Introduction Many schools have adopted a reading curriculum that includes some form of a Readers Workshop that provides a framework for balanced literacy. A major criticism of Readers Workshop is the time needed to create the materials and a lack of student motivation and accountability to work independently during Readers Workshop while the teacher tries to work with small groups. Teachers in primary classrooms (K-3 grades) do have quite the challenge when it comes to creating an environment of responsible, motivated and self-directed learners in order to provide a reading program that is effective and meets the needs of all students in their development of foundational reading skills. However, many teachers are not fully utilizing technology tools at their disposal that students not only need for the future but also have great potential for boosting student motivation and selfdirected learning in the Readers Workshop. The purpose of this research study is to explore effective uses incorporating Web 2.0 tools in a K-3 Readers Workshop to see if it increases student learning, motivation and performance in Language Arts. What steps are schools making to incorporate technology into their curriculum? Does it help them become constructive, independent learners? Research Questions The purpose of this study is to explore effective uses incorporating Web 2.0 tools in a K-3 Readers Workshop. I have three critical questions to guide my research. First, Does the use of Web 2.0 tools increase student learning, motivation

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3 and performance in Language Arts? Next, Are these tools helping students become constructive, independent learners? Finally, What is being done in terms of district policy and funding in order to enhance the technology integration in primary schools? Literature Review Introduction These days most students are surrounded by a digital world of technology that continues to move forward in leaps and bounds. Consequentially, education must also evolve to include more digital learning resources in all subject areas. Reading is a critical subject area that requires urgent attention on this matter. In fact, 30 million adults in America read at a below basic level (Dunn, 2012). The purpose of this literature review is to explore effective uses incorporating Web 2.0

tools in a K-3 Readers Workshop environment. It is hypothesized that incorporating digital tools such as Web 2.0 tools at an early age not only reflects students everyday lives outside of school but also foster improved reading skills and overall academic achievement. The following review of eight different pieces of literature attempt to support and provide evidence to support the hypothesis. Background Digital resources that support reading instruction have been around for several years such as electronic books or e-books, which are simply electronic versions of traditional books. E-books are accessed on electronic hardware such as personal computers, laptops, and other various handheld reading devices that are viewed using software or online text versions (Larson, 2009) Additionally, other

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3 digital reading resources including audio books and interactive digital books have

been challenging traditional reading methods over the past decade in education. The digital environment that students live in continues to grow and expand and its vital that our learning environments within schools adapt and expand with the global digital community (Serafini, 2012). In more recent years the Web has evolved from a source of merely obtaining information to an interactive place where users can interact with information and create information with others by sharing and collaborating (Schrum & Solomon, 2007). The term Web 2.0 is used to refer to this shift in communication and interaction with information on the Web that allows users access and opportunity to be actively engaged and constructive with endless information and digital resources. Hargadon (2008, para. 2), with special recognition to Tim OReilly, who originally coined the term Web 2.0 in 2004, defines the term in relevance to education as Simply the use of the Internet as a two-way medium- -that it is a platform upon which content is not only consumed but also created. The shift in education to reflect the daily lives of students and what interests and engages them poses an important question. How do teachers incorporate multiple and digital resources like Web 2.0 tools into the Readers Workshop when teachers are already facing a crowded curriculum? To search for an answers the first step is looking at the available Web 2.0 tools available to teachers that will support their reading curriculum and enhance their Readers Workshop. The reality is that teachers play an important role in the transition from traditional reading instruction to a Readers Workshop 2.0 environment (Serafini, 2012).

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3 Research Findings One argument that is currently popular in education in regard to

incorporating Web 2.0 tools and other technology to support student learning is the economic uncertainty and declining school budgets many districts are facing around the country. The other side of the argument asserts that these economic issues only emphasize the need for teachers to be increasingly innovative to make sure students have access to enriching online materials whenever possible through blended learning, which can actually save districts money overall, by utilizing free online tools (Wells, 2012). Schools that have started incorporating Web 2.0 tools as part of online learning programs are reporting more student motivation and engagement in reading. Teachers have reported more student participation in discussions and collaborative projects (Rochelle, 2009). Research findings by Rochelle (2009, para.9) concluded that overall, Empirical evidence related to improved student achievement is difficult to isolate. What we do have is anecdotal information from both students and teachers that they are more engaged and interested. The assumption is made that if students are interested and engaged, they are more likely to achieve at high levels. In a study of a group of students ages 11-16, 74% surveyed reporting having at least one social networking account and 78% reported having uploaded at least one photo, video or music to the Web (Hargadon, 2008). The use of Web 2.0 tools in education will only be effective if students have access to these tools and teachers who engage students in technology supported activities. Teachers often use many of these tools in the classroom but limit student

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3 use and access to technology. Young (2007, p.39) argues, Unfortunately, research has shown that use of technology at this level has little or no impact on student performance. To learn effectively with technology, students must have opportunities to work at the appropriation and invention stages, engaging in projects that demonstrate content knowledge and mastery of technology skills. A third grade classroom in Springford, PA uses multiple Web 2.0 primary sources

during readers workshop from educational social networking sites such as Edmodo, Glogster to create interative posters, Google Maps, digital scrapbooks, and Wordle to create word clouds. Data collected showed that the use of these tools encourages research, fosters social interaction, and develops critical thinking even with young learners (Anderson, 2010). Research also shows that teachers need support transitioning their classrooms into Web 2.0 learning environments. Administrators need to be role models and facilitate the use of Web 2.0 tools in everyday work and provide ongoing professional development for teachers (Rochelle, 2009). Benefits There are many benefits of using Web 2.0 tools in the reading classroom including but not limited to student engagement, authenticity, participation, collaboration, creativity, passionate interest, personal expression and critical thinking (Hargadon, 2008). In a study of teachers who incorporated Web 2.0 tools, specifically, blogs and podcasts in the K-12 reading classroom, teachers reported increased student motivation and ownership in their work. The study concluded the potential for positive impacts in several areas of reading including fluency,

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3 vocabulary development and comprehension, as well as Writing, with the use of Web 2.0 tools (Banister, 2008). Web 2.0 tools break old boundaries of reading instruction by providing students more opportunity to make meaningful connections and share information beyond the classroom. Serafini (2012, p.2) asserts, A Reading Workshop 2.0 environment presents new opportunities for readers to discuss literature outside

the boundaries of the physical classroom as video conferencing technologies such as Skype, FaceTime, and iChat create spaces for readers to discuss what they have read. Some of the Web 2.0 tools used as primary sources in the classroom include the free educational social network tool Edmodo, Glogster EDU for creating interactive multimedia posters, Google Sites for creating websites, wikis, templates, Wordle cloud maker and VoiceThread for sharing digital artifacts and engaging discussion (Anderson, 2010). Web 2.0 tools also benefit reading teachers by providing teachers with more access to free educational software and tools that address the specific needs and learning styles of students in the reading environment (Solomon & Schrum, 2007). Challenges Incorporating Web 2.0 tools in the classroom in subject areas such as reading and the Reading Workshop have many benefits and provide teachers and students with limitless possibilities to access and interact with information. However, the argument has been made that Web 2.0 tools are most effective when teachers have the tools and training in order to be innovative and engage students in learning that reflects their world (Solomon & Schrum, 2007).

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3 The use of Web 2.0 tools to support student learning is also challenged by teachers who are reluctant to change their beliefs and values that govern their teaching styles. In her article, Young (2007) argues: Todays teachers must come to grips with the fact that accomplishing

10

tasks using more traditional methods may still work, but this often leaves students cold. Why? Because outside the classroom students have access to technologies that allow them to do the same work in ways that make more sense to them. Instead of clinging to the way you learned to do things as students, you need to embrace real-world uses of technology and at least mirror, if not lead, that use in the classroom. (p.20) Other barriers in the use of Web 2.0 tools in education include a negative cultural perception of social networking, lack of hardware and funding, restricted access to online content due to legal liabilities, and leadership in school districts to support change (Hargadon, 2008). Conclusion The lists of benefits and challenges of using Web 2.0 tools in the classroom are more exhaustive than researched in this review of literature. What the research did support was that overall, innovative Web 2.0 tools present both exciting benefits and understandable challenges. The potential for positive impact using Web 2.0 tools in classrooms, specifically reading instruction, can be transformed to increase student engagement and overall reading achievement. Moving into the future of education incorporating Web 2.0 tools, Hargadon (2008, para.11) predicts, I believe that the long-term outcome will be a system of

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3 learning that is much more productive for our youth, and for their teachers, than currently exists. Overall, education as a whole is responsible for providing students with 21st century skills and resources such as Web 2.0 tools have great potential in order to meet and outweigh any challenges ahead. Participants

11

The three participants I interviewed are all colleagues of mine that teach at the same primary building as me. The first participant is a first grade teacher at my school. Katie (pseudonym) has been teaching for almost ten years now. She recently taught second grade and Kindergarten before teaching first grade. I chose Katie to participate in my research study because of her experience and training with differentiating instruction. The second participant I interviewed is the computer intervention teacher at my building. Patty (pseudonym) has seven years teaching experience as a computer intervention teacher and is one of the teachers in our district that attends local and state technology conferences. I chose Patty for her experience incorporating technology and training students and other teachers to use technology to enhance learning. The third participant Emily (pseudonym) is a third grade teacher at my school. She is the most hands-on teacher in my opinion in my building and takes initiative to explore new technologies and incorporate them into her classroom. I chose Emily because of her experience with grant writing for classroom technology and her practices incorporating technology into the classroom and supporting other teachers also interested in using the same technology tools in their classrooms.

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3 Data Sources

12

I began my research with an observation of a third grade classroom in order to collect data for my study. My goal for observing was to gain insight on what tools are being used during Readers Workshop and gain a general understanding of students behavior in the Readers Workshop and how the implementation of technology tools, possibly Web 2.0 tools, affects their motivation and independent learning during Readers Workshop. I created a classroom observation protocol to guide my observation. The chart is provided in the next section of this paper. I also created ten open-ended interview questions to use for my participant interviews. I gave each participant a copy of the interview questions prior to our interview appointment and give them time to review questions and clarify any information in the questions that was unclear. The following are the ten questions I asked each participant during the interview process:
1. Describe your past K-3 teaching experiences. Include teaching experiences (if any) before using technology to enhance student learning. 2. What differences in student motivation and learning have you noticed with the integration of technology? 3. What technology hardware and software devices do you and your students have access to in your school building? 4. How much hands-on experience with technology (Web tools) do students in your classroom have access to on a daily or weekly basis? 5. Do you incorporate technology such as Web 2.0 tools into your Readers Workshop? If yes, describe some of the tools used and how they impact student learning. 6. Do you feel these tools help students become constructive, independent learners? 7. Besides your classroom how is student learning with technology supported in your building? 8. Does your school district support digital learning? If so, please describe policies and examples of support. If not, what do you feel needs to be done in order to gain support for technology integration?

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3 Data Collection In addition to my literature review, I observed a third grade classroom and conducted three interviews with colleagues at my school building. The three

13

interviews were conducted on three separate dates at different times and locations at my school building. I used pseudonyms for each teacher chosen to participate in order to maintain confidentiality throughout the interviewing process. They were given separate letters inviting them to participate in my research study and were not told the identities of other participants. In each participant invitation, I stated the purpose of my research project and the reason I selected each participant for my study. I included the ten open-ended questions I would be asking the participant and my e-mail information for responding to my invitation along with the date I needed their response. While I waited for a response from the participants, I contacted my school principal about inquiring district technology plans and I also downloaded the district curriculum map in order to study each grade level (K-3) unit design. The purpose for examining grade level unit designs was to collect data that supports the use of technology in language arts instruction prior to my interviews. All participants accepted their invitation to participate in my research study and interviews were scheduled promptly. My classroom observation took place in the morning during Readers Workshop in a third grade classroom at my school building on February 27, 2013. The duration of the classroom observation was thirty-five minutes, from 9:40 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. During the observation I collected data based on four observation points,

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3

14

or protocols, in order to gain insight on tools and procedures used during Readers Workshop. The following chart was created and used to collect my data during my observation: Observation Point Teacher uses different methods of delivering instruction during lesson (individual, whole group, small group) Yes No N/A in this lesson Yes Observation Notes Teacher and students sat at carpet for ~15 minutes for shared reading minilesson on fact and opinion. Teacher read a story called Maxs Words and then the teacher and students compared it to the story read the day before, Chrysanthemum. Teacher and students continued adding to the anchor chart. Then students were sent back to their individual seats. For about 10 minutes the teacher led the class in a review of homonyms online and then the last 10 minutes students went into their reading groups for Readers Workshop, one group went to read with the teacher, one group went to do word work center playing a game on the Interactive Whiteboard, one group was reading from their browse bags and the last group was working on their own opinion writing assignment The teacher navigated to BrainPop Jr on the Eno Interactive Whiteboard

Technology was integrated into the lesson and students had

Yes (only four students)

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3 hands-on access to digital learning tools

15 and reviewed homonyms (there was a neat review exercise on BrainPop Jr. the teacher used with the whole group) then she led students through the homonyms games whole group demonstrating how to play the game and reminding students how to work in groups to make sure everyone gets opportunity to practice using the Eno pen and practicing their homonyms. Then during centers one reading group with four students went to that word work center to play the homonyms game on the Eno Board. I only observed for about 10 more minutes and it took the students about 5 minutes just to get into their centers and get started on work. One boy immediately started telling the others the order of who gets to play and some confrontation started but the classroom aide came over and reminded them to share and keep their voices down and they eventually got on track but I only saw one student matching homophones for about 2 minutes before I had to end my observation. There are no mobile learning devices in the classroom and there is only one student

Students use mobile devices independently and constructively

No

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3

16 computer in the classroom but there is no student or teacher access to wireless Internet, only administration and tech reps for the buildings The classroom aide talked to the students about their behavior at the Eno Whiteboard but no other staff members were present and assisting students with technology.

Other staff members including administration support teachers and students with the integration of technology in the classroom

NA

Data Analysis The purpose of my research study was to explore effective uses incorporating Web 2.0 tools in a K-3 Readers Workshop. After reviewing literature I wanted to extend my theory that technology tools, including Web 2.0 tools, support teaching and student learning processes in the Readers Workshop by providing students with tools they need for the future but that also benefit them at an early age while they develop foundational reading skills in a diverse learning environment. The literature review provided sufficient support that the potential for boosting early reading success is there when incorporating technology in the Readers Workshop. The next step was to gain some insight hands-on to support my research through classroom observation and participant interviews. The data gained during my classroom observation revealed the use of technology in the Readers Workshop. Students were actively engaged in the minilesson using an Interactive Whiteboard. However, a problem or obstacle that was

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3 also observed was the lack of technology equipment in the classroom. There was only one student computer in the classroom and the teacher had very restricted Internet access preventing her from accessing many of the websites that contain

17

beneficial Web 2.0 tools to use during Readers Workshop. This opened my eyes as a researcher that the lack of technology and technology support may be a major obstacle challenging the use of these valuable technology tools in the classroom. I was able to assert from the data that teachers need more technology in the classroom. After analyzing the data from the three interviews conducted I was also able to make the assertion that teachers need better professional development in order to incorporate technology effectively. This assertion is warranted by their own admission that they find it difficult to find resources and time to implement technology tools in the Readers Workshop. I was also able to assert that teachers need more district support in order to provide students better access to technology and online learning. The biggest concern teachers pointed out during their interviews was the lack of support and access to online resources because of district technology restrictions. Finally, the last and most crucial assertion I made from participant data was that student motivation increases when teachers incorporate technology into lessons and independent learning centers/activities. Every teacher interviewed shared similar experiences and outcomes of student engagement achievement using technology. Students become more motivated and independent in the learning process when technology is incorporated. The remaining issue is the lack of technology equipment and support in order to

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3 incorporate technology tools effectively. Data Narrative I conducted my first interview with Katie (pseudonym). Katie and I teach together at a rural primary school in Northeast Ohio. Most of the students that attend our school building live in homes with income below poverty level and

18

receive free or reduced school breakfast and lunch. Katie is a first grade teacher and approximately 50% of the students in her classroom have special needs and after being tested are on an IEP (Individual Education Plan). Another roughly 20% of students in her classroom are currently part of an SSMT (Student Support Management Team) plan, after being identified through benchmark testing as atrisk, meaning they are not meeting specific learning standards and require additional support and intervention to increase their chances of being successful. Katie has been teaching for almost 10 years and has become a leader among staff in our district for her continuous involvement in differentiated instruction workshops and supporting inclusion, primarily in K-3, within our school district. I met up with Katie during her lunch period to conduct the interview. She acted nervous when I arrived. The tone of her voice was higher than usual and her facial expressions were tight and more serious looking than her usual appearance. Her work clothing was neat and professional looking. She was wearing black dress pants and a silky floral blouse with pink blossoms on it that accented her blue eyes and black hair. Her make-up was also touched up and her nails look professionally done with a dark burgundy polish.

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3 The purpose of the interview was to gain insight on web tools primary teachers are incorporating into their daily lessons, specifically in Readers Workshop. I asked Katie about her background with technology, her use of

19

technology in the classroom, students learning opportunities using technology and district support with technology in the classroom. All of her answers were unexpectedly shorter than I had anticipated given her years of experience in the classroom. I thought she would be more comfortable with the interview but her body language throughout and her short responses demonstrated otherwise. Her answers revealed insecurities or lack of selfconfidence or even perhaps lack of awareness for her capabilities in regard to technology integration. After asking several questions about using technology in the classroom she would respond with brief statements like, Yes, I do try or No, not really and I would have to ask her to elaborate or give examples to support her answers with prompts like, What are some of the online resources you use with students? or If not, how often would you say you use (tools, computer lab, etc.)? Her overall interview gave me insight on the lack of support teachers receive in the school district and the need for professional development and hands-on training with technology tools. Although I was actually researching student motivation and engagement with Web 2.0 tools during Readers Workshop, I discovered that the teacher plays a vital role in whether or not students can learn constructively with technology in a primary classroom. At one point Katie questioned what is even considered technology asking me, Is the overhead projector considered technology? She had never heard of Web 2.0 tools, but after

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3

20

we discussed what Web 2.0 means and I told her some examples of online Web 2.0 tools, Katie realized she already had some basic understanding of Web 2.0 tools. However, she also confirmed my theory that students are not provided with sufficient access to online learning tools. As the interview continued Katie admitted she doesnt use technology as often in the classroom as shed like to, justifying her reasons with statements such as, I only have one student computer in the classroom and I try to incorporate online learning games during reading centers but many of the websites I try to go on have restricted access. It became clear that Katie has interest and some motivation but lacks training and support with technology. The lack of district support, training, access to technology devices and online resources, limits Katies ability to incorporate digital learning tools that have potential to improve overall student academic success. I conducted my second interview with the computer intervention teacher at my school building. Patty (pseudonym) has been teaching computer intervention for seven years and was formerly a district technology and building technology representative. She has attended several local and state technology conferences and workshops. I chose to interview Patty because she has a lot of background with technology and working hands-on with elementary students in her computer lab. I wanted to get her perspective on the use of online tools in early childhood classrooms particularly during Readers Workshop. Patty and I met for a half hour during our lunch period. We eat together everyday anyways and it was the most convenient choice for both of us to conduct the interview. We met together at her computer lab and got started right away.

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3

21

Patty had written some notes on the copy of the interview questions and had them out on her desk for the interview. I reminded Patty that the interview was being recorded but that all information would be kept confidential and that pseudonyms would be replaced for any reference to staff members and/or students in our district. I began by inquiring about student motivation and potential for constructive learning through the use of online tools, specifically Web 2.0 tools that allow for student created projects and collaborative learning. I wanted to know what Patty was doing with students in the computer lab and what training she had received in order to help her implement these tools in her lab. Patty responded, Well, the kids love the computers. They love coming here (computer lab) they love being on the computers. They love having free time to explore the most. All these teachers give me forms to fill out because they are having problems (with a student) in the classroom and Im like, you dont want me to fill it out because Im going to fill out differently then what youre doing because, I said, I dont have problems with your kids. When we have a student who has ADD/ADHD we dont problems in here with them because of the computers they are right on the ball. I dont have the issues. Pattys response helped validate my assertion that technology integration has potential to improve student performance by increasing their motivation and actively engaging them towards independent learning. However, she did not have any information to offer as far as how it would affect their reading skills in a Readers Workshop environment because she has no experience in that area. Patty was able to share her experience working with students on their grade level reading

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3 objectives in the computer lab. She added, Students love interacting with the reading games I use on the Eno Board (Interactive Whiteboard). They get really

22

excited to come up and write with the pen on the board. I never have any behavior problems when Im using the Eno Board to review reading skills. Its hard giving everyone a turn each time so the younger ones would get upset and act out but not so much anymore. Once I warned them they wont get a chance to come up and have a turn if they behave like that they get over it, because they dont want to lose their turn. So yeah thats not really a problem anymore. I extended off of the interview question by asking Patty what improvements in student directed learning and motivation she has noticed using the district purchased online software (Compass Learning, Star Reader, Study Island, BrainPop Jr.) because I could see that she kept grade level data posters up on her wall with students names and stickers for their achievements. Yeah Patty replied, The sticker charts definitely motivate students to work harder during computer intervention. I like most of the programs, I really do. But its hard to monitor every student at the same time on the computer and they were rushing through their online reading modules to get to the games so their scores were really low. So I met with each grade level and put together target-learning goals. Then I made it so that if students wanted to have free time for games they had to meet each level goal to earn free game play. Now they work harder on their own. My next question asked for specific tools Patty used with students during computer intervention and any collaborative efforts with grade level teachers to incorporate the same tools into their Readers Workshop, centers, etc. Patty

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3 immediately cut me off and went into great length about the lack of teacher motivation. She added, No one has asked for me to help them with any classroom projects. I dont think the computers are utilized in the classroom you know, only

23

because there is only one student computer in every classroom. They promised two but only ended up actually with one because of all the cuts. I dont think most of them put them on computers to be honest with you because its too hard. Ill even have afternoons open in the lab and nobody will come down to use it, nobody asks. I concluded the interview by asking Patty her opinion in regard to district support with technology integration. Patty had a lot to share on this particular question, including the following statement, Administrators dont even understand how most of the technology works. They dont even understand the programs they purchase. Even the tech department doesnt understand some of the software programs but they wont work with us or listen to a lot of us who do know and have been around for a long time. Hes (District Tech Coordinator) not the best tech person. We need to have more computers in the classroom and more leadership. We dont meet, we dont get together about anything its always on your own to do we dont get any higher up help. Even for open house nothing was set up they told us to just set them out for presentation it wasnt set up yet. It was all for looks. Our old district tech used to but B squashed that, yep, pretty much. Pattys input warrants my proposition that online tools have great potential to boost student achievement through intrinsic motivation and constructive learning. However, the lack of tools and leadership in regard to technology has

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3 delayed the rate of transition to more technology integration into the curriculum within the district. My final interview took place after school with one of the third grade teachers at my school. Emily (pseudonym) is by far the most tech savvy teacher in our building, if not, the entire district. She does not have any special degree in

24

technology, but is a tech junkie, who attends numerous workshops and conferences throughout Ohio and has been involved in grant writing for the district in order to receive new technology learning tools. She has technology tools in her classroom that other teachers dont have because she either purchased them personally or received them as part of a pilot program or earned them through completion of trainings and workshops. Emily has an Eno Interactive Whiteboard, Document Reader, Student Response System (Clickers-one set of 24), Splash Top Mobile Pad kit for Eno Board. Her favorite tool is a Cricut machine she got for Christmas that allows her and her students to make Wordle clouds during Readers Workshop and she can print the Wordles out on her Cricut machine. The machine creates wall decals of the Wordle clouds that Emily can then adhere to her classroom wall. It peels off easily too without damaging the wall surface. Emily elaborated, The kids get so excited to create their Wordle clouds. I have to put the students in groups of 5-6 students when we make the Wordle clouds for our room or Id never be able to afford all the supplies. Emily continued on about tools she wished she had for her classroom. She added, One Intermediate building has a set of iPads that the classroom teachers can check out through their Building Tech Rep. I would like to

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3 know if we can have access to the iPads too since it was part of a district grant. Id love to have iPads or laptops in the classroom.

25

I asked Emily how she would integrate them into her Readers Workshop if she had access to those tools. Emily responded rather quickly with excitement in her voice, Oh my gosh, it is so hard providing enough computer time for every student only having two computers. I stopped her there. I noted that the other classrooms only have one computer and asked her how she got two student computers. Emily replied, I took one out of an empty room. I asked (principal) and got the okay to take it only because I also have ESL (English as a Second Language) students in my classroom that use the Rosetta Stone program every day. They get one 40 minute period in the computer lab every week. Maybe 5 or 6 kids a day get to do something on the computers usually in centers but the ESL students use the Rosetta Stone on the computer which was taking most of the time so I got a second computer. If they have technology at home I give them their username and password to log-in at the same sites we use at school like Scoot Pad at home. We got into a lengthy discussion about what programs we think are beneficial to our reading curriculum and what changes we need. Emily contributed great support to my assertions that technology does have great potential to boost student achievement. She showed me her data folder she uses for progress monitoring during reading and math. We looked at the reading scores in October before implementing the STAR reading program and January scores. On average, students scores increased from 2.3 equivalent reading levels to 3.1 putting them almost one year progress made at the mid-year benchmark. Emily explained, Even my most reluctant, struggling readers

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3

26

love to beat their scores on the quizzes after reading their independent books. They love having the computer time and when they increase their scores they earn free time on BrainPop Jr. or Study Island so they work really hard to beat their own scores. She added, There is even a bit of competition between students in the same reading groups to score higher than each other so they work really hard in order to do well on the comprehension quiz. Its not the end all but its been amazing watching them take interest and work on their own to progress in reading. Emily further stated that the programs the district has purchased are helping students boost their reading and math levels. She would like more access to websites that she can use with students and allow them to interact with the different tools but admitted that there is just too much restriction right now to make that possible. I can access some sites and I do use an United Streaming but thats not really interactive. I probably get more access than other teachers in the district and thats only because I hound B (Tech Dept.) all the time and I think he just gets sick of me and gives me temporary access to websites that I can use interactively with the class. I asked what she thinks should be done in order to support teachers and students more throughout the district. Emily concluded the interview with the following statement, I think administrators and a lot of teachers in the district want to do a lot more with technology. Its just having the right tools and training in order to make it work but I think we are making good progress. Overall, I was hoping to get more input on rich details to support my assertion that Web 2.0 tools increase student motivation when teachers incorporate a variety of tools during Readers Workshop. The recurring theme throughout the

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3 interviews was that technology is being incorporated and teachers are seeing

27

students motivation and achievement increased. However, there are barriers within the district policies and lack of tools and training, access to Web 2.0 tools is extremely limited and that make it difficult to warrant all of my assertions. The potential is there, regardless, and does add some support to my assertions. Conclusion The purpose of this study was to explore effective uses incorporating Web 2.0 tools in a K-3 Readers Workshop. I hoped to find evidence to support my theory that incorporating Web 2.0 tools in a K-3 Readers Workshop increases student learning, motivation and performance in Language Arts. Overall, I learned that teachers are reporting that the use of technology tools in Readers Workshop or balanced literacy environments in general, have major potential for enhancing student performance and academic success. Students are meeting their independent learning goals faster and more independently through the use of technology progress monitoring and assessment tools and are more actively engaged in the language arts curriculum through use of technology during reading centers and activities. If I could extend my research I would definitely reach out to more teachers and school districts in order to acquire a wider range of technology use and district technology support plans to further support my research and provide a higher quality of evidence for my research. If I could recommend changes for my school district as far as their technology use I would revise the district technology plan as it is very outdated and does not correlate with the districts grade level

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3

28

curriculum maps and units of design. I would also suggest that the district support technology integration by allowing more teacher and student access to online learning including website access to Web 2.0 tools that can boost student learning opportunities and teaching practices. However, grassroots efforts are being made and more teachers are asking questions, sharing information and tools and implementing these tools in their language arts instruction. The data in this study on the use of technology to improve students reading success has potential to make positive changes to current teaching practices and district policies. The shared researched literature findings provided in this study and the grassroots efforts already being made by teachers can expand into a renewed district policy of technology integration that improves the overall academic mission of the district and overall student reading success.

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3

29

References Anderson, M.A. (2010). Expanding the power of primary resources: with web 2.0 (The Media Center). Multimedia & Internet @ Schools. 17(4), 36. Retrieved fromhttp://0web.ebscohost.com.maurice.bgsu.edu/ehost/detail?sid=b006d 8594e0867dd39366924141%40sessionmgr113&vid=1&hid=108&bdata=J nNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=iih&AN=52707160 Banister, S. (2008). Web 2.0 tools in the reading classroom: Teachers exploring literacy in the 21st century. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 109-116. Retrieved from http://www.sicet.org/journals/ijttl/issue0802/4_2_3_Banister.pdf Dunn, J. (2012). The current state of literacy in america. Edudemic. Retrieved from http://edudemic.com/2012/11/the-current-state-of-literacy-in-america/ Larson, L. (2009). Ereading and eresponding: new tools for the next generation of readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 53(3), 255-258. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25614554 N Rochell (2009, March 3). Moving a district to engage in web 2.0 teaching and learning. International Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved from http://blog.iste.org/moving-a-district-to-engage-in-web-2-0-teaching-and-

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3 learning/ Schrum, L. & Solomon, G. (2007). Web 2.0: new tools, new schools. International Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/images/excerpts/newtoo-excerpt.pdf Serafini, F. (2012). Reading workshop 2.0: childrens literature in the digital age.

30

DOI: 10.1002/TRTR.01141. The Reading Teacher. 66(5), 401. Retrieved from http://0journals.ohiolink.edu.maurice.bgsu.edu/ejc/article.cgi?issn=00340 561&issue=v66i0005&article=401_rw2clitda Wells, B. (2012). Web 2.0, blended learning, wikis, and more? Tech & Learning. Retrieved from http://www.guide2digitallearning.com/teaching_learning/web_20_blended _learning_wikis_and_more Young, S. (2007). Digital-age literacy for teachers: applying technology standards to everyday practice. International Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/excerpts/DALITT-excerpt.pdf

Running Head: INCORPORATING WEB 2.0 TOOLS IN K-3

31