Cory Whyte

ETEC 562 Summer II

August 5, 2016
Article 4 review

Light, D., & Polin D.K. (2010). Integrating Web 2.0 tools into the classroom: Changing
the culture of learning. EDC Center for Children and Technology, p. 1-34.
Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED543171)

This article focuses on a two year investigation of Web 2.0 tools and social
networking technologies that are being used to in teaching and learning. The first year
they studied 12 teachers and the second year, 27. The article is broken into 2 sections.
Part 1 is a summary of the most encountered Web 2.0 tools and part 2 is the themes
and issues found in the use of these tools. Our overall finding is that these tools show
potential to transform many aspects of teaching when web 2.0 teachers are thoughtful
about how they use the tools and they are blended with careful instructional designs.
(p. 3)

The web 2.0 resources that were cited in the article were broken into 4
categories.
1. tools that create or support a virtual learning environment
2. tools that support communication and cultivate relationships
3. resources to support teaching and learning
4. tools enabling students to create artifacts representing what they are learning
More than 60 web 2.0 tools are mentioned, and more than have of the tools are defined
and discussed. I highly recommend reading the entire article. I found some new ideas.

The themes and issues found in this study are in the second section and are
divided into 4 sections as well.
1. creating a virtual classroom
2. usability
3. communication
4. blurring boundaries
This was the part of the article that I enjoyed the most. Hearing how these tools are
actually used in a classroom is very beneficial! The use of virtual classrooms ranged
from teachers that wanted to build community to teachers that were using a virtual
classroom to differentiate learning. Some of the virtual classrooms had passive and
active portions while some had one or the other. My campus is going to be using
Google Classroom this year, so I really read this section carefully. The usability factor
for the tools was looked at next. If a tool is too confusing, or doesnt meet the needs of
the students and teachers, then it is no good to use. One of the biggest challenges in
the usability of web 2.0 tools is not having a log in and password. I can see where that
would be hard to handle, but on the other hand, when my students are issued a
personal iPad, they could use the save the password feature on their device.

The communication aspect was divided into 4 parts as well.

 1. Communication among students
2. Communication between students and teachers
3. Communication with parents
4. Communication among educators
Being able to monitor conversations between students sounds wonderful to me. This is
also a chance to help teach them to be kind to one another. I am always looking for
new ways to communicate with parents. I want them to stay informed of the activities
and learning that is happening in our classroom. Every teacher that I know, just about,
is on some kind of social media site to find new and exciting tools for their classrooms.
Communication is vital to success.

Some of the ideas in the next part of the article have worried me for a while.
Polin and Light state, Issues of privacy, anonymity, tolerance, ownership, and student
voice are complex concerns that teachers must consider when using SNS tools. Most
districts have fairly strict filtering systems, and virtual classrooms are usually not
available to the public. Restricting private online communication between students is
highly suggested in the article. The teacher should mediate any and all
communications between students.

In the conclusion of the article, Polin and Light state, While this study suggests
great potential for these tools, it also demonstrates that careful planning is required to
align instructional activities and the affordances of these tools. This statement is true
for just about everything we use as teachers.