Viterbo University

Using the Read Write Web to Build Student

Engagement
1 Graduate Credit

Spring 2009

Instructors: Tammy Lind

Location: Ben Franklin Elementary, Franklin School District
Dates & February 16, February 23, March 2, March 9
Times: 4:30-7:30
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 414.331.5294
Availability: Office hours available upon request

Course Description:

The Internet is rapidly changing to include free rich applications that can be used as
powerful learning tools for students. It is now as easy to create information as it is to
consume information. This blended course is designed to be an introduction to the basic
principles and concepts of the Read/Write Web also known as Web 2.0 tools. Web 2.0
tools are often referred to as online collaborative tools. The course will teach participants
the capabilities of Web 2.0 tools, how these technologies interrelate, and applications of
these technologies in a classroom setting.

Objectives:

Upon successful completion of this course, each student should be able to:

Share findings in current educational research that support the use of Web 2.0
applications

Understand and apply the basic principles and concepts of Web 2.0 tools and its
use as a tool for communicating with electronic media

Conceptual Framework:

The Viterbo University Graduate Studies in Education Program has adopted a Teacher As Reflective
Decision Maker Model and the Wisconsin Standards for Teacher Development and Licensure, also known
as INTASC (Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium) Standards. Each course is
designed to contribute to the development of one or more of the WI/INTASC Standards and if applicable,
IRA and/or ISLLC Standards.

Franciscan values permeate the program. The focus of every professional education course is on the
learning of the PK-12 pupil. Viterbo education courses infuse constructivist practices, use of technology,
PK-12 collaboration, awareness of diversity, traditional and authentic assessment, research, and real-world
experiences into the professional development of the teacher.

Methodology:

“Much of what a teacher needs to know (and know how to do) is learned in the context of
practice”(Schlanger & Fusco, 2003). The methodology for this course is situated around
teacher practice. In other words the design of the professional development is not geared
to how to use the technology, but instead on how it can be used to enhance the practice of
teaching and learning.

The course supports educators in the evolution of more constructivist styles of teaching
with technology. Constructivist or student centered teaching environments are strongly
connected to real life and are conducive to incorporating these skills into instruction.
In constructivist teaching pedagogy, the roles of teachers and students change. Teachers
facilitate learning environments in which students construct deep meaning through
solving
problems by building on prior knowledge structures. The following table shows the
differences
between transmission and constructivist teaching styles.
(Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997)

According to Henry, Jenkins, a prominent researcher at MIT, in order for students to be

prepared for the 21st Century they need to be engaged in participatory cultures. “A
participatory culture is a culture with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and
civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing one’s creations, and some type
of informal mentorship whereby what is known by the most experienced is passed along
to novices. A participatory culture is also one in which members believe their
contributions matter, and feel some degree of social connection with one another (at the
least they care what other people think about what they have created (Jenkins, Clinton,
Purushotma, Robison, & Weigel, 2006).

Web 2.0 tools allow students increased engagement and Motivation, a context to
create content with an authentic purpose and audience. These tools also allow for
increased collaboration. Students can connect with peers and experts using the tools of
the 21st century workplace.

(Bjørke, 2004)
(Cole & Engestrom, 1993)
(Cradler, Freeman, Cradler, & McNabb, 2002)
(Dede, 2005)

Americans with Disabilities Act:

If you are a student with a disability and require auxiliary aids, services or other
accommodations for this class, please see the instructor to discuss your accommodation
needs.

Assignments and Requirements:

Web 2.0 Tools: Application & Analysis 50% of Overall Grade

Participants will identify a minimum of two Web 2.0 sites that can applied to their
teaching situation.
Prepare a one page report for each tool with the following headers:
brief descriptor of the tool;
how this site can be adapted to the school setting; individual classroom
setting; any other educational group;
rationale why this specific site will improve students’ knowledge and
communication skills
include advantages and any cautions/preparation that might be needed when
implementing the tool

**Options on how this assignment will be communicated will be discussed in class.

Participation in Course Wiki 25% of Overall Grade
Participants will be required to review current educational research that supports the use
of Web 2.0 tools. Participants will provide one article link for their peers to review. All
links will be posted on the class wiki. The link will also have a brief description to draw
the peer’s attention. Once the articles are posted, the participant will review at least three
articles and write a short reflection on what they have learned to enhance their
understanding of the power of Web 2.0 tools. Article reflections will be shared
documents using Google Docs. Documents will be shared with instructor.

Personal Reflection 25% of Overall Grade

Participants will write a one page reflection on how they can use the Web 2.0 tools in
their personal, professional, and/or academic settings. Reflections will be shared on class
wiki discussion board.

Evaluation Method:

100-93=A 92-91=A- 90-88=B+ 87-85=B 84-82=B-

81-78=C+ 77-75=C 74-70=C- 69-67=D+ 66-64=D
63-60= D- Lower that 60=F

Note: If a student’s work cannot be handed in by March 20, this must be brought to the
attention of the instructor and approved prior to the due date to prevent a lower grade.
Circumstances beyond the control of the student will be considered on an individual
basis.

Wiki article posting and reflection is due by March 20, 2009.

You should have your one article link posted to the wiki by March 2, 2009.

Web 20. Applications & Analysis report is March 20, 2009.

The final reflection is due March 20, 2009.

General Course Expectations

Because of the collaborative nature of this program, it is crucial that students attend the
entire each time that we meet. Active class participation is expected.

It is expected that all work will be turned in or presented on the assigned dates. Any
deviation from the assigned dates must be cleared with the instructor.

Policy on Attendance
Due to the collaborative nature of this course, Attendance is mandatory.

Policy on Late or Missing Assignments

All original course assignments and additional assignments described above should be
completed within the course time limits. Work that is submitted after the course has been
completed is subject to the provision of the policies and procedures relating to
incompletes.

Texts & Readings:

Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting
the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century:
McArthur Foundation.

Jakes, D. (2007). Professional Development and Web 2.0. Retrieved September 3, 2008,
from http://www.techlearning.com/showArticle.php?articleID=196604381

Polin, L. (2007). Teaching the Net Generation: How can Web 2.0 applications find a
home in the classroom without compromising their essential character of engaged
community? Threashold Magazine, Cable in the Classroom, Summer 2007.
Web 2.0 Tools: Application & Analysis Rubric

Purpose: Participants will identify a minimum of two Web 2.0 sites

General Information: The scale ranges from 1 to 4 with 4 being exemplary. If the
student receives a score below 3.5, the instructor will provide specific feedback on
his/her concerns. One re-submit is permissible.

Rubric applies to one Web 2.0. There will be two grades. 25 % for each report.

4 3 2 1
Site has a free to use Site does not have a free It is not clear if the site
Missing this
option to use option. has a free to use option
point.
Url takes you to the Url works however, Url works but no Free
information about the additional information additional information information
site and free option. was unclear. was provided. very hard to
find
How site can be adapted Adaptation is brief and Adaptation is brief or not Unsure this
to specific setting is not tied to a specific tied to a specific setting point was
complete. setting. presented.
Rationale provided how Rationale provided how Rationale provided how Unsure this
students will improve students will improve students will improve point was
knowledge and/or knowledge or knowledge or presented
communication communication communication is not
appropriate for the tool
Advantages of tool is Advantages of tool is Advantages of tool is not Tied to an
appropriate to audience. not tied to a specific clear and/or tied to a audience but
audience specific audience not an
advantage.
Cautions/preparations Cautions/preparations Cautions/preparations are Unsure this
appropriate to audience appropriate to audience not appropriate to point was
is defined is unclear. audience. presented

Missing equals zero points

24-23 = A 22= A- 21= B+ 20= B 19=B-

18= C+ 17= C 16= C- 15= D+ 14= D
13= D- Below 13 = F
 Wiki Participation Rubric
Purpose: This is to provide students with specific feedback on the class wiki activity.

General Information: The scale ranges from 1 to 5 with 4 being acceptable and 5
being exemplary. If the student receives a score below 3.5, the instructor will provide
specific feedback on his/her concerns.

5 3 1 Score
At least 1 Article that At least 1 Articles on No articles or
supports the use of Web 2.0 Educational Technology is resources were
tools is shared on wiki. shared on wiki. shared on the
class wiki.

Chosen article brief Chosen articles brief Chosen articles

description shows a clear description is vague and/or is technology
grasp and synthesis of the is not tied to Web 2.0 tools. but is not tied to
article content course content.
The short reflection is on at Reflection is short but is Reflection is
least three of the articles less than three articles but shared but not
posted and includes how the more than one article. The tied to articles..
information has enhanced reflection includes vague
their understanding of Web on incomplete connections
2.0 tools. to Web 2.0 tools.

Possible Score:

15 points
____________

Missing work equals zero points.

A = 14-15 B+ = 13 B = 12 C+ = 11 C = 10 C- = 9

D = 8 D- = 7 F = Below 6
 Topic: Personal Reflection on Web 2.0 Tools in the Classroom

Acceptable Needs Work Unacceptable

5-4 points 3-2 point 1 points

It is evident that Participant It is difficult to
the participant can identify tell if the
understood the Web 2.0 tool participant
materials shared in and/or some understands Web
this class uses but not 20 tools and their
clearly. possibilities.
Reflection clearly
identified how Participant It is difficult to
they one can identifies tools tell if participant
immediately use however, can see
Web 2.0 tools in a he/she does immediate
personal, not tie to connections.
professional, or immediate use
academic settings. in any area.

Missing work equals zero points.

Total possible points = 10

A 10 A- 9 B 8 C 7

F Lower than 7