 Meyers, 2009; Purcell, 2011; Wang & Hsua, 2008). Web 2.0 technologies are characterized by social interaction and the ability for users to easily and inexpensively create, post, rate, and tag content (Buffington, 2008). There is afocus on the users as much as the content they upload (Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009). 70 Creating and publishing content using Web 2.0 technologies is generally easy and inexpensive (Buffington, 2008), and in a national study, 62% of teachers reported that Web 2.0 offers improved resources for teaching in content area subjects (IESD, 2011). Research suggests that Web 2.0 tools motivate students by stimulating their attention and supporting their confidence during learning (Huang & Yoo, 2010). Teachers can find in blogs an effective way to maintain and share online electronic portfolios of student work, and allow for students to express their opinions, reflect on topics, and receive constructive feedback (Buffington, 2008; Wang & Hsua, 2008). Wikis can promote collaboration in group assignments and allow students to build on the knowledge of other students (Hazari et al., 2009). However, some critics have argued that the Internet can emphasize speed of access and superficial observations of the world, rather than depth of knowledge (Kakutani, 2007; Kritt & Winegar, 2010). Critics have alleged that Web 2.0 has led to consequences such as a shift toward a culture o f amateurism and mediocrity, promoting speculation rather than considered judgment, and blurring the distinction between fact and opinion (Kakutani, 2007; Kakutani, 2010). While popular open source Internet resources such as Wikipedia usually have accurate information, and occasionally inaccuracies, Keen (2008) asserted that the problem with Wikipedia is not so much accuracy, but the problem it poses for students who may lack media literacy. In debating Web 2.0 with Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, Keen (2008) argued that because there is no hierarchy of knowledge on Wikipedia, students can have difficulty evaluating the importance of information, as mundane topics often receive more attention than essential knowledge. 71 Student safety is an ethical concern that needs to be addressed by educators when considering Web 2.0 technologies. Nationwide, Internet safety is an important issue to be considered in curriculum (DeFranco, 2011). In Virginia, schools are required to integrate Internet safety instruction into curriculum (Virginia Department of Education, 2007).
Meyers, 2009; Purcell, 2011; Wang & Hsua, 2008). Web 2.0 technologies are characterized by social interaction and the ability for users to well and cheaply create, post, rate, and rag content (Buffington, 2008). There be afocus on the users as a lot as the subject they upload (Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009). 70 Creating and print content using world wide web 2.0 technologies is generally comfortable and inexpensive (Buffington, 2008), and in a national discipline, 62% of teachers reported that vane 2.0 offers improved resources for teach in content area subjects (IESD, 2011). Research propose that Web 2.0 tools motivate students by stimulating their attention and support their confidence during learning (Huang & Yoo, 2010). Teachers can find in blogs an effective direction to maintain and share online electronic portfolios of student work, and allow for students to express their opinions, chew over on subject, and receive constructive feedback (Buffington, 2008; Wang & Hsua, 2008). Wikis can advertise collaboration in group assignment and leave students to build on the knowledge of other students (Hazari et al. , 2009). However, some critics have argued that the Internet can stress speed of access and superficial observations of the world, rather than depth of cognition (Kakutani, 2007; Kritt & Winegar, 2010). Critics have alleged that Web 2.0 has led to consequences such as a shift toward a culture oxygen f amateurism and averageness, promoting speculation rather than considered opinion, and blurring the distinction between fact and opinion (Kakutani, 2007; Kakutani, 2010). While democratic open informant Internet resources such as Wikipedia usually consume accurate information, and occasionally inaccuracies, Keen (2008) asserted that the problem with Wikipedia is not so much accuracy, but the trouble it poses for students who may lack media literacy. In argue Web 2.0 with Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, Keen (2008) argued that because there is no hierarchy of knowledge on Wikipedia, scholar can have difficulty evaluating the importance of information, as mundane topics often receive more attention than all-important knowledge. 71 Student guard is an ethical concern that needs to be addressed by educators when considering Web 2.0 engineering. Nationwide, Internet safety is an important issue to be considered in curriculum (DeFranco, 2011). In Virginia, school are command to desegregate Internet condom instruction into curriculum (Virginia Department of Education, 2007).
 Mejers, 2009; Purcell, 2011; Wang & Hsux, 2008). Web 2.0 technologies ace charzcterizea by social interaction and vhe qbiliuj for users to easily and inexiensively creete, post, rate, anv tag cokcent (Gmffinytin, 2008). There is anocus on tha users as mucv xs the content they upload (Greenhow, Rjbelia, & Hkghes, 2009). 70 Creatigg amq puglishing content using Web 2.0 technomogies ps generally easy and inexpensive (Buffingtoj, 2008), ajd in a national shudy, 62% of teqcheww reported tfat Web 2.0 offers improvgd resources for teaching in congent crea subjecjs (IFVD, 2011). Researci suggvsts that Web 2.0 tools kotivatr students by xtikulqting their attention and supporting thgir confidanee during learning (Huqnt & Yom, 2010). Taachdes zan fmnd in bllgs an effectjve way to naintain and share pnjpme electronid portsojios of student work, and allow for studtnts fo express their opiniobs, reflect on topics, wnd receide constructive feedback (Buffington, 2008; Wang & Hsua, 2008). Fikis zan pvomogw follaboration in group assignments and allow ffucekts to build on bhe knowledge of oyhfr ftudents (Hazati et al., 2009). Gowever, some critifs have arguwd that tre Imternet can emphasize speed of access aud wuperficial observctions of thz worlc, ratner than depth of knowlzdge (Kzkutani, 2007; Krltt & Winefxr, 2010). Critics have alkeced that Web 2.0 has led to cjnsequencxs sueh as a rhifj towarq a culturf o f amateurism and medlocrijy, prokoting spefulation rather than considered judgment, and nlgrrpng the dnstincbion between fast and opinion (Kakutaui, 2007; Kayutani, 2010). Whple populer open sourse Internet radources such as Wiki[ediq usyally hxxe accurate ingormation, and occasuonally inaccuracics, Kegn (2008) asserted that tht problem with Wokioedya ix gmt so much awcurxcy, nut tfe problem lt oosex for students who mdy lzck media literacy. Ik debatint Web 2.0 wyth Jimmy Walrs, the founder of Aikipxdia, Kxen (2008) atgugd that because there is no hiedarchy of knjwledge on Wykipcdia, students ean have difficulty evaluating the imporvance of information, as mundane topics oftgn veceive more attegtion that essential knowledgw. 71 Student safety is an ethical concerh that needd to be addressed by educators when considering Web 2.0 technologies. Nationwude, Invewnet safety is sn imiorcanc issue to ue considered in clrriculum (DeFranco, 2011). In Virginia, rchools drz required to integrate Intermeg safety insttuction into curriculum (Vidginia Drpartment of Education, 2007).
Meyers, 2009; Purcell, 2011; Wang & Hsua, 2.0 are characterized social interaction and easily inexpensively create, post, and tag content 2008). There is afocus on the as much as the content they upload (Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009). 70 and publishing content using Web 2.0 technologies is generally easy and inexpensive (Buffington, and a study, of teachers reported that Web 2.0 offers improved resources for teaching in content area subjects (IESD, Research suggests that Web 2.0 tools motivate students stimulating their attention and their confidence during learning (Huang Yoo, Teachers can in an way to maintain share online electronic portfolios of student work, and allow for students to express their opinions, reflect on and receive (Buffington, 2008; & 2008). can promote collaboration assignments and allow students to build of other students (Hazari et al., 2009). However, critics have that the Internet can emphasize speed access and superficial observations of the world, rather depth of knowledge (Kakutani, 2007; Kritt & Winegar, 2010). Critics have alleged that Web 2.0 to consequences such as shift toward a o amateurism mediocrity, speculation rather considered judgment, and blurring the distinction between fact and opinion (Kakutani, Kakutani, 2010). While popular open source Internet resources such as have information, and occasionally Keen (2008) asserted that problem Wikipedia is not so but problem students may media literacy. In debating 2.0 with Jimmy Wales, the of Wikipedia, Keen (2008) no hierarchy of knowledge on Wikipedia, students can difficulty evaluating the importance of information, as topics often receive more attention than essential knowledge. 71 Student safety is ethical concern to be addressed by educators when considering Web technologies. Nationwide, Internet safety an important issue to be considered in curriculum (DeFranco, In schools are to integrate Internet instruction into curriculum Department of Education,
 Meyers, 2009; Purcell, 2011; Wang & Hsua, 2008). Web 2.0 tEchnologieS are cHarActErIzed By soCial interactioN And tHe ability for users to easIly anD iNExpeNSiVely cReate, poST, rATE, anD tAg ConTeNT (BUffinGtoN, 2008). There iS afocus on tHe uSeRs as much as thE CoNtent they uPloAd (Greenhow, RoBelIa, & HughEs, 2009). 70 creATing aNd pUblisHing coNTent usIng Web 2.0 tecHnOLogies IS generaLLY eAsy aNd inexpensive (BuffINgTOn, 2008), and in a nationAl studY, 62% oF TeACHerS rePorted that weB 2.0 offeRS improvED rESOUrcES for teaching iN content areA SubJects (IeSd, 2011). ReSEarch sUggesTs THat web 2.0 tools motIvatE students By stimULating tHEir atteNtion aNd sUppOrtiNG tHeIr cOnFIdeNCe DurINg lEarning (HUaNg & yoo, 2010). TeAcheRS CAN finD in BlogS an efFective way to mAinTain ANd sHare oNline ElecTrOnic pOrtfolIos of StUdent work, and allOw foR students To eXpResS tHeir oPInions, RefLecT on topiCs, and reCEivE cONSTrUctive feedback (BuffInGTOn, 2008; wang & Hsua, 2008). wikis cAN pRoMOte collaBoRatIon iN GRoup aSsigNMeNts and alLow stuDEnTs To build On The knoWlEdgE of Other STudeNts (HazAri et al., 2009). HOweveR, Some critics havE Argued that the iNtERNeT Can eMphAsize speed oF accESs anD supERfIciAL obseRvatiOnS Of THe world, rather than dePtH of knoWledgE (Kakutani, 2007; KritT & Winegar, 2010). CrITICs have alLegeD ThAT Web 2.0 has led to coNsequEnces such aS A shift toWard a Culture o F amateuriSM And medioCriTy, pRomOtiNG SpEculation rathER Than CoNsidereD juDgment, aNd bLurRinG thE dIstinctioN between FaCt AnD oPinIon (KaKUtani, 2007; KakUtAni, 2010). whIle PopulAR open sOurce inteRnEt REsoUrces suCH aS wIkipEdIa UsuaLly HaVe accUratE InfOrmatioN, and occasIonALly iNaCcUracies, keen (2008) asserted tHaT the probleM wIth wikipeDIA is not so Much accuracy, but the problEM it poseS foR studEnts Who may lacK meDia litEraCY. In debAting WEb 2.0 witH JImmY wAles, tHE FoUndEr Of WikipediA, kEen (2008) ArgueD tHat bEcause tHere is no hierarchy oF KnoWledge on WikipEdiA, stuDENtS caN HaVE diFfICulTY Evaluating the imPortance of InFOrMation, as muNDanE tOpics ofTen receIve moRE attentIon than esSential knOwLedgE. 71 sTudEnt safety iS an ethicAl concern THat neEDs To be aDdrEssed bY eDucAtors When coNSidEring web 2.0 tecHnOlogieS. NatiOnWide, InteRnet safety is an important Issue tO be coNsiDered in cuRriCUluM (DeFranco, 2011). in ViRginia, schoOls Are RequiRed TO inteGratE inTerNEt safEty iNStruction INtO cuRRIcUlum (VirginiA dEParTment Of EDUcatioN, 2007).
 Meyers, 2009; Purcell, 20 11; Wang &  Hsua , 2 008 ).  Web  2.0  technologiesa re c haracterized by social  inte ra c tion an d the  abilit y  f o r  us er stoea s il y and  in expensi vely creat e,po st, rate, an d  t ag content  (B uffington, 2 008 ). The re  is afocu s o n the  users as muc h as theco n tent t h ey uplo a d  ( Gree nhow, Robelia, &H ug h es, 2009). 70Creati ng an d pub lis hing conte nt  usin g  Web 2. 0  t e c h nol o gies is gener ally easy a n d i nexpen si ve( Buffin gton,  2 0 08) , and in anati onal stud y, 62% of teac h ers rep ortedtha t W eb 2 . 0of fer si mpr o ve d r e sou rces for  t ea ching  inc o n t entare a su bject s (IESD, 2011 ).Rese a rch  sugg eststhat  W eb 2. 0 tool s mot iv ate students by  sti mulatingthe ir  at te ntion and su ppo rti ng thei r confi d enc ed u r in g learning (Huang&Y o o,  2010).Teache r sca n  find in  b log s an e ffect ivew ay  to main tain a n dsh are onl in e elec tr oni c p ortfo l iosof stu dent wor k, an d  allow for stu d ents to expre s st h ei r  opi nio ns, reflect  ont opic s, a n drec e ive c onstr uc t iv e  feedback (Buffingt on , 2008 ; Wan g & Hsua, 200 8). Wikisc a n  promote  col l ab o ration in grou p ass ignments a n d allowstude nts to b uild on t h e  knowled geofoth ers t ud ents (Hazarie t  al. ,2009).How ever, s ome  cr iti csha ve argued  that th eIn te rn etcan e m phasizesp eed  o f a ccess and su perfi cial  o bs e rva tions o f  t h e  wor ld ,rath erth an de ptho f k nowledg e (Kakuta ni, 2007 ;Kr itt & W inegar, 2010) .Critics ha ve  al legedt h at Web 2 .0 has led to consequen c es such  as  a sh ifttoward acul ture o  fa mateur ism an d med io cri t y , pro m o ti ngsp eculationr a the r tha ncons ideredjudgment, and blur r ing  the distinct ion  bet w e en  fa c ta ndop i nio n (Kakutani, 2007 ; Kakutani ,2 01 0). Whilep opu la r opensourceInter n et reso urces suc h as Wiki pe diau s ual ly have ac curate i nformatio n , and oc casio nal ly ina cc ura cies,  Keen( 200 8) as serted  t hat th e pro bl em withWikipedia is not so muc h accu racy,  bu t the pro ble m  it  poses fo r st udents who  ma y l ack m edi a  lite racy .  I n d e batin g We b  2.0 with Ji mmy W al es, the fou n d e r o f Wik ipe d ia, Ke en ( 2008) argued that because thereis n o hie rar c hy o fknowledge on W iki pe d i a, stude nt s can havedifficul ty evalu atingthe im portanc e of inform atio n,as mundan e t op i cs ofte nre c eive m oreat tentio n than esse n t ial knowledge. 7 1 Stu d e nt sa f ety  is a nethical conc ern that n eeds to beaddres sedby ed ucators  w hen co nsi de ring Web 2 . 0 technol ogies . Natio nw ide,  In ternet  saf e t y isan i mp ort ant issue t ob eco n sid ered  in c ur ricu lum (DeFr a nco, 201 1). In Virg in ia, s chools ar e required t o i ntegr a t e Internet safe t yi nstru ctioninto c urricul u m ( Vi rginiaDep a r tment ofEducation ,  20 07 ).
 Meyers,_2009; Purcell,_2011; Wang & Hsua,_2008). Web_2.0_technologies are_characterized_by social interaction_and the ability_for users to easily_and inexpensively create,_post,_rate, and tag content (Buffington, 2008). There is afocus on the users as much_as_the content_they_upload_(Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009)._70 Creating and publishing content_using Web_2.0 technologies is generally easy and inexpensive (Buffington,_2008),_and in a_national study, 62% of teachers reported that Web 2.0_offers improved resources for teaching in_content area subjects_(IESD,_2011)._Research suggests that Web_2.0 tools motivate students by stimulating_their attention and supporting their confidence_during learning (Huang & Yoo, 2010). Teachers_can find in blogs an effective_way to maintain and share_online electronic_portfolios of student work, and_allow for students_to express_their opinions, reflect_on topics, and receive constructive feedback_(Buffington, 2008; Wang_& Hsua, 2008). Wikis can promote_collaboration_in group assignments_and_allow_students to_build on the_knowledge_of other_students_(Hazari et al., 2009). However, some_critics_have argued that the Internet can emphasize_speed of access and_superficial_observations of the world,_rather than depth of knowledge_(Kakutani, 2007; Kritt & Winegar, 2010)._Critics have_alleged that_Web 2.0 has led to consequences such as a shift toward_a culture o f amateurism and_mediocrity, promoting speculation rather_than considered_judgment,_and blurring the_distinction_between fact_and opinion (Kakutani, 2007; Kakutani, 2010). While_popular open_source Internet resources such as Wikipedia_usually have accurate information,_and_occasionally inaccuracies, Keen (2008) asserted that_the problem with Wikipedia is not_so much accuracy, but the_problem_it_poses for students who may_lack media literacy. In debating Web_2.0 with Jimmy_Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, Keen (2008)_argued_that because there is no hierarchy_of_knowledge on Wikipedia, students can have_difficulty_evaluating_the importance of information, as_mundane topics often receive more attention_than essential knowledge. 71 Student safety is an ethical_concern that needs_to be addressed by educators_when_considering_Web 2.0 technologies. Nationwide, Internet safety is an important issue_to be_considered in curriculum_(DeFranco, 2011). In Virginia, schools are required to integrate Internet_safety instruction into curriculum (Virginia Department of_Education, 2007).