Literacy and Technology
Integration in the
Classroom
Stephanie Ciaravolo
Final Presentation
Table of Contents
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Statement of the problem
Review of the literature
Hypothesis
Method
Results
Discussion
Implications
References
Statement of the Problem
• Pre-service teachers are learning technological tools and
concepts during their education. However, when it comes
time to implement this knowledge there is a lack of ability
of bringing this theory to reality. With an increase of
proper use of technology in the classroom, perhaps student
participation and active engagement will also increase.
Review of the
Literature
Pros
• “Pierson defined technology
integration as teachers utilizing content
and technological and pedagogical
expertise effectively for the benefit of
student’s learning.”
Woodbridge, Techlearning.com
• “Nicaise and Barnes compared technology to a
tool that they used to promote a student centered,
active learning environment”
- Rachel Karchmer
Cons
“Connecting media literacy to the state standards for
subject areas is currently a major challenge of the
media literacy movement”
- Elizabeth Thoman
• “Teachers are not generally prepared to use these
new technologies of literacies or to teach children
how to use them effectively”
- Rachel Karchmer
Theorists
• Lev Voygotsky
– More knowledgeable Other
• Piaget
– Developmental Theory
• Howard Gardner
– 8 Multiple Intelligences
Current Practices
• Internet
• Smart Board
• Electronic Books
Statement of the Hypothesis
• Hr1: Integrating technology in the literacy
curriculum several times a week over a sixweek period to 8 special needs students in
Private School X on Long Island, New York
will increase students interest in literacy and
reading.
Method
•
•
•
•
Participants
– 8 Special Needs Students
Instruments
– Consent forms
– Pre and post surveys
– Demographic survey
Design
– Single group pretest post test design, OXO
– Threats to internal validity: History, Maturation, Instrumentation
– Threats to External Validity: Generalizable conditions
Procedure
Results
Graph 1 is a bar graph representation of the pre survey question
number four “I like using computers to read.”
I like using computers to read
2
Answers 1
Answer
0
Answer
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Student
Graph two is a bar graph representation of the post survey question number four,
“I like using computers to read”.
I like using computers to read
2
answers 1
Answer
0
Answer
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
Student
The correlation of between participants liking to use a computer to read and how often they
read at home is rXY= .23. Although positive, it is not a strong enough correlation to say that
using a computer effects how much a person likes to read.
Chart Title
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
how often I use a computer to
read
Linear (how often I use a
computer to read)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
For this correlation rXY=0. There is no correlation between how many computers are in the
participants’ homes and liking to read using computers
Correlation between how many computers are in participants
homes and liking to read using computers
question 8
2.5
2
How many computers I have
in my home
1.5
1
Linear (How many computers
I have in my home)
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
question 4
2
2.5
Discussion
•
•
•
The results of this study do not support the original hypothesis that integrating
technology in the literacy curriculum will increase students’ interest in reading
and literacy.
“Technology promotes literacy education” (Kaya et al, 2010). However, in this
situation the technology did not promote education. The participants were
interested and asked for more technology, the teacher asked for websites for
where she could find electronic books, however according to the surveys there
was a not a strong enough correlation.
According to Means et al. (1993), and NCATE (1997) “There is research
indicating that the use of new technologies in teaching and learning may
improve student achievement” ( in Karchmer, 2001).
Implications
•
•
•
This study had a very small amount of participants. Due to this, the results may not
show what a larger sample would show. This study should be done again using a much
larger sample size of special education, general education, and gifted and talented
students.
Also, because the study only used special education students, the results do not show
what the results would if there were higher functioning students involved. This would
help generalize the results and get a wider variety of scores. By involving a more diverse
sample, more technology could be implemented into the study and tests could be given
to see if scores improved due to the intervention.
Further research is needed to test the effects of technology as an intervention in literacy.
Although the students reacted well to the intervention, a longer period of time is needed
by the researcher to conduct the study to test the effects on the sample. The study
showed that the students like to read more after the intervention.
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Atherton, J. S., (2009). Learning and Teaching; Piaget's developmental theory. Retrieved from
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/piaget.htm.
Barone, D. and Wright, T., E. (2009). Literacy Instruction with Digital and Media Technologies. The Reading
Teacher, 62(4), 292- 303. Retrieved from JSTOR. DOI:10.1598/RT.62.4.2
Bruce, B. C., and Bishop A. P. (2002). Using the Web to Support Inquiry-Based Literacy Development. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(8), 706 – 714. Retrieved from JSTOR.
Coiro, J. (2003). Exploring Literacy on the Internet: Reading Comprehension on the Internet: Expanding Our
Understanding of Reading Comprehension to Encompass New Literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56(50),
458-464. Retrieved from JSTOR.
Dickinson, D. (2000). How Technology Enhances Howard Gardner’s Eight Intelligences. Retrieved from
http://www.america-tomorrow.com/ati/nhl80402.htm.
Dugger, W. E. Jr., Meade, S. D., Delany, L., & Nichols, C. (2003). Advancing Excellence in Technological Literacy.
Phi Delta Kappa International, 85(4), 316-320. Retrieved from JSTOR.
Gambrell, L. B. (2005). Issues and Trends in Literacy: Reading Literature, Reading Text, Reading the Internet: The
Times They are a’Changing. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 588-591. Retrieved from JSTOR.
DOI:10.1598/RT.58.6
Irving, K. E. & Bell, R. L. (2004). Double Visions: Educational Technology in Standards and Assessments for
Science and Mathematics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 255- 266. Retrieved from
JSTOR.
Karchmer, R. A. (2001). The Journey Ahead: Thirteen Teachers Report How the Internet Influences Literacy and
Literacy Instruction in Their K – 12 Classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(4), 442- 466.
Kaya, M., O’connor-Petruso, S.A. & Girelli-Carasi, F. (2010). Literacy – A Critical Constituent for Successful
Globalization. In O’connor-Petruso, S.A. & Girelli-Carasi, F. (Eds.), Globalization Technology, Literacy &
Curriculum (56-71). Location: New York.
Kim, J. & Anderson J., (2008). Mother-child shared reading with print and digital texts. Journal of Early Childhood
Literacy, 8(2), 213-245. Retrieved from SAGE. DOI 10.1177/1468798408091855
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Larson, L. C. (2008). Electronic Reading Workshop: Beyond Books with New Literacies and Instructional
Technologies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(2), 121-131. Retrieved from JSTOR.
Doi:10.1598/JAAL.52.2.3
Learning Theories Knowledgebase (2010, April). Social Development Theory (Vygotsky). Retrieved from
http://www.learning-theories.com/vygotskys-social-learning-theory.html
Leu, D. J. Jr. (2002). Exploring Literacy on the Internet: Internet Workshop: Making Time for Literacy. The Reading
Teacher, 55(5), 466 – 472. Retrieved from JSTOR.
Leu, D. J. Jr. (2001). Exploring Literacy on The Internet: Internet Project: Preparing Students for New Literacies in a
Global Village. The Reading Teacher, 54(6), 568-572. Retrieved from JSTOR.
Luke, C. (2000). New Literacies in Teacher Education. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43(5), 424-435.
Retrieved from JSTOR.
MacArthur, C. A., Ferretti, R. P., Okolo, C. M., & Cavalier, A. R. (2001). Technology Applications for Students with
Literacy Problems: A Critical Review. The Elementary School Journal, 101(3), 273 - 301
Malloy, J. A. & Gambrell, L. B. (2006). Issues and Trends in Literacy: Approaching the Unavoidable: Literacy
Instruction and the Internet. The Reading Teacher, 59(5), 482 – 484. Retrieved from JSTOR.
doi:10.1598/RT59.5.8
Martin, L. M. (2003). Web Reading: Linking Text and Technology. The Reading Teacher, 56(8), 735- 737. Retrieved
from JSTOR.
Olsen, J. K. & Clough, M. P. (2001). Technology’s Tendency to Undermine Serious Study: A Cautionary Note. The
Clearing House, 75(1), 8-13. Retrieved from JSTOR.
Schmar-Dobler, E. (2003). Reading on the Internet: The Link between Literacy and Technology. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(1), 80-85. Retrieved from JSTOR.
Semali, L. (2003). Ways with Visual Languages Making the Case for Critical Media Literacy. The Clearing House,
76 (6), 271- 277.
•
•
•
Thoman, E. (2003). Media Literacy: A Guided Tour of the Best Resources for Teaching. The Clearing House, 76(6),
278-283. Retrieved from JSTOR.
Watts-Taffe, S., Gwinn, C. B., Johnson, J. B., & Horn, M. L. (2003). Preparing Preservice teachers to integrate
technology with the elementary literacy program. The Reading Teacher, 57(2), 130 –138.
Woodbridge, J. (2004). Technology Integration as a Transforming Teaching Strategy. Technology and Learning.
Retrieved from http://www.techlearning.com/article/2022.