Literacy and Technology Integration in the Classroom Stephanie Ciaravolo
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.
© Copyright 2024