Literacy,+Technology,+and+Diversity+-+Teaching+for+Success+in+Changing+Times

Article by: Jim Cummins, Kristin Brown, and Dennis Sayers ED 240 Wiki Group: Yuliya Yevdayeva, Daniel Edwards, Sana Amarith, Erin Lam, and Lauren Litus

Introduction
toc The authors believe that technology can play a major role in promoting literacy among all students and particularly among low-income and minority students.

Despite increasing access to technology by teachers and students, no large-scale improvement in literacy or numeracy has been demonstrated.

The authors assert that the failure to realize the educational potential of technology has much more to do with pedagogy than with technology itself.

> Because drill-and practice transmission pedagogy predominates in schools serving low-income and minority students, computer use tends to conform to the same orientation.

Numerous case studies have documented how various forms of technology can amplify student learning and that low-income students are capable of using technological resources for collaborative critical inquiry when given opportunities to do so.

During the past decade there has been massive worldwide investment in educational technology by governments and the private sector. Two major rationales for this investment: > To promote the development of the kinds of literacy (and numeracy) skills required to function effectively in the global economy and society of the twenty-first century > > To improve traditional learning outcomes for all students, but particularly for low-income and minority students who experience disproportionate underachievement

The authors argue that the major problem in promoting an expanded range of literacy competencies for all students resides in the tension between inquiry-based and transmission-based orientations to pedagogy.

Access to and Use of Technology[[image:ed240s12b/caution great divide.png width="226" height="226" align="right"]]
There is a “digital divide” separating low-income and high-income families.

> Children with are already disadvantaged have the least amount of access to emerging technologies, thus widening the gap even more.

>> //School-age children whose families live in poverty are almost twice as unlikely to use the Internet at home than those from families not in poverty.// >> > Schools are attempting to close some of the gap

>> //Nearly all schools now have wireless access, and most have it in classrooms as well.// >> >> //The student-to-computer ratio has greatly decreased.// >> > … but a wide disparity still remains. > >> //This is increased by the fact that low-income students benefit less academically from home computer use than high-income students.// >> >> //This is likely because teachers assume low-income students do not have access to such technology.// >> > > Low income students are also more likely to be taught lower-level, drill and practice skills on the computer than cognitively demanding tasks. >> //This is correlated with a negative relationship to academic achievement.//

When research was conducted looking at information and communication technologies (ICT) across schools with similar student-to-computer ratios, it was found that low income schools were affected by uneven support networks, students’ irregular home access to computers, and an increased pressure to prepare students for high stakes tests rather than provide innovative learning experiences.

> Interestingly, it was found that schools that did a good job utilizing technology did not have an increase in standardized testing scores. This is believed to be due to a “lack of sensitivity” that current standardized tests of literacy have in regards to what technologies such as laptops can enhance.

__The Apparent Lack of Overall Impact__
Little evidence exists to support that technological instruction improves language learning and learning in general. However, the evidence needs to be examined to refute the “naïve assumption” that technology alone can improve education.

> There are many other non-technology related factors that affect education such as lack of funding, poor facilities, and inadequate teachers.

In a study of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, no significant gains were made in the achievement of 9, 13, and 17-year olds in reading, mathematics, or science during the five years schools received large numbers of computers.

A Rand Corporation study found no gains in literacy from 1990 to 2003 in California.

Access to the internet also showed no gains on achievement.

This data suggests that the acquisition alone of technology in schools and classrooms can improve education is a “naïve assumption.”

To the contrary, two separate studies, a study of Israeli schools and a study implemented by researchers of the University of Munich, suggest that computers may have a negative impact on achievement.

__Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Studies__
Although little evidence exists to demonstrate that large technological investments improve education, there are many small research studies that showed significant gains.

Fletcher’s review of many studies found technology based instructions with effect sizes from .39 to 1.05. An effect size of 1.05 could raise percentile rankings from 50 to 85.

>> //An example of one classroom showing achievement gains from the use of technology:// >> //(specifically watch at 2:15-5:25 and 5:58 to the end if limited on time)// media type="youtube" key="OSJ5LwAXxLk" width="333" height="277" align="center"

After reviewing current literature on the impact of technology on education, researchers agree that broad generalizations on its impact on achievement cannot be made.

Researchers did offer four broad claims:
 * 1) Student attitude towards computer and technology improve as a result of exposure to them.
 * 2) Using technology for group work can be helpful if it is appropriately designed for the age group and task.
 * 3) Technology has a positive impact on teaching complex mathematical concepts to 8th graders and above.
 * 4) Research findings have been flawed and conflicting.

__The Impact of ICT on Reading Development: Meta-Analyses__
The National Reading Panel’s review of research literature found positive results, especially with the use of hypertext and the computer’s ability to turn spoken words into print.

However, they still find little research on the impact of computer on reading development.

Researchers Blok and colleagues found the effect size for beginning reading as minimal and may be attributed to the mere fact that there was intervention as opposed to having none.

Foster asserts that the instruction of beginning reading is more effective with teachers than with computers.

Question: What does research say is the impact of technology on education?

__Research Involving Commercial Programs__
Commercial literacy programs are intended for struggling readers to strengthen reading performance through individually and collectively engaging with technology and technology based assessments. A few examples of technology based literacy programs are Scholastic’s: WiggleWorks, Read180, and Reading Counts!

> Read180 integrates video, leveled books, and individualized computer-supported instruction.

Independent researchers are less positive in assessments of commercial products than the products company.

> Scholastic conducted an impact study for ELL students using Read180 that reported “strong gains” in reading performance. The problem is that independent evaluators are not the ones conducting the study and companies like Scholastic are benefiting from the positive findings. > > A study published by Scientific Learning about the commercial product Fast ForWord stated that the program may improve some aspects of students’ language skills but do not translate to increased achievement in reading ability.

__Motivation__
The question: Are student gains in computer-supported environments due to intrinsic features of the hardware and software or is technology simply motivating and engaging students?

> A two-year study that surveyed over 800 ESL teachers and extensive observation of two classrooms, Meskill and Mossop (2000) reported evidence of increased motivation for learning because of the use of technology. > > A study by McMillan and Honey (1993) found that a class of 8th grade students who were given a laptop for an academic year improved their ability to communicate persuasively in writing, organize ideas, and use a board vocabulary effectively.

__The Issue of Cost Effectiveness__
The questions: Are commercial computer programs cost-effective for school districts? Are these programs more effective than simple non-technology based programs that focus on creative teaching?

> The commercial computer programs are effective but expensive. > > These programs are designed for reading and learning disabilities, ELLs, and underachieving students.

Stephen Krashen’s critique of commercial computer literacy programs:

> They are successful only because they provide students the opportunities and encouragement to read extensively. > > Krashen believes that the same success can be achieved through silent reading and that school districts should be spending money on books and not fancy computer programs that cost much more.

Design Principles for Technology-Supported Instructions
Optimal learning environment ought to promote deep understanding, build on learners prior knowledge, promote active and self-regulated learning

> Learning will be augmented when supported by a meaningful learning community

__The Problem with EL Students__ Research suggests that EL and low income students have difficulty reading to learn. Students need to read extensively and have instruction specifically focused on helping them develop reading comprehension. > > The issue: “What software programs or technology-supported learning activities will promote (1) deep understanding, build on learners’ prior knowledge, and permit learners to control the learning process, and (2) engage learners in extensive reading, support them in accessing auricular content, and enable them to harvest the language they are reading?” (Cummins, Brown, & Sayers 2011). > > Technology can play a central role helping students with this, but there are criteria on which to judge such software.

Wood identified five criteria for evaluating software products designed to aid in vocabulary instruction:
 * 1) Does it relate the new to the known?
 * 2) Does it promote active, in-depth processing of new words?
 * 3) Does it provide multiple exposures to new words?
 * 4) Does it teach students to be strategic readers?
 * 5) Does it promote additional reading?

Research found that many software products do not do much more than simple drill-and-practice.

Cummins, Brown, & Sayers (2011) propose six design criteria:
 * 1) Does it provide cognitive challenge and opportunities for deep processing of meaning?
 * 2) Does it relate instruction to prior knowledge and experiences derived from students’ homes and communities?
 * 3) Does it promote active self-regulated collaborative inquiry?
 * 4) Does it promote extensive engaged reading and writing across the curriculum?
 * 5) Does it help students develop strategies for effective reading, writing, and learning?
 * 6) Does it promote affective involvement and identity investment on the part of students?

This doesn’t occur in simple transmission-style teaching. Social constructivist orientations allow more for more challenging tasks that require students to read, write, and think critically, which aids in students learning.

Mindtools – Using technology to support student learning in which students learn with, not from. Key dimensions: engagement, generativity, and control

These principles are ways to evaluate programs and plan how to implement new technology-supported learning.