Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
Secondary Writing Instruction
and Assessment Since NCLB: A
Review of the Literature as it
Relates to Technology Matthew U. Blankenship, M.Ed.Erin E. Margarella , M.Ed., M.A.Jenifer J. Schneider, Ph.D.
Why technology is important; a case study
of relevance…Twitter in the Classroom
Objectives
Determine how technology has influenced writing instruction in the secondary classroom since the implementation of NCLB in 2002.
Determine how technology has influenced writing assessment in the secondary classroom since the implementation of NCLB in 2002.
Methods Database search
ERIC
Education Full Text
Hand SearchWritten Communication
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Education
Delimitations: Only student writing and technology
Only studies conducted in the US
Only middle and high school students
Search cut off 2002 NCLB- March 2012
Research in Peer Reviewed Journals
Data SourcesMeans
Search Terms# of Hits
# of Usable
HitsWhy Eliminated?
Database Search of Educatio
n Full Text
“Writing + assessment + technology + secondary”
1 1 N/A
“Writing + assessment + technology + high school”
4 01 repeat, other three focused
on behavior
“Writing + assessment + technology + middle school”
0 0 N/A
“Writing + Instruction+ technology + secondary”
11 7Countries outside of US,
elementary studies
“Writing + Instruction+ technology + high school”
13 8Repeat studies, countries
outside of US
“Writing + instruction+ technology + middle school”
10 5 Repeat articles
Database search of ERIC
“Writing + assessment + technology + secondary”
24 11
Outside of US, secondary research questions, teacher
writing, professional development.
“Writing + assessment + technology + high school”
10 11 repeat, outside US, college students, in service teachers
“Writing + assessment + technology + middle school”
3 2 Teacher focused
“Writing + Instruction+ technology + secondary”
19 4Outside US, Teacher focus,
elementary
“Writing + Instruction+ technology + high school”
1 0 Pre-service teachers
“Writing + instruction+ technology + middle school”
4 0College students and learning
disabilities
Data Sources Cont.Means
Focused Key Terms Year# of
Articles
Hand
Search of “Written Communicatio
n”
Writing instruction+ technology + secondary OR
high school OR middle school
20-02 – 2006 0
2007 1
2008 4
2009 0
2010 2
2011 – 2012 0
Writing + assessment+ technology + secondary OR
high school OR middle school2002 – 2012 0*
* Going to revisit for closer look
46 total articles reviewed
Framework for Article Examination
Tenets of Writing to Learn
Writing is a social act; talk is part of the process
Writing is a process; there are many writing processes
We get better at writing by writing
To invest in writing, students need choice, response, and time
Clear, logical writing reflects clear, logical thinking. Because students think in all content areas, it follows that students should write in all content areas
Writing is communication; the ability to communicate is essential
Fluency must be developed before clarity; clarity (control) must be developed before accuracy and correctness (precision). Writers need to get it down before they worry about getting it right.
(Graves, 1994)
Tenets of Technology Use to Support Learning
Classroom instruction and information management can be strengthened through the efficient use of technology
Technology can support student learning
The information explosion requires that appropriate changes in curriculum and instructional delivery take place
Students need to know how to access and select from the avalanche of information to help them solve problems
Technology can and should facilitate the rethinking and the restructuring of what takes place in the classroom
(Nicolini, 2007)
Instructional Results
Instructional Results
3 Main ThemesTechnology can improve writing and overall student expertise
Technology can support writing through social interaction and increase levels of motivation
Technology can promote a deeper level of understanding and discourse within and among students
Instructional ResultsTechnology can improve writing and overall student expertise
Unmediated Primary Source Examination (Harris, 2002)
Access has traditionally been very limited
Helps support, but not rely on the textbook
Analytic writing is supported (Fasulo, Girardet, & Pontecorvo, 1998)
Expert vs. Novice paradigm (Wineburg, 1991)
“Teachers can help create environments where students can be researchers and creators of products for reports, becoming experts in certain subjects” (Wissick, 1996).
Instructional Results
Multimedia Support of Writing Through Social Interaction
Social construction of learning through community and collaboration (Vygotsky, 1962, Graves, 1994)
Students gain a sense of independence and remain motivated to engage in the writing process as they work in a multimedia environment (Faux, 2005)
Multimedia pictures, sound, and text
Aural interaction (Rao, Dowrick, Yuen, 2009)
Instructional Results
Crossing Boundaries
When students cross borders to collaborate, they pool their expertise and knowledge, generating new knowledge and developing more complex understandings of their topic of study (Moje et al, 2004)
Strengthening social connections
3rd Space (Bhabaha, 2004)Transdiscplinarity
Bringing “out-of-school” literacy into school (Tarasiuk, 2010)
Assessment Results
Assessment Results
Technology is infused in special education writing assessment and embedded within instruction (Rao, Dowrick, Yuen & Boisvery, 2009; Lee, 2008).
Technology is found to be a motivator for students to complete work and improve work (Dikli, 2006; Gibbons, 2010; Kinzer, 2010; Wolsey & Grisham, 2007).
Technology can provide efficient means to provide feedback to students (Grimes & Warschauer, 2010; Horkay, Bennett, Allen, Kaplan & Yan, 2006; Krucli, 2004; Landauer, Lochbaum & Dooley, 2008).
Technology Infused with varying populations
“Computers, and their multimedia functions in particular, allow students to access and interact with information … with their area of strength” (Rao, Dowrick, Yuen & Boisvery, 2009, p. 29).
“As stated in the teacher interviews, teams in general learned to write with more clarity and meaning” as measured by a rubric (Rao, Dowrick, Yuen & Boisvery, 2009, p. 36).
Greater learning occurs when technology infused with directed vocabulary instruction through extended writing, as much as a 90% increase (Lee, 2008)
“Two teachers noted in interviews that it is easier to see benefits with students at the lower end of the grade spectrum (ELL and special education students) than with honors students (Grimes & Warschauer, 2010, pg. 24)
Technology as a Motivator
“Provides immediate scoring and diagnostic feedback … that motivates them to continue writing on the topic to improve” (Dikli, 2006, p. 18).
Assessments can incorporate a real audience to increase motivation through technology (Gibbons, 2010). In addition, technology affords the opportunity to “post their best work because it would be read by so many people across the World Wide Web and not just a few people in their classroom (Gibbons, 2010, pg. 37).
“It also appears that online activities are highly motivating and compete favorably with required work assigned by schools” (Kinzer, 2010, pg. 54). However, Kinzer (2010) warns of overuse in the classroom will eliminate the motivating assessment effect.
Efficient Means for Feedback
“Automated writing evaluation (AWE) software has been promoted as a way to remove the bottleneck” and partially succeeds at accomplishing this goal (Grimes & Warschauer, 2010, pg. 4).
“Auto text function gives [the teacher] the ability to prewrite my most frequently used feedback comments and then copy and save them for future use” (Krucli, 2004, pg. 48). Also offers quick and timely delivery of information to students (Krucli, 2004).
“Advances in assessment technologies are affording teachers and students new ways to efficiently assess and track achievement” (Landauer, Lochbaum & Dooley, 2008, pg. 44).
Implications and Significance
Significance for Classroom Teachers
Technology can be used to support a variety of writing activities, but must be well supported by the teacher (Harris, 2002)
Technology use for instruction must serve a clear purpose for learning (Inman, 2006, Jeffs, Morrison, Messenheimer, Rizza, and Banister, 2003)
Social construction of new knowledge. Peers and teachers work as coaches in the ZPD.
Significance Researchers and Policy
MakersFor researchers
More systematic study is needed in multiple contexts. Majority of the assessment research is qualitative in nature except when looking at computerized programs and human comparisons.
For policy makersMore money is needed to supply schools and teachers with appropriate technology and sustained professional development.
Comments
ReferencesApplebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruction in middle schools and high schools. English Journal, 100(6), 14-27.
Barbetta, P. M., & Spears-Bunton, L. A. (2007). Learning to Write: Technology for Students with Disabilities in Secondary Inclusive Classrooms. English Journal, 96(4), 86-93.
Cramer, S. R., & Smith, A. (2002). Technology's impact on student writing at the middle school level. Journal Of Instructional Psychology, 29(1), 3-14.
Dikli, S. (2006). An overview of automated scoring of essays. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5(1), 1-36.
Gibbons, S. (2010). Collaborating like never before: Reading and writing through a wiki. English Journal, 99(5), 35-39.
Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2008). Learning with Laptops: A Multi-Method Case Study. Journal Of Educational Computing Research, 38(3), 305-332.
Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2010). Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of automate. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8(6), 1-42.
References Harris, F. (2002). “There was a great collision in the stock market”: middle school students, online primary sources, and historical sense making {computer file}. School Library Media Research, 5
Hetzroni, O. E., & Shrieber, B. (2004). Word Processing as an Assistive Technology Tool for Enhancing Academic Outcomes of Students with Writing Disabilities in the General Classroom. Journal Of Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 143-154.
Horkay, N., Bennett, R. E., Allen, N., Kaplan, B., & Yan, F. (2006). Does it matter if I take my writing test on compus? An empirical study of mode effects in NAEP. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5(2), XXXX-XXXX.
Inman, J. A. (2006). Technologies and the Secondary School Writing Center. Clearing House, 80(2), 74-76.
inzer, C. K. (2010). Considering literacy and policy in the context of digital environments. Language Arts, 88(1), 51-61.
Krucli, T. E. (2004). Making assessment matter: Using the computer to create interactive feedback. English Journal, 94(1), 47-52.
andauer, T., Lochbaum, K., & Dooley, S. (2008). A new formative assessment technology for reading and writing. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 44-52. doi: 10.1080/00405840802577593
Lee, S. (2008). Beyond reading and proficiency assessment: The rational cloze procedure as stimulus for integrated reading, writing, and vocabulary instruction and teacher–student interaction in ESL. System, 36(4), 642-660. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2008.04.002
ReferencesMontelongo, J. A., & Herter, R. J. (2010). Using Technology to Support Expository Reading and Writing in Science Classes. Science Activities, 47(3), 89-102.
Nicolini, M. B. (2006). Making Thinking Visible: Writing in the Center. Clearing House, 80(2), 66-69.
Olson, M. R., & Truxaw, M. P. (2009). Preservice Science and Mathematics Teachers and Discursive Metaknowledge of Text. Journal Of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(5), 422-431.
Pederson, P. V. (2007). What is measured is treasured: The impact of the no child left behind act on nonassessed subjects. The Clearing House, 80(6), 287-291. doi: 10.3200/TCHS.80.6.287-291
Peng, H., Fitzgerald, G., & Ko Park, M. (2006). Producing Multimedia Stories with ESL Children: A Partnership Approach. Journal Of Educational Multimedia And Hypermedia, 15(3), 261-284.
Perry, B., & Smithmier, M. (2005). Peer Editing with Technology: Using the Computer to Create Interactive Feedback. English Journal, 94(6), 23-24.
Powers, R. A., Craviotto, C., & Grassl, R. M. (2010). Impact of proof validation on proof writing in abstract algebra. International Journal Of Mathematical Education In Science And Technology, 41(4), 501-514.
Rao, K., Dowrick, P. W., Yuen, J. W., & Boisvery, P. C. (2009). Writing in a multimedia environment: Pilot outcomes for high school student in special education. Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(1), 27-38.
References Schillinger, T. (2011). Blurring Boundaries: Two Groups of Girls Collaborate on a Wiki. Journal Of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(6), 403-413.
Seely Flint, A., & Tropp Laman, T. (2012). Where Poems Hide: Finding Reflective, Critical Spaces Inside Writing Workshop. Theory Into Practice, 51(1), 12-19.
Strassman, B. K., & D'Amore, M. (2002). The write technology. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(6), 28-31.
Tarasiuk, T. J. (2010). Combining Traditional and Contemporary Texts: Moving My English Class to the Computer Lab. Journal Of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(7), 543-552.
Weber, D., & Smithmier, M. (2008). Death of the 3″ x 5″ Note Cards. English Journal, 98(2), 37-39.
Witte, S. (2007). “That's online writing, not boring school writing”: Writing with blogs and the Talkback Project. Journal Of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(2), 92-96.
Wilson, E. K., Wright, V. H., Inman, C. T., & Matherson, L. H. (2011). Retooling the Social Studies Classroom for the Current Generation. The Social Studies (Washington, D.C.), 102(2), 65-72.
Wolsey, T. D., & Grisham, D. L. (2007). Adolescents and the new literacies: Writing engagement. Action in Teacher Education, 29(2), 29-38.
