Month: October 2019

In the E-book chapter, The effects of interactive multimedia iPad E-books on preschoolers’ literacy, Strasser & Estevez-Menendez’s study (2015) demonstrates how the use of iPad e-books positively effect students story comprehension, engagement and understanding of vocabulary. Their study examined 2 preschool groups over a 6-week period, one using iPads and one completing the same tasks with paper-based books. Twice a week, students in the control group listened to their teacher read out loud the print book while the iPad group was introduced to corresponding multimedia versions of the book through the iPad. The story was narrated by the app instead of by the teacher. The teacher also demonstrated how app features worked, for example, how touching an object produced the written and spoken name of the object. For data collection and analysis, three types of instruments were designed and the following data were collected: 1) weekly vocabulary assessment tool, 2) weekly story comprehension assessment tools, 3) check list to assess the frequency of observations as well as further, unstructured observations were made throughout the study (Strasser & Estevez-Menendez’s, 2015).

Figure 1. Weekly mean scores of vocabulary assessments by group

 Figure 2. Weekly mean scores for the story comprehension assessments by group

Figure 5. Weekly mean scores of frequency of engagement by group

Through the data it is clear to see that students’ vocabulary, comprehension and engagement was higher in the iPad group when compared to the control group (paper based books). However, I believe that most teachers (myself included) would never just do a ‘dry read through’ of a book and then asses children’s understandings of it. I would provide various activities to help reinforce the concept of the book including using manipulatives, for example, using story workshop for students to practice/play with new vocabulary and their retelling of the story. I think that this may be a limitation of the study because I don’t think it is very realistic to expect students to have a high understanding of a story after 1 read through. I wonder if there were discussions in the control book group and/or if they did any other activities before the assessments. It is clear that the iPad group got to interact with the story more and play with the different features to help them understand the story better.

Strasser & Estevez-Menendez, (2015) also cited research that outlines the potential limitations of touch screen technology:

“Moody and McKenna (2009) asserted that the enhanced interactivity and “edutainment” features provided by e-books became a distraction for young learners in their study, which actually hindered the learning process. In Shamir, Korat and Fellah’s study (2010), the researchers deter- mined that exposure to e-books was beneficial for students’ improvement in vocabulary acquisition and phonological awareness, but only for at risk children with learning disabilities. Moody (2010) also concluded that the use of e-books for sup- porting young children was beneficial, but that the quality of e-books determined this effect. In other words, the use of high quality interactive e- books may support emergent literacy development through scaffolding, while lower quality e-books may be more likely to include distracting anima- tions and sounds unrelated to the story”

Strasser & Estevez-Menendez (2015) consider some of this in their discussion recommendations as they outline the importance of selecting high quality e-books as well as a recommendation for educators to become familiar with the capabilities of the iPad and utilize the Guided Access controls. This allows students to remain focused without accidentally entering other areas of the app intended for adults. In connection to my practice-oriented post this week, here is some more information on Guided Access:

https://www.google.com/search?q=guided+access+on+ipad&rlz=1C5CHFA_enCA838CA838&oq=guided+acse&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.3122j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#kpvalbx=_AHK0XdvJAcO-0PEP5K-puAk20

In conclusion it was interesting to read more information about how iPads can help support literacy in the classroom, as I will be receiving 4 iPads in the near future to be utilized in the afternoons. I will now finish this post with a final quote from the article that resonates with me:

As cited by Strasser & Estevez-Menendez (2015, p. 140) “Although most early childhood experts acknowledge that nothing can replace hands-on activities embedded in real experiences, the use of these devices is offering young children “valuable, authentic learning experiences that supplement traditional developmentally appropriate practice (Geist, 2014, p. 59)”.

References

An, H., Strasser, J., & Estevez-Menendez, M. (2015). The effects of interactive multimedia iPad E-books on preschoolers’ literacy

In the article, New directions for early literacy in a digital age: The Ipad, Flewitt et al. (2015) discuss how iPads offer new opportunities for early literacy learning but also present challenges for teachers and children. In the study, iPads were lent to a Children’s Centre nursery (3- to 4-year-olds), a primary school reception class (4- to 5-year-olds) and a Special School (7- to 13-year-olds). Before the study began, the researches suggested uses for the iPads with staff in pre- and post-interviews. Staff were also observed on how they were using the iPads in their teaching practice over a two-month period. There was variety in how the iPads were used but common findings were that well-planned iPad literacy activities stimulated children’s motivation/concentration as well as chances for communication, collaborative interaction, independent learning, and for children to achieve high levels of accomplishment (Flewitt et al., 2015). It was also found that practitioners valued how the iPads tackled the curriculum in new ways and how they allowed students to become more familiar with touch-screen technologies.

Flewitt et al. (2015) comment on how research evidence has consistently shown that there is uncertainty towards the incorporation of new technologies into early literacy education. As cited by Flewitt et al. (2015), some people enthusiastically embrace new media (e.g. Galloway, 2009), while others argue that it has no place for it in early learning (House, 2012), and/or that certain technologies are developmentally inappropriate and risk exposing children to unsuitable content and uncritical engagement with information (Miller, 2005).

Before this course began, I really questioned the use of technology in Kindergarten, however, my beliefs have been transforming each week as I continue to see the benefits out weighing the negatives and have how using technology can enhance/support student learning. As discussed in the article, these are some factors that practitioners felt hindered them from using technology, including: using a curriculum that focuses on literacy as primarily paper-based, lack of time to explore available digital resources, absence of guidance about the potential of new technologies to promote early literacy and low confidence in using digital devices effectively (Flewitt et al. 2015). I would also add through my experience, a lack of funds and access to technology. This course however, is allowing me to explore supporting research in regards to using technology as well as building my confidence in order to implement it effectively.  Extending from this, my new found knowledge might also help me advocate for technology use at my school as well.

At the start of the case study, “all practitioners recognized the potential of new technologies for learning, yet many also voiced concerns about their potential harm. Some were wary of the addictive and ‘over-stimulating’ nature of digital gaming and felt children were spending ‘not enough time outside… too much time sitting down’” (Flewitt et al. 2015, p. 295). Once again, these perceptions were very similar to mine before beginning this course. A preschool teacher, in the article, also believes that ‘keeping a balance’ between learning activities with traditional and new media, and making the most of technology ‘to enhance teaching’ is important (Flewitt et al., 2015). After teachers had been using iPads in the classrooms for a few weeks, the researchers noticed that most of the teacher’s fears in regards to technology began to subside.

Throughout the study, many of the adults dedicated hours of personal time searching for suitable apps to include in their literacy planning (Flewitt et al., 2015). This is something that my learning pod and I have discussed frequently; finding appropriate apps and sharing them. Perhaps, in the future there could be a resource for learning apps in the BC curriculum to save teachers the time of finding appropriate learning apps. I am grateful for this course, as I have the time to research and explore apps more frequently.

During the study researches also observed how ‘closed content games’ (content could not be changed or extended by the user) were sometimes used effectively to develop learners’ vocabulary or phonics, however, they positioned children as receiving narrowly defined literacy knowledge, rather than as creative producers of original materials. As a result, some children soon grew tired of their repetitive format (Flewitt et al., 2015). In contrast ‘open content’ apps, where users could personalize activities, engaged children more deeply and creatively in learning tasks (Flewitt et al., 2015). In the article, Our Story App, was used as an example of an effective open content app. Here is some information that I found about this app:

Through their research, Flewitt et al. also observed a student that had limited fine motor control becoming more engaged in fine motor tasks by using My Colouring Book Free app to colour in animal-related scenes. Even though the app had ‘closed’ content, it promoted fine motor control, while allowing the boy a degree of creative expression (Flewitt et al., 2015).

Here is a link to more  info on the My Coloring Book Free app:

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/my-coloring-book-free/id378761846

In regards to children’s motivation and independence, staff in all settings commented on how iPads heightened children’s concentration levels, as well as, how children with usually short attention spans persisted for extended periods of time with the iPad (Flewitt et al., 2015). The researchers also noted some of the challenges practitioners faced while using the iPad: spending too many out-of-school hours searching for appropriate apps and planning their use, encountering technical difficulties during lessons, students becoming frustrated if they did not know how to complete activities, as well as unsupervised children seeking possession of the iPad with too many fingers on the screen leading to apps not functioning.

In conclusion, I learned a lot from this article about the benefits of using the iPad to support literacy in my classroom. It has further fuelled my excitement to continue my research!

Photo by Hal Gatewood on Unsplash

References

Flewitt, R., Messer, D., & Kucirkova, N. (2015). New directions for early literacy in a digital age: The iPad. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 15(3), 289-310. doi:10.1177/1468798414533560

This week I narrowed down my inquiry question to: How can iPads be used to support literacy in kindergarten?

In their research, Ya-Huei Lu et al. (2017) discussed how four experienced iPad-using early childhood teachers integrated one-to-one iPads in their literacy instruction. It was discovered that the four teachers used the iPads for both teacher-directed practices (TDP) and developmentally appropriate practices, also known as child-center methods (DAP). TDP focused on using the iPads to practice basic literacy skills in learning stations (for example: drill and practice apps for sight words) while the DAP engaged students in digital productions (for example, creating interactive stories). As cited by Ya-Huei Lu et al. (2017), the findings in their study aligned with Wien (1995) who found that the two approaches are often intertwined in early childhood teachers’ daily instruction.

According to the teachers in the study, TDP with iPads were useful in literacy stations to help keep young students on task, allowed for teachers to differentiate instruction and assess their students (Ya-Huei Lu et al. 2017) while also allowing for small-group instruction (Bates, 2014). The study also found that through DAP with iPads, teachers could incorporate interdisciplinary projects across subject areas. Teachers also invited Big Buddies (grade 5 students) to help their K students with the projects. Ya-Huei Lu et al. (2017) connected the benefits of buddies to previous studies that have found that when older students and younger students work together on literacy tasks, such as reading and writing activities, both groups improve their comprehension process, academic achievement, and attitudes toward school (Lowery et al., 2008).

I enjoyed reading this article because it gave me a glimpse into how kindergarten teachers (in the States) are using iPads to help enhance literacy in their classrooms. It also mentioned some apps that I want to explore: puppet pals, story wheel and balloon sticks. I also liked how the authors connected to how the teachers were using pads to past research on teaching practices and also to the idea that technology can help enhance student learning overall. As I progress in this course, my interest in incorporating technology into my practice has grown significantly!

I want to finish this blog post with an interesting quote I found in the conclusion of the article that gave me a glimpse into ECE settings in the United States:

“Early childhood teachers are expected to spend more time on academic instruction and less time on student-selected activities (Bassok et al., 2016). Using tablet technology and a variety of educational apps within different learning stations or digital production projects allows teachers to balance academic instruction time to meet local or state standards and child-centered activities to support children’s development”.   (Ya-Huei Lu et al. 2017, p.20)

As a teacher in BC, Canada, I feel very lucky that our curriculum has been redesigned to focus less on TDP and more on DAP. I think that there needs to be both however, through reading this article I realized how much the iPad is being used for drill and practice skills in the US as teachers face the demands of standardized testing each year. Perhaps, this is reason to why we find so many drilling types of apps out there?

Practice-oriented connection: Puppet Pals App (mentioned in the article as an app that the teachers used for DAP).

Here is a YouTube video that shows how to use Puppet Pals:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPYbgquL6wk

Here is more information on Puppet Pals, as well as, reviews by teachers:

https://www.commonsense.org/education/app/puppet-pals-hd/teacher-reviews

References

Ya-Huei Lu, Anne T. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, Ai-Chu Ding & Krista Glazewski (2017) Experienced iPad-Using Early Childhood Teachers: Practices in the One-to-One iPad Classroom, Computers in the Schools, 34:1-2, 9-23, DOI: 10.1080/07380569.2017.1287543

This week I was introduced to the Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) Model through my online technology course and through an assigned reading by Hamilton, Rosenburg and Ackeaoglu (2016), The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) Model: A critical Review and Suggestions for its Use. The article describes how the SAMR model is a four-level taxonomy-based approach for selecting, using and evaluating technology in K-12 settings (as cited by Puentedura, 2006). However, through critical analysis and review, Hamilton et al. (2016) outline that there are three major challenges with the model that I will discuss below.

Challenge 1: Absence of Context

• As cited by others in the article, the following contexts are not recognized in the SAMR Model: technology infrastructure and resources, community buy in and support, individual and collective student needs, and teacher knowledge/support for using technology.
• Hamilton et al. 2016 suggest that the SAMR model be revised to include context as a formal aspect of the framework that address learning outcomes, students’ needs and school/community expectations.
• I think this is critical, as context is everything in my teaching practice. Every class that I teach is so different because every child that makes up my class is unique and has varying learning needs. The SAMR model cannot be viewed as a one size fits all approach. As mentioned in the article, the SAMR model has been interpreted in different ways by different people, which I find as an educator, confusing (if I want to use the model as a concrete resource). The authors also outline that there are no theoretical explanations of the SAMR model through peer-reviewed literature.

Challenge 2: Rigid Structure

• The authors outline that within a taxonomy framework, the SAMR model dismisses the complexity of teaching with technology by defining and organizing teachers’ uses of technology in predefined ways. The SAMR model also suggests that teachers more effectively use technology when they enact modification or redefinitions rather than substitution or augmentation. My learning pod and I had an interesting discussion today about this. In Kindergarten and Grade 1, our technology usage reflects more on the substitution and augmentation levels. We think that in order to achieve the higher levels on the SAMR model, we need to teach skills and use technology at the lower levels first with our students. The importance of this type of learning does not seem to be reflected in the SAMR Model, as it seems to value and prioritize getting to the higher levels as soon as you can.
• The article suggests that the taxonomic format be revised to account for the dynamic nature of teaching and learning.

Challenge 3: Product over Process

• The goal of the SAMR model centers on changing a product rather than the learning process. This goal goes against my own teaching pedagogies as I believe that the learning process is more important than the final product, connecting to Salomon and Perkins, 2005 (as cited in the article).
• I also agree with this statement by Hamilton et al. (2016): “…technology plays a role in reaching learning outcomes but as long as objectives are reached, one instructional method or tool is not promoted over others.” As an educator, I try to teach a new concept to my students in many ways. I know that a hands-on activity might connect with some students, however, for other students, seeing a video might connect with them more on a particular concept. Technology can help enhance student learning but should not be promoted as the only/ultimate way to learn for every student.

The article inspired me to think more deeply about the SAMR model and question how it is being used and interpreted. I agree with Hamilton et al. (2016) analysis of the SAMR challenges and limitations. I believe that with more revision, research and supported theories, the SAMR model has the potential to be a more accessible resource for teachers. With my newly gained perspective, I wanted to see how the SAMR model is being used and interpreted out there in the Internet world. One of the first things that came up when I started to Google SAMR was: SAMR and Bloom’s Taxonomy. Here is a video explaining the SAMR model through one perspective and also an article on how the SAMR model connects to Bloom’s Taxonomy:

https://www.commonsense.org/education/articles/samr-and-blooms-taxonomy-assembling-the-puzzle

With my critical analysis lens on, immediately, my next question was: How relevant is Bloom’s Taxonomy in education, today? I then came across this article:

https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning_deeply/2018/03/heres_whats_wrong_with_blooms_taxonomy_a_deeper_learning_perspective.html

Here is an interesting quote by the author of the article post, Ron Berger (2018):

“Almost every educator knows the Bloom’s Taxonomy cognitive framework. The related pyramid graphic has influenced curriculum and instruction since its introduction in 1956 and its revision in 2001. The problem is that both versions present a false vision of learning. Learning is not a hierarchy or a linear process. This graphic gives the mistaken impression that these cognitive processes are discrete, that it’s possible to perform one of these skills separately from others. It also gives the mistaken impression that some of these skills are more difficult and more important than others. It can blind us to the integrated process that actually takes place in students’ minds as they learn”.

This quote draws on some similar connections to Hamilton et al. (2016) critique of the SAMR model as it views the Bloom Taxonomy as rigid (seeing education more as a linear process). This is something I would perhaps be interested in exploring more on another day. It would be important to find relevant, academic sources that critique Blooms Taxonomy use in education, today. As the world changes, so does education!