Download HenrySpr15

Engaging Middle School Students in Digital Literacy
Dr. Janine Fisk, Nicole Brown, Claire Henry, Tess Schmeling, Kayla Servais, and Sierra Snapp
Education Studies, University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire
Context
Context
Looking at the current research on engagement it is
known that students are most engaged in authentic
tasks that include choice and control. Many outside
factors effect a student’s engagement in school. Ryan
and Patrick (2001) identified that students’ perceptions
of teacher support, interaction and mutual respect
created positive changes in motivation and
engagement. Furrer and Skinner (2003) emphasized
students need to feel connected to their peers and
teachers. Students who could relate to their
environment were more likely to be engaged. Meece et
al (1988) supports the cognitive mediation models of
motivation that emphasize students having an active
role in their learning environment. Patrick et al (1993)
concluded that students are motivated in situations
where they feel they have a sense of control. This
perceived control motivates them to be engaged in the
classroom. Skinner et al (2008) affirms the dynamics of
engagement, showing that students will sustain
participation in environments where they have vested
interest and emotion. Marks (2010) shows authentic
instructional work contributes to student engagement in
the classroom. Students were engaged when they felt
that the work was challenging and also had implications
and meaning to their life outside the classroom. In terms
of engagement with reading, Guthrie and Wigfield
(2000) found that engagement increased when students
had clear directed goals, some choices in the reading
and real world experience related to the goal.
While not much is known about technology's role in
engagement and motivation, Conradi (2014) concludes
that technology has the potential to motivate students
but it is not guaranteed. It matters how the technology is
actually being used in the classroom. For example,
technology is social (wikis, blogs, websites, new feeds,
etc.), and the social aspect of technology can be
motivating for many students, especially in the middle
grades. According to Liou and Kou (2014) Motivation
and self-regulation are strongly and positively
correlated. McKenna (2014) makes the position that
technology is indispensable to literacy development
also stating that teachers should include technology as
a means to motivate students. This point is made
cautiously, knowing that there are many factors that
affect student motivation and that not all students will
find this effective. Students will be more motivated to
read using the supports that technology offers. Wang et
al (2013) looked at higher education rather than the
middle grades however provided sound evidence of
the relationship between self-efficacy, motivation, and
technology. The effectiveness of learning strategies
directly influenced the levels of motivation.
According to Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple
Intelligences (MI), there are at least eight, and possibly
nine variations of intelligence. We all possess each type
of intelligence to some extent, and may also excel in
various combinations of the intelligences (McCoog,
2007).When considering the role of technology in
education, it is also important to understand how MI can
be used to support the use of technology by students.
Teachers should be aware of the types of activities will
best access a student’s strengths, and make decisions
accordingly, as they integrate technology in a way that
maximizes its potential to motivate students to
learn. Stanford (2003) shows how it is important to
understand how technology benefits different learning
styles and individuals.
Today’s schools are in desperate need of technology
integration. However, this integration is largely lacking.
Zoch & Addames-Budde (2014) believe that changing
times demand integration of technologies for students
because they need to have the knowledge and skills to
be successful. New literacies involve using technology in
a purposeful way. Research has shown that technology
has allowed for students to be more accomplished
writers and feel more creative. According to Zoch &
Adams-Budde (2014) “students learned to use
technology through experimentation and collaboration;
Students were highly motivated to construct digital texts
and learn new technologies; and technology had a
positive effect on students’ writing process and final
products” (p.34). The results from Safar & Alkhezzi (2013)
revealed that students using technology submitted
projects with better quality, earned higher final grades,
and attended more classes. These findings imply that
the potential of a blended approach of teaching and
learning is endless. According to Hew, K., & Brush, T.
(2007). “Research studies in education demonstrate that
the use of technology can help improve students’ scores
on standardized tests, improve students’ inventive
thinking (e.g., problem solving) and improve students’
self-concept and motivation. The most common barriers
found when integrating technology include: resources,
knowledge and skills, institution, attitudes and beliefs,
assessment, and subject culture. These barriers are listed
in order of the relative frequency in which they were
mentioned in the studies reviewed (Hew, K., & Brush, T.
2007. p.226) Staples and Edmister (2014) found, “When
teachers adopt new technology, they need to do so not
only by understanding the technology but also by
understanding their own pedagogy, how the
technology will assist in teaching content and how or
whether it will clarify or enhance student learning. A
school culture committed to technology integration
offers a more stable environment in which to consider
new tools and how best to use them to support
students” (p.137). The current research shows how many
factors need to be considered, but also show the
importance of technology as a new literacy. Clark et al
(2003) shows that students acquire new ways of thinking
by being able to express their ideas and listen to the
ideas of others. Further research is needed on the
influence of technology in motivation.
Discussion
"I would say the students were engaged while
using the digital format. Making them use
Creative Commons also made them think a
bit more about representations since they
couldn't always easily find the image they
wanted.
"I would say the students were engaged while using the digital format. Making them use Creative Commons also made them think
a bit more about representations since they couldn't always easily find the image they wanted.” Ann Kleinhans
Methods
This action research project was based on a constructivist theoretical model.
Constructivism is an approach to teaching and learning founded on the idea that
cognition (learning) is the result of "mental construction." In other words, students learn by
assimilating new information with what they already know. Constructivists believe that
learning is affected by the context in which an idea is taught as well as by students' beliefs
and attitudes. In this study we utilized an action research model in which we planned,
implemented, reviewed, and revised our teaching methods in order to positively impact
literacy instruction of Middle School students.
Since Action Research is a holistic approach to problem-solving, rather than a single
method for collecting and analyzing data, we utilized several different research tools as
the project was conducted. These various methods, which are common to the qualitative
research paradigm, include: keeping a research journal, document collection and
analysis, participant observation recordings, questionnaire surveys, structured and
unstructured interviews.
We conducted time time on task observations during traditional book report projects, and
compared them to time on task observations of a digital media project. Additionally, we
conducted anonymous pre and post motivational surveys, which we were unable to be
used in our research due to less than 100% return on consent forms. Additionally, we
collected interview statements from participating teachers.
References
Clark, A., Anderson, R. C., Kuo, L., Kim, I., Archodidou, A., & Nguyenjahiel, K. (2003). Collaborative reasoning: Expanding ways for children to talk and think in school.
Educational Psychology Review, 15, 181–198.
Conradi, K (2014). Tapping technology’s potential to motivate readers. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(3), 54-57. Doi:10.1177/0031721714557454
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. A. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148–162.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading.In M. Kamil & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 403–422). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational
Technology Research & Development,55(3), 223-252. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5
Liou, P., & Kuo, P. (2014) Validation of an instrument to measure students’ motivation and self regulation towards technology learning. Research in Science & Technological
Education, 32(2), 79-96. Doi:10.1080/02635143.2014.893235
Marks, H. (2000). Student Engagement In Instructional Activity: Patterns In The Elementary, Middle, And High School Years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1),
153-184.
McCoog, I. J. (2007). Integrated Instruction: Multiple Intelligences and Technology. Clearing House,81(1), 25-28.
McKenna, M. C. (2014). “Literacy instruction in the brave new world of technology.” Phi Delta Kappan 96(3), 8-13. Doi:10.1177/0031721714557446
Meece, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientation and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80
(4),514–523.
Patrick, B. C., Skinner, E. A., & Connell, J. P. (1993). What motivates children’s behavior and emotion? Joint effects of perceived control and autonomy in the academic
domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 781–791.
Ryan, A., & Patrick, H. (2001). The Classroom Social Environment And Changes In Adolescents' Motivation And Engagement During Middle School. American Educational
Research Journal, 38(1), 437-460.
Safar, A. H., & Alkhezzi, F. A. (2013). Beyond computer literacy: Technology integration and curriculum transformation. College Student Journal, 47(4), 614-626.
Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100, 765–781.
Stanford, P. (2003). Multiple Intelligence for Every Classroom. Intervention In School & Clinic, 39(2), 80-85.
Staples, A., & Edmister, E. (2014). The reintegration of technology as a function of curriculum reform: Cases of two teachers. Research & Practice For Persons With Severe
Disabilities, 39(2), 136-153. doi:10.1177/1540796914544549
Wang, C., Shanon, D. M., & Ross, M. E. (2013). Students’ characteristics, self-regulated learning, technology self-efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning. Distance
Education, 34(3), 302-323. Doi: 10.1080/01587919.2013.835779
Zoch, M., Langston-DeMott, B., & Adams-Budde, M. (2014). Creating digital authors. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(3), 32-37. doi:10.1177/0031721714557450
Findings and Implications
This study found that the integration of technology into
the curriculum had a significant impact on student
engagement. The first series of observations took place
during a traditional, technology-free lesson or activity. It
was shown that under these conditions, 44.8 percent of
students were on-task, and were fully engaged in the
lesson or activity and were participating according the
the instructional goals. 40.7 percent of students were
passively off-task. These students were seen to be not
paying attention, whether staring off, had their eyes
closed, or something similar. 8.8 percent of students were
verbally off-task, and were speaking to classmates about
something that was not related to the activity or lesson.
Finally, it was shown that 5.7 percent of students were
actively off-task, and were actively engaged in a nonapproved activity. For example, these students were
encouraging classmates to join them in non-academic
behavior, or engaged in an activity that was not
approved by the teacher (i.e. flipping through the pages
of their book, doodling, or something similar), or they
were physically out of their seat for non-approved
activities.
The second series of observations took place during
times when students had the opportunity to complete an
assignment using technology. The percentage of
students who were on-task increased significantly, from
44.8 percent to 85.3 percent. All areas of off-task
behaviors saw a reduction in percentage of students
who could be characterized as such. However, the
largest drop took place in the percentage of students
who were passively off-task, from 40.7 percent to 4.0
percent. The percentage of students who were verbally
off-task dropped from 8.8 percent to 8.0 percent;
however, this change is not significant. Of note, the
percentage of students who were actively off-task was
reduced by half, from 5.7 percent to 2.7 percent.
This study seems to confirm Conradi’s (2014) conclusion
that technology has the potential to motivate students.
In this case, the number of students who were on-task
nearly doubled. Considering that Safa and Alkhezzi
(2013) write that students who use technology to
complete work show improvement in both quality of
work and classroom attendance, this study demonstrates
that students may be positively affected by the
integration of technology into the classroom. In this study,
twice as many students were engaged in the learning
task, and previous research has shown that it is
reasonable to expect that the end results of their work
will be of better quality.
When looking specifically at the reduction of students
who were passively off-task or actively off-task, it is
important to consider Gardner’s Theory of Multiple
Intelligences (MI). It is possible that the students involved
in this study were more motivated because they were
allowed to operate within their own MI, as it has been
previously shown that working within an individual’s MI
capacity can increase motivation (McCoog, 2007).
Further Research
The results of this study indicate that students are more
likely to be engaged in a learning task that includes
technology. However, it is important to know what part of
the learning task captured the students’ attention and
kept them focused. Further research is needed to
determine whether the use of technology allows students
to think more deeply on the learning objectives, or if the
use of technology simply keeps students engaged on
learning how to use the technology. Ideally, the use of
technology will allow students to approach the task in a
way that allows for greater freedom of exploration and
expression, thus allowing them to learn the topic more
thoroughly. It is also important to know whether the use of
technology in the classroom is as productive among
students who are not as familiar with the equipment and
programs that the school has available for use. Are
students who do not have access to similar technology in
their daily lives as motivated to complete the learning
tasks? Further research is also needed to determine how
the use of technology can influence motivation in students
across a broader range of learning tasks. The task that was
looked at in this study was an individual based learning
task.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire
Office of Research and Sponsored Programs for funding
the faculty /student collaborative project.
Dr. Carmen Manning, Dean of CoEHS, for allowing us to
present at a Teacher Education meeting
The participants of the study for their willingness to try
digital technology and literacy.
The Chippewa Falls Middle School 8th grade English
Department and students.