Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.