Table of Contents Abstract Introduction - Statement of the Problem -Review of Related Literature

1. The SMART Board and Software Reading Programs: can it help improve 4th graders’ reading comprehension skills? Letty Vacaand Christina MateraEDU 703.22 Spring 2009

2. Table of Contents Abstract Introduction -Statement of the Problem -Review of Related Literature -Statement of the Hypotheses Method -Participants -Instruments -Experimental Design -Procedure Results Discussion Implications References Appendix (ces)

3. Introduction • Technology: part of our everyday lives • NCLB and the National Education Technology Plan (2004) • Engages children • Can be used to improve children’s reading skills

4. Statement of the Problem A large percentage of the fourth graders’ reading scores in the State of New York are still below the proficient reading level (November, 2007). Integrating technology in the classrooms to support or supplement teachers’ literacy instruction can possibly improve children’s reading skills.

5. Review of Related Literature Four theorists that align with our action research project: Howard Gardner • People are intelligent in different ways Maria Montessori • Students are lifelong learners and problem solvers Jean Piaget • Children can construct their own knowledge Lev Vytgosky • Apprenticeship (guiding hand)

6. So how does Gardner, Montessori, Piaget and Vytgotsky fit into our action research project? Instructional methods that incorporate technology improves (Learning Theory for Education and Training with Technology, 2000): • Reflective and metacognition abilities of learner are developed as student seek to clarify, explain and justify their stand • Motivation/engagement • Positive attitudes toward the subject areas studied • Promote greater competencies in critical thinking • Higher achievement and greater productivity • Interdependence • self-esteem and appreciation of school • Social and communication skills are developed

7. Review of Related Literature • Interactive whiteboardscan accommodate multiple learning types (Basilicato, 2005; Wall, Higgins & Smith, 2005). • Laptopscan engage children in their learning process and enhance their reading skills (Warchauer, 2007). • Internet is another tool used for online activities (reading and writing), research on subjects and build vocabulary (Schmar-Dobler, 2003; Bromley, 2002). • Web Questengages students in information processing and collaboration. “When Web Quests are literature based, books become the focal point for reading-centered learning activities” (Teclehaimanot & Lamb, 2004).

8. Review of Related Literature CD-ROM Storybookscan increase and aid reading comprehension by helping students focus more on understanding the meaning behind the text and less on decoding. ((Matthew, 1997; Doty, Poppelwell & Byers, 2001; Pearman, 2008; Pearman, 2008). Digital Story tellingteachers can integrate Digital Storytelling in their lessons to “enhance and accelerate student comprehension” by using visual images (Robin, 2008). Video gamescan help activate “critical thinking skills and problem solving skills based on prior knowledge, and even help make connections” (Gee, 2008). Text to speechis a software program that reads the story out loud. It is useful for struggling readers to listen to the words as they read the text.

9. Statement of Hypotheses HR1 Integrating technology into literacy instruction can improve 4th graders reading skills. HR2 The absence of integrating technology into literacy instruction can hinder 4th graders from improving their reading skills.

10. Method Participants • 30 fourth graders (15 students from each class) • One classroom- 95% African American & 5% Hispanic • Second classroom- 60%- African American, 39% Hispanic, & 1% Caucasian • Lower to middle class • Public elementary school located in the Bronx, N.Y. Instruments • SMART Board (Interactive whiteboard) • Microsoft PowerPoint • Surveys & pre and post questionnaires • Self created Reader’s Workshop lesson plans on context clues • Internet: online reading software programs on context clues • Reading assessments: WRAP and running records

11. Experimental Design - Static-Group Comparison • Two groups: - (X1) control group – no technology integrated in lesson - (X2) experimental group – technology integrated in lesson - (O) pretested with W.R.A.P, and then post-tested with multiple choice on context clues, and T.C. running records • One designated treatment group (X2) experimental group – lesson plan, SMART Board, MS Power Point and online software programs will be used to help students improve finding context clues skill.

12. Procedure Pre-phase of action research: • Both groups assessed before the treatment using W.R.A.P. • Both groups filled out a pre-questionnaire that had a five point Likert scale Post-phase of action research: • For four weeks, every Friday, both groups received instruction on how to use context clues to figure out the meaning of unfamiliar words. • Control group (X1) did not have technology implemented in the lesson plan • Experimental group (X2) had technology implemented in the lesson plan • Both groups were assessed again on their reading levels using the T.C. running records. • Both groups were given a multiple choice test on context clues. • Then, both groups filled out a post-questionnaire that had a four point Likert scale.

13. Results Pre-assessment in reading using W.R.A.P

14. Chart on pre-questionnaire correlations

15. Post – assessment reading levels using T.C. running records

16. Chart on post-questionnaire correlations

17. Table 1. Mean and Standard Deviations of Multiple Choice Test on Context Clues Standard Group Mean deviation Sample size Matera’s class 9.13 .640 15 St. Marie’s class 8.13 1.59 15 ____________________________________________________________

18. Discussion • Results reflects a correlation between implementing technology in reading lessons and students’ reading levels in Mrs. Matera’s group. • Mrs. Matera’s group scored higher on the multiple choice test than Mrs. St. Marie’s group. • Found that Mrs. Matera’s group was more engaged in the reading lesson when technology was implemented, which had an affect in the group’s reading levels. This confirms Wood and Ashfield (2008) study when they found that Interactive Whiteboards can help improve and literacy instruction. • Study showed that is can accommodate the different learning styles or intelligences. It is a “multimodal approach to teaching literacy” (Shenton & Pagett, 2007). • When using a SMART Board, it helps visual, auditory and kinesthetic learners, increases students’ attention, helps activate critical and problem solving skills, and encourages collaboration.

19. Implications • Further research can be done by extending the period of the study, and using other software or online reading programs such as LearningToday.com, an online reading program that some schools use today. • Further study can also be done on the effects of integrating technology in other subjects such as Math and Science, to see if it can help students retain more of the information they learn in Math and Science.

20. Threats to Internal Validity • History • Maturation • Instrumentation • Mortality • Differential Selection of Subjects

21. Threats to External Validity • Ecological Validity • Specificity of Variables • Multiple Treatments • Treatment Diffusion

22. References (partial) American Montessori Society. (1993, November). Position Statement Key Concepts and Practices. Retrieved September 25, 2008, Web site: http://fac-staff.seattleu.edu/jcm/web/key_concepts.html Baker, E.A. (2000, July). Instructional approaches used to integrate literacy and technology. Reading Online, 4(1). Retrieved September 29, 2008, from http://www.readingonline.org/articles/baker/ Balajthy, E. (2005, January/February). Text-to-speech software for helping struggling readers. Reading Online, 8(4). Retrieved October 30, 2008 from http://www.readingonline.org Basilicato, Alfred. (2005, March). Interactive Whiteboards: Assistive Technology for Every Classroom. Retrieved September 20, 2008, from Peter Li Education Group web site: http://www2.peterli.com/ts/resources/articles/archive.php?article_id=892 Brinker, Michelle. (2005, December 9). Technology in the Classroom: Cons of technology use. Retrieved November 1, 2008, from http://www.jvkco.net/mrb/technology/cons Bromley, K. (2002, July/August). Vocabulary learning online. Reading Online, 6(1). Retrieved October 27, 2008 from http://readingonline.org Casey, J. (2001, October). Technology empowers reading and writing of young children. Reading Online, 5(3). Retrieved October 29, 2008 from http://www.readingonline.org Constructivism Theorists. (n.d.). Retrieved September 25, 2008, Web site: http://online.sfsu.edu/~foreman/itec800/finalprojects/eitankaplan/pages/theorists.htm Cradler, J., McNabb, M., Freeman, M., & Burchett, R. (2002, May). How Does Technology Influence Student Learning? Learning & Leading with Technology, 29(8), 46-49,56. Retrieved October 30, 2008, from caret.iste.org/caretadmin/news_documents/StudentLearning.pdf  Department of Education, W. (2004, January 1). Toward a New Golden Age in American Education: How the Internet, the Law, and Today's Students are Revolutionizing Expectations. US Department of Education, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED484046) Retrieved October 30, 2008, from ERIC database.