CHAPTER
1
Introduction
It is not uncommon for English
Language Learners (ELLs) to feel anxiety when attending a school where the
spoken language is primarily English.
Anxiety may arise in different contexts for different students, but many
tend to feel anxiety in academic settings because of language barriers. Providing a strong foundation in core subjects
can aid ELLs in feeling academic success, thus decreasing their anxiety.
The United States National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) indicated that although there has
been an increase in achievement scores in reading among ELLs, most students
still score below basic (NAEP, 2013).
Third
grade ELL SAT10 scores were studied at one elementary school on Guam for the
school year 2012-2014. The website
Readyresults.net displays the SAT10 scores along and varying information including
demographics of all participating schools on Guam. The results indicated that of this elementary
school’s third grade population of 73, 27 were ELLs. Of those 27 ELLs, 74% ranked in the below
basic percentiles on the total reading battery.
In comparison, 50% of the non-ELL population received below basic
scores.
Literacy,
the ability to read and write, is seen as a foundational skill in
learning. The elementary school in this
study concentrated on raising reading scores for school year 2013-2014. More time was allotted to teach the subject
of reading. Students were split into
classes based on their reading ability.
The same holds true for school year 2014-2015. Although the implementation of the Common
Core State Standards caused a few changes to be made at this school, the time
allotted for reading has stayed the same as well as the decision to group
students based on ability level into reading classes. The thought behind placing so much effort in
improving upon reading scores was that improvement among the other subject
areas would follow suit once reading skills are proficient. The ability to comprehend text is usually the
goal of a reading program. In order to
be able to comprehend text, students must first be able to read fluently. A student can read fluently if the reading of
the text is accurate, at the indicated rate, and expressive. It creates a link between word recognitions
and comprehension. Hudson, et al. (2005) states that strong understanding of
the alphabetic principle, the ability to blend sounds together, and knowledge
of a large bank of high-frequency words are required for word-reading accuracy.
The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) has gained
widespread use in the United States to measure early reading skills (Riedel,
2007). The DIBELS test was used at the
target school as a means to measure reading rate. It will be used as the pretest and posttest
of my study.
Within
the past two years, the Guam Department of Education has issued out numerous
amounts of individual laptops, interactive whiteboards, ELMOs, and other
technological devices to assist teachers in educating students. Interactive whiteboards are being integrated
into many classrooms. Early evidence
suggests that IWBs can have a positive effect on teaching and learning. However, this is hard to generalize seeing as
though most of these cases are either anecdotal or case studies. Existing studies often utilize methods such as
focus groups, surveys, and interviews.
However, more is needed in terms of quantitative, large sample studies.
The
aim of this research is to study the effects of the usage of interactive
whiteboards and the internet on reading rate.
Statement of the Problem
Performance
disparities between ELLs and non-ELLs are well documented on national websites
displaying student achievement on standardized tests. It is documented that ELLs have a higher
percentage rate of performing poorly on standardized tests. Almost all of Guam’s public schools have such
a diverse population that efforts into improving the implementation of lessons
must be strengthened. With the recent
issuance of technological devices into Guam public schools such as laptops and
interactive whiteboards, along with the installation of internet into most
public schools, the effectiveness of these devices on student achievement are
called into question.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the
effectiveness of interactive whiteboard and internet usage among English
Language Learners in improving reading rate.
Significance of the Study
While there are a few studies that have been done to
examine the effectiveness of interactive whiteboards in increasing student achievement,
there have been fewer amounts studying the effectiveness on English Language
Learners. There is no literature on the
usage of the interactive whiteboard in schools on Guam, as well as the Asia
Pacific region.
Because interactive whiteboards are on its way in
becoming a common device in classrooms on Guam, it is important to see its
effectiveness in the classroom.
Definitions
Interactive
Whiteboard: an interactive display screen that is connected to a
computer and allows for viewing, input, and collaboration by multiple users.
DIBELS:
The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills are a set of procedures
and measures for assessing the acquisition of early literacy skills from
kindergarten through sixth grade
SIOP:
The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol model: a research-based and
validated instrumental model that has proven effective in addressing the
academic needs of English learners throughout the United States.
Reading
fluency: encompasses the speed or rate of reading, as well as
the ability to read materials with expression
CHAPTER
2
Literature
Review
Reading Fluency
Teaching students to be literate is
a high educational priority in the United States, but it is also considered one
of education’s biggest challenges.
Becoming a proficient reading is already a daunting task but is much
more difficult when English is the second language of the individual (Ybarra
& Green, 2003). One of the main challenges that schools in the United
States face today in educating English Language Learners is developing their
academic literacy (Warschauer, et.al., 2004).
Vaughn et.al., (2005) states that an indication of developing literacy
skills is the ability to comprehend text.
Skills such as phonemic awareness, letter knowledge, and word
recognition are essential in developing skills that will lead to better
comprehension (Vaughn, et.al., 2005).
Technical reports have documented
statistically significant correlations between third-grade students’ scores on
the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency assessments and state-mandated assessments of
reading (Riedel, 2007). The DIBELS ORF
will be used as the pre- and posttest in this study.
Lesson Plans
I will incorporate the planning
stages of modified guided reading lesson planning into my SIOP lesson
plans. Modified guided reading is a
component of a balanced literacy program providing differentiated, small-group
reading instruction (Avalos, et. al., 2007). Benefits
include individualized instruction, the use of books at students’ reading
levels, the opportunity to create and sustain meaning, the exposure to language
that is content embedded, the structured format of a lesson, and the systematic
evaluation of students’ progress (Avalos, et. al., 2007). Some researchers have determined that ELLs are not
generally ready for English reading instruction until they are at the
intermediate stage of English-language acquisition thus creating the need to
modify lessons for ELLs (Avalos, et. al., 2007). I will also be teaching phonics skills in my
lessons. Children may become more fluent readers with a systematic
phonics foundation (Dodd & Carr, 2003). It is crucial to scaffold upon
prior knowledge and differentiate instruction to strengthen these skills (Boyadzhyan,
2012).
Interactive Whiteboard and Internet Usage
Many studies have indicated that computer
use in the classroom has had positive effects on the learning process (Hussain
& Akhtar, 2010; Hwang, et.al. 2013; Lopez, 2010) in comparison to classes
who used computers less or failed to use it at all. Kim and Chang (2007) concluded that there was
a significant difference of the effectiveness of computers in the classroom for
overall students, but no significant statistical differences were found in
regards to immigrant students using computers in the classroom.
While some studies (Hussain &
Akhtar, 2010) have suggested that the usage of IWB technology have had positive
effects in the classroom (Digregorio & Sobel-Lojeski, 2010), but it is
difficult to generalize this statement because most of the studies have been
anecdotal, or based on case studies.
IWB technology, now being
touch-screen devices, are more efficient than ever if teachers use it to its
full capacity (Hwang, 2013).
Manipulators of the whiteboard have a variety of resources to make the
board interactive, especially when the inclusion of Internet resources is added
(Hwang et.al, 2013).
The use of IWBs has been reported as
ranging from teacher centered, or presentational, to methods which are more
student centered, interactive and collaborative (Northcote, et.al., 2010). Teachers
are seen as critical agents in digital learning classrooms that utilize IWB
technology. Because many schools are
calling for teachers to create lessons which are student-centered, teachers
should act as facilitators of learning. Glover
and Miller (2001) state that IWBs may reinforce teacher-centered learning if
participants fail to truly appreciate the interactivity of the device. One challenge a teacher may come across when
working with IWB technology is how to effectively manipulate the IWB without becoming
too involved in the lesson and interfering with student productivity and
interaction. Four IWB teaching and
learning factors- IWB supported Teaching, IWB Student Learning, Teacher
Supported Learning, and Student Interactive Learning were found to be
significantly associated with each other (Liang, Huang, & Tsai, 2012). Schmid
(2006) adds that it is the negotiations between students and teacher regarding
how IWB technology should be used ultimately leads to student achievement
amongst ELLs. One of the major
challenges encountered with high-technology classrooms is utilizing these
devices to aid in transitioning ELLs from learning to read to reading to learn
(Warschauer, et.al., 2004).
The case studies conducted by
Armstrong, et al. (2005), demonstrate the importance of teachers having
long-term sustained engagement with the IWB technology. Experienced IWB users with access to IWBs on
a daily basis were able to exploit more of the possibilities of IWB technology than
were inexperienced users of the IWB who used it simply as an extension of a
regular whiteboard and multimedia projector. As the teacher becomes more
confident in using the IWB, so does the student (Beauchamp, 2004). This finding demonstrates the dynamic of
interaction factors in the classroom where IWB technologies are found.
It is important that teachers have
an enormous range of subject specific software and multimedia resources such as
Flash, DVDs, video-conferencing, and the Internet (Armstrong, et.al, 2005;
Hussain, 2010) because it improves the capability of the teaching process
especially where technology is concerned.
Common contextual factors also need
to be taken into consideration because it helps explain the direct and indirect
links between the IWB usage and student learning and achievement (Digregorio
& Sobel-Lojeski, 2010). These
factors include: school culture, technical support, teacher training, teacher
confidence, and time for teachers to prepare and practice lessons. Wall, K., Higgins, S., & Smith, H. (2005)
state in their study of metacognition that students described positive feelings
toward the usage of the IWB because of its ability to motivate, aid
concentration, and keep their attention. The usage of IWB technology, along
with other technological devices, can provide scaffold for language development
(Warschauer, et.al, 2004).
CHAPTER
3
Methodology
Subjects
The subjects will be second and
third grade students from one public elementary school on Guam. They are of various ethnic backgrounds and
reside in the same village on Guam. Each
subject has been identified as an English Language Learner through answers
filled out on the Home Language Survey administered at the school site upon the
student’s registration. A total of 40
students will be participating. The 40
students will be split up into two groups, with 20 students in each group. One group will learn lessons through the use
of the interactive whiteboard while the other group will use traditional
methods to learn the concepts taught.
Design
A
pretest-posttest design will be used for this study. Two groups (English Language Learners and
non-English Language Learners) will be compared and the degree of change
occurring as a result of treatments will be measured.
Procedure
Permission from the University of
Guam Institutional Review Board, Guam Department of Education, the
participating school principal, and parents/guardians of the participating
subjects will need to be granted before I proceed with this study.
A sample of 40 ELLs from the second
and third grade levels at an elementary school on Guam will be participating in
this study. Students will be randomly
selected to join one of two groups. One
group will receive instruction in reading strategies to improve reading rate
through the use of the interactive whiteboard and internet, while the other
group will receive instruction on the same content using traditional teaching
methods.
A pretest will be administered at
the beginning of school year 2015-2016 to both groups. The groups will be taught separately after
school for two days consisting of a 45 minute lesson. This will continue for about 8-10 weeks. At the end of the lessons, a posttest will be
administered.
Data Analysis
Measures of central tendency will be analyzed. In addition, an independent samples t-test
will be used to determine whether there is a statistically significant
difference between the two groups.
References
Armstrong,
V., Barnes, S., Sutherland, R., Curran, S., Mills, S., & Thompson, I.
(2005).
Collaborative
research methodology for investigating teaching and learning: the use of
interactive
whiteboard technology. Educational
Review, 57(4), 457-469.
Avalos,
M., Plasencia, A., Chavez, C., & Rascon, J. (2008). Modified guided
reading: Gateway
to English as a
second language and literacy learning. The
Reading Teacher, 61(4), 318-329. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1598/RT.61.4.4/epdf
Beauchamp,
G. (2004). Teacher use of the interactive whiteboard in primary schools:
towards an
effective
transition framework. Technology,
Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 327-348. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14759390400200186
Boyadzhyan,
A. (2012). A systematic approach to teach phonics skills by incorporating the
Chen,
H., Chiang, C., & Lin. W. (2013). Learning effects of interactive
whiteboard pedagogy for
students in Taiwan
from the perspective of multiple intelligences. J. Educational Technology Systems, 49(2), 173-187. http://jec.sagepub.com/content/49/2/173.full.pdf+html
Dhillon,
J. & Wanjiru, J. (2013). Challenges and strategies for teachers and
learners of English as
a second language:
The case of an urban primary school in Kenya. International Journal of English Linguistics, 3(2). http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijel/article/
view/25954
Dodd,
B., & Carr, A. (2003). Young children's letter-sound knowledge. Language, Speech, and
Hearing
Services in Schools, 34, 128-137. https://www.unf.edu/uploadedFiles/aa/fie/S-5-Letters%20and%20Sounds%20article.pdf
Digregorio,
P. & Sobel-Lojeski K. (2010). The effects of interactive whiteboards (IWBs)
on
student
performance and learning: A literature review. J. Educational Technology Systems, 32, 255-312. http://andyrunyan.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/56256963/The%20Effects%20of%20Interactive%20Whiteboards%20on%20Student%20Performance.pdf
Duran,
A. & Cruz, M. (2009). The interactive whiteboard and foreign language
learning: a case
/12.%20ANTONIO%20DURAN.pdf
Glover,
D. & Miller, D. (2001). Running with technology: the pedagogic impact of
large-scale
introduction of
interactive whiteboards in one secondary school. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 10(3),
257-278. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14759390100200115
Higgins,
S., Falzon, C., Hall, I., Moseley, D., Smith, F., Smith, H., and Wall, K.
(2005).
Embedding ICT in the
literacy and numeracy strategies, Project Report. University of Newcastle upon
Tyne, Newcastle. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/30050812_Embedding_ICT_in_the_literacy_and_numeracy_strategies__final_report
Hudson, R., Lane, H., & Cullen, P. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and instruction: what,
why, and how? The Reading Teacher, 58(8), 702-714. http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1598%2FRT.58.8.1
Hussain,
M., Iqbal, M., & Akhtar, M. (2010). Technology based learning environment
and
student
achievement in English as a foreign language in Pakistan. World Academy of Science, Engineering, and Technology, 4,
1127-1131. http://www.waset.org/publications/7757
Hwang,
G., Wu, C., & Kuo F. (2013). Effects of touch technology-based concept
mapping on
students’ learning
attitudes and perceptions. Educational
Technology & Society 16(3), 274-285. http://www.ifets.info/journals/16_3/21.pdf
Kim, S. & Chang,
M. (2007). The differential effects of computer use on academic performance of
students from immigrant and gender
groups: Implications on multimedia enabled education. Multimedia Workshops. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4476015&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D4476015
Kim,
Y., Wagner, R., & Foster, E. (2011). Relations among oral reading fluency,
silent reading
fluency, and
reading comprehension: A latent variable study of first-grade readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(4),
338-362. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10888438.2010.493964
Lacina,
J. (2009). Technology in the classroom interactive whiteboards: Creating
higher-level,
technological thinkers.
Childhood Education, 84(4), 270-272. https://educ116o.wikispaces.com/file/view/Lancina+Whiteboards.pdf
Liang,
T., Huang, Y., & Tsai, C. (2012). An investigation of teaching and learning
interaction
factors for the
use of interactive whiteboard technology. Educational
Technology & Society, 15(4), 356-367. http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/83234639/investigation-teaching-learning-interaction-factors-use-interactive-whiteboard-technology
Lopez.
O. (2010). The digital learning classroom: Improving English language learners’
academic success
in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 54, 901-915. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131509002590
Northcote,
M., Mildenhall, P., Marshall, L., & Swan, P. (2010). Interactive
whiteboards:
Interactive or just
whitebaords. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 26(4), 494-510. http://ascilite.org.au/ajet/submission/index.php/AJET/article/view/1067
Riedel,
B. (2007). The relation between DIBELS, reading comprehension, and vocabulary
in
urban first-grade
students. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(4),
546-567. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1598/RRQ.42.4.5/epdf
Schmid,
E. (2006). Investigating the use of interactive whiteboard technology in the
English
language classroom
through the lens of a critical theory of technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1). http://www.sjschmid.de/euline/publications/CALL_Cutrim_Schmid.pdf
Schmid,
E. (2008). Potential pedagogical benefits and drawbacks of multimedia use in
the
English language
classroom equipped with interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1553-1568. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131508000419
Schmid,
E. (2008). Using a voting system in conjunction with interactive whiteboard
technology
to enhance
learning in the English language classroom. Computers
& Education, 50(1), 338-356.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131506001084
Shi,
Y., Yang, Z, Yang, H., & Liu, S. (2012). The impact of interactive
whiteboards on
education. International Conference on Internet
Multimedia Computing and Service, 213-218. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2382397
Turel
Y. & Johnson T. (2012). Teachers’ belief and use of interactive whiteboards
for teaching
and
learning. Educational Technology & Society,
15(1), 381-394.
Vaughn,
S., Mathes, P., Linan-Thompson, S., & Francis, D. (2005). Teaching English
language
learners at risk
for reading disabilities to read: putting research into practice. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 20(1), 58-67. https://www.mheonline.com/research/assets/products/6512bd43d9caa6e0/teaching_ell_risking_disabilities.pdf
Wall,
K., Higgins, S., & Smith, H. (2005). The visual helps me understand the
complicated
things:
Pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British Journal
of Educational
Technology, 36(5),
851-867.
Warschauer,
M. (2004). Promoting academic literacy with technology: Successful laptop
Ybarra,
R. & Green, T. (2003). Using technology to help ESL/EFL students develop
language
skills. The Internet TESL Journal, 4(3) http://iteslj.org/Articles/Ybarra-Technology.html
