Tango

This year I have been spending some of my free time learning the TANGO. Not the dance! The TANGO is an assistive technology communication device. This year I had the opportunity of working with a student having limited speech. The student used TANGO to communicate in the classroom, as well as with family at home.

 Lon Thornberg, an assistive technology specialist, conducted a 30 minute interview with Richard Ellenson, CEO and creator of the TANGO. His interview, titled No Limits 2 Learning is podcasted at: BlogTalkRadio.

One of the topics of their interview included a description of how the Tango can be used as an technology tool. The TANGO, an assistive technology communication device, allows students with severe speech impairments, inclusion in the general education classroom. Ellenson conceptualized the TANGO, for his 10-year old son, who has cerebral palsley. In the interview, he chats with a student named Taylor, who too uses the TANGO to communicate. They are joined also by Taylor’s speech pathologist. It is difficult to explain what the Tango looks like, or how it works. I recommend viewing the TANGO website, and trying the online emulator before listening to the podcast, as it will give you an idea of what the computer is like, and how it works. 

Before trying the emulator, think about the three kinds of communication that you incur daily:          

1. Letters and e-mail, of which there is no awareness of user’s speech.
2. Telephone, in which you can hear, but not see the other person
3. Real-time or Live, in which you can see and hear.

Remember that no one using a speech device can ever speak as quickly an able speaker can, in real time. With all communication devices, allow time for the user to formulate their words, which are developing in their brain, much quicker than they can say them.

 Additional Information to Keep in Mind: The podcast references AAC (Augmentative and Alternative Communication), and suggests that users of AAC rarely initiate conversation, but that the TANGO is different, allowing users to be forthcoming. Examples of the alternative AAC might include:  

• gesture and body language
• manual sign
• handwriting
• communication aids

Scratch for Kindergarteners

Scratch: defined by its producers at MIT,

 “Programming language aimed at children that let them create their own interactive stories, games, music, and art.”

 Specifically, Scratch is an application that allows students to mix media to create. In the article, From SuperGoo to Scratch: Exploring creative digital media production in informal learning, Scratch is cited as just one of many tools that speaks to urban youth, and meets the goals of media educators.

 Media educators? My first thought was that this article really did not apply to my job as a kindergarten teacher. Likewise, the majority of my cohorts in continuing education at Seattle Pacific University agreed. However, upon reading more into the article, I realized the purpose was to do more than simply suggest that today’s youth are participating in using multi-media; they are producing it! If you can agree that creative, digital media is going to be a large part of our future, than as an educator, you too should realize the importance of educating tomorrow’s future leaders. Yes, teachers and parents alike are responsible for exploring creating ways of gaining your child’s interests, as well as providing them with the early building blocks that will provide them with the skills to produce.

Produce multi-media? Well, it’s about more than producing media mixes. If you can imagine it, you can produce it. If you can produce it, you can share it. Scratch provides a format in which kids are familiar. Using the background knowledge they have acquired in other subject areas, Scratch allows them to create a project that will be both meaningful to you and to them. At the same time, they will be investing in their future, and creating something that will too interest their peers.

Can Kindergarteners really use Scratch? Training students to use a new application can be challenging, though I’ll wager this concern can be resolved easily. Although Scratch is intended for students ages 8 and up, my class of 5 and 6-year-olds could easily use this application. My half-day kindergarteners spend 30 minutes a week, in a computer lab with a 1:1 ratio of computers to students. The first several months of the school year will need to be reserved for exploration, paired with modeling, by the teacher, in class. After viewing the tutorial, and exploring the Scratch website, I began thinking about the different media projects that could be created using scratch, and how I might relate them to my kindergarten classroom.

The Three Little Pigs – scratched The classic story of The Three Little Pigs is one of our first projects at the beginning of the kindergarten year, Our exploration of various versions of the story include comparing the similarities and differences between different author’s versions, as well as the characters’ houses, the characters themselves, and ultimately how the story ends.

 The Scratch Gallery boasts a number of impressive projects containing retells of The Three Little Pigs. Due to the relevant reading age of the story, the majority of the projects I found were too created by kindergarteners or first grade students. The pictures, videos, and sound clips, were all examples of things I am already doing with my students. Scratch, however, provides an avenue for putting it all together, and sharing it with others. Meanwhile, students are developing proficiency in the kindergarten technology standards.

Technology Use in K-12 Schools

A Large Scale Research Study on Technology in K-12 Schools: Technology Integration as it Relates to the National Technology Standards examines two large research studies, in an attempt to determine how technology is integrated in K-12 schools. Furthermore, the article attempts to determine the extend to which the technology being used in schools is making a difference in the education of students.  I pulled away from the article the clear fact that the U.S. is spending a lot of money integrating technology into schools, but to what extent is it helping our students (National Center for Educational Statistics)? Information obtained for the study included research from the NCES, the Teaching, Learning, and Computing Study, conducted by the Center for Research and Information Technology, and reported by Jay Becker, and the Chicago Consortium, with a method of comparing data collected from a research study in large Florida school district, with the TLC study. The flaws between the two comparisons however, suggested some bias. The Florida study, for example, examined teachers in only one school district with self-reported data. The TLC study examined multiple school districts and pre-selected teachers with a high level of technology integration that would purposefully respond. So, not only did the Florida study look at teachers in only one district, but the use of self-reported data is limiting, and as the author even suggests, “those teachers who voluntarily responded to the survey were perhaps more interested in computers than those teachers who did not respond” (page 504). Additionally, the two studies viewed “frequent use” of computers, somewhat differently. The TLC study defined “frequent use as “20+ uses by a typical student per academic year”, while the Florida study defined “frequent use” as “at least once a week” (page 504). Therefore, with the limitations of both studies, I took most of the statistics with a grain of salt. Some information however, was interesting enough to note. Like many of my cohorts, I was surprised that elementary teachers “were almost twice more likely to use computers as problem-solving and decision-making tools than were high school teachers” (page 500). The author suggests that elementary school teachers may have more flexibility in their scheduling, thus more time to complete lengthy projects, such as making a trip to a computer lab might require. As an elementary school teacher, I understand, and appreciate the long blocks of time I have available for lengthy projects, such as making a trip to the computer lab, might require.

Lauren Cartier, a classmate of mine, commented on the issue of technology standards as a graduation requirement:

“Some states [require] students to pass a technology course or technology skills test in order to graduate. Either way I think that it is essential that we assess these skills of our students in some way so that we know that the work we are doing as teachers in this area is working.”

I found myself thinking about graduation requirements, quite a bit as I was reading the article on technology integration as it relates to the National Educational Technology Standards. If shown that technological competencies, specifically the six student standards addressed by National Educational Technology Standards, is a requirement for success in the real world, I would agree that knowledge of technology be a requirement for graduation. However, since very few states are yet requiring students to pass computer skills assessment before graduation, it is difficult to know right now, what areas of technology should be taught in schools, let alone assessed and graded (page 491).

I completely agree with my classmate, that technology standards needed assessment as part of a graduation requirement. The assessment of technology standards for graduation should be different however, than are for a teacher assessing her/himself. I don’t believe we can assess ourselves and force our students’ gradations to be dependent upon whether we have succeeded in our teaching or not. I find it a little odd that we have standards in technology, though we do not assess student knowledge of them. As a kindergarten teacher, I find myself teaching the skills, but not assessing them, because there isn’t a grading standard for technology on the kindergarten grading report, in my district. Given that adequate knowledge and use of technology is a prerequisite to success in the post-high school years, a basic operation and social/ethical issues competency exam seems mandatory for candidacy of a high school diploma.

 

 

 

 

 

Digital Citizenship

Digital Citizenship: Addressing Appropriate Technology Behavior describes nine standards established by the Instructional Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), referred to as the National Education Technology Standards. Specifically designed to be exercised by students, they really are a set of common knowledge principles with which anyone having access to technology should be familiar. For those with particular curiosity, I’ll list them, though you’ll easily be able to assume the particulars embedded within them:

1. Etiquette: electronic standards of conduct or procedure

2. Communication: electronic exchange of information

3. Education: the process of teaching and learning about technology and the use of technology

4. Access: full electronic participation in society

5. Commerce: electronic buying and selling of goods

6. Responsibility: electronic responsibility for actions and deeds

7. Rights: those freedoms extended to everyone in a digital world

8. Safety: physical well-being in a digital technology world

9. Security (self-protection): electronic precautions to guarantee safety

I should note that modeling (the appropriate behaviors) was a recurrent theme among each of the standards, and rightfully so, was also a hot topic within our SPU online discussion.

Of particular interest to me, was the area of ‘Safety’, and its focus on ergonomics. For the purpose of my online discussion with classmates, I reviewed a few articles and found a bit of conflicting information. For example, according to the ISTE, ergonomics, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, eyestrain, and posture are major medical issues that can be linked to computer use. However, according to an article in Wired.com, “In addition to finding a relatively low rate of carpal tunnel syndrome in computer users,” J. Stevens, neurologist, said that there is “no significant differences between computer users who developed the syndrome and those who did not”.

I also explored UCLA’s ergonomics site, for information on general workplace (school place) ergonomics, and discovered on online self-assessment, for anyone who may be physically suffering from technology strains.

Of particular interest in my online conversations was the topic that school districts, (so it seems), are less interested in the issue of ergonomics, as they are with security (i.e.: antitheft). In other words, a hot topic on the discussion boards was the sentiment that school districts are quicker to purchase technology, than they are to fund the cabinets, tables, and chairs that will house the technology. Stationary pieces, such as furniture with anti-theft devices, tend to be more favorable to district personnel funding the decision-making.

Lastly, while it is obvious that varieties of forms of technology are still new, as is our ability to use it appropriately, many schools are finding themselves in the dilemma of the too-much-too-soon syndrome. They are simply unable to keep up with establishing the necessary barriers to make using technology safe.

Creativity & Innovation

We all know that networking sites, like Facebook and Twitter are popular among young students and adults alike. However, did you know that there are social networking sites established specifically for the purposes of education and learning? Remix, Ning, and Classroom20, are all examples of social networking sites with an educational perspective, yet designed to resemble the online community and public conversation model that Facebook and MySpace have in common.

 

In the Edutopia article titled “Kids Create and Critique on Social Networks”, a student commented that he posts his work online because others can see his work, and it’s not just in his computer. Some students have even established their own networking sites, such as the Realm of New Thought.

 

With regard to Instructional Technology Standard 1: Creativity and Innovation, educators can take standards of technology, like Identifying Trends and Forecasting Possibilities and use them with even the most basic pre-school standards, such as keeping a daily weather graph and posting it online. Young students can create graphs, and easily share their work by learning to scan and upload their work to a forum

 

Researcher, William Richardson says that educational networking sites provide an important avenue for students to share their work, while “[practicing] important soft skills”, such as accepting feedback and usefully reviewing others’ work. I disagree with his statement because although students may be sharpening their technological skills, an online setting provides an atmosphere where critics can allow themselves to be harsh, and presenters less accepting.  In a real time classroom setting, critics should be less harsh, because they are face-to-face with the presenter. Additionally, because the presenter is face-to-face with his critic, would too be more likely to accept the feedback as useful information.

 

Another important aspect of net critiques especially with young students) involves ongoing modeling by the facilitator. A student mentioned, in our SPU online discussion, that in her real time classroom, elementary students require a lot of modeling in order to give constructive feedback. The same should be true for students posting feedback online.

 

In keeping up with the times, another topic of our discussions focused on the use of multiple applications of technology. Suddenly following your friends on Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter is a chore, more than a useful tool. With all the innovations in technology, a teacher is now expected to communicate with parents via real time meetings, phone conferences, e-mail, classroom newsletters, classroom websites…Blogs, Twitter, the list goes on. Are we able to keep up with it all?

 

Lastly, a few tips for networking: whichever application you chose to use, whether it be a networking site deigned for learning, or your own personal website. Be smart about the information you post. Teachers especially need to be careful not to use the names and or pictures or samples of their students’ work without parental permission. Similarly, be watchful about what you say concerning the school and or district, in which you work. Don’t mention the names of parents, coworkers, or other people in your community unless you are willing to reap what may result in its discovery. If you are dealing with a private site, still be cautious as to who you accept as your “friends” or “followers”. Plagiarism may be easier to track with technology, but it is also more readily accessible.

Computer Use & Student Achievement

As a doctorate student in the Department of Education: Curriculum and Instruction, my primary area of focus is within Instructional Technology. As a primary school teacher, I am intrinsically motivated to working for kids and finding the best means to meeting my students at their current level of understanding, with regard to best instructional practices and theory. At the completion of my program of study, I hope to continue working at the district level, as a teacher trainer, helping educators implement the best use of technology in their instruction. With technology education on the forefront, it is imperative educators have a solid understanding of the effects of computer use on student achievement. This article will look at two studies completed on the effects home computer use has on student achievement. I will highlight the definitions of home computer use, as defined by Paul Attewell’s 1999 study of Home Computers and School Performance, and the Year 2000 Study by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). I will briefly explain the purpose of the two studies, their hypotheses, and theories; provide the empirical research and results of the studies, and their practical significance to education. Lastly, I will provide my recommendations for future studies on the effects home computer use has on student achievement.

DEFINITION

According to Attewell’s study, student home computer use defines a population of students with “access to a home computer, or who have a home computer and internet access” (Attewell, 1990, p2). Use of the home computer is to “supplement or reinforce school learning” (Attewell, 1999, p3). Home computer use may develop skills by gaming, such as by use of reading, math, or science games. Home computer use also involves computing through word processing, spreadsheets, and by playing, various educational and multimedia software (Attewell, 1999, p6).

The 2000 study by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) defined home computer use as “high to low…use of computers and the Internet at home” (Bielefeldt, 2005, p1). Computer use by students may fall anywhere on an ordinal scale between high, frequent, moderate, and low usage.

Student Achievement, as defined by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, for Washington State is: mastery of the basic skills needed for life in the twenty-first century, which are the knowledge acquired under the state learning goals set by educators, parents, business and community leaders, and many other citizens during the past decade (Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2004).

PURPOSE / THEORY

With personal computer usage rapidly growing over the last twenty years, a growing educational concern has been that those who lack access to home computers become disadvantaged primarily in terms of “information haves compared to information have-nots” (Attewell, 1999, p2). The primary concern with regard to educational theory is that children, who do not have access to computers and Internet, may lack the skills necessary for survival in the twenty first century (student achievement).

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Paul Attewell, in his year 1999, stratified random cluster sample, studied the effects home computers had on the academic achievement of 18,000 middle school students. His study found that “having a home computer is associated with higher family income and greater parental education and a higher occupational attainment…girls were less likely to have computers than boys and minorities were less likely to have computers than whites” (Attewell, 1999, p13).

With regard to home computer use and its effects on student achievement, his findings correlated moderately with a higher academic performance. “On average, those with home computers scored 6 points higher on reading and 5 points higher on math than those without computers” (Attewell, 1999, p14). These raw scores compute to approximately 3%-5% higher average percentage scores. The study also found that students with a higher socioeconomic status benefited greater than students with a lower SES. The study also concluded that boys benefited more greatly than girls did, and minorities benefited less than whites did.

PURPOSE / THEORY

Similar with the Attewell study, the year 2000 PISA study, conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), aimed to assess the effect home computer use had on student academic performance in math, reading, and science. The purpose of this study stemmed from a growing educational concern that those who lack access to home computers become disadvantaged, similar to the concern that prompted the Attewell study. With regard to student achievement, the PISA study was particularly interested in time students spend on home PCs, since computer and Internet use is necessary for many future job performances (Bielefeldt, 2004, p1).

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Thomas Fuchs and Lundger Woessmann published the Year 2000 Study from the Programme for International Student Achievement, which analyzed data collected from thirty-one countries. More than 367,000 fifteen-year-old students tested in math, reading, and science (Bielefeldt, 2004, p1). The study found that there was “a negative effect on achievement for computer access at home; a positive effect for internet use and educational software at home” (Bielefeldt, 2004, p1). The negative effect on achievement for computer use at home credits low and high usage. There was a moderate correlation for medium frequencies of computer use at home.

PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE

In theory, there should be a higher academic achievement among students using computer and the Internet at home. An increased academic achievement due to computer use attributes to an increased potential in learning and organizational resources. However, there is also a disparity among children entering school, due to home computer use. According to Attewell’s study of home computer use, children from homes with computers are associated with a higher socioeconomic status, a higher family income, and a greater parental occupational attainment and education. This is mainly what has sparked a recent interest in the study of academic achievement due to home computer use.

While the research findings on the positive effects of home computer use on academic achievement are inconsistent, the practical significance of computers acknowledged in educational theory, is through the cognitive perspective of information processing. Wide use of “computers in learning has led to a gradual shift [in] educational settings…and the ways that learners organize knowledge” (Gredler, 2005, p196). Educational theorists recognize that the current generations of learners have brains wired differently for learning, due to growing up with cell phones, personal digital assistants, handheld gaming devices, and PCs. The learning-processing theory suggests the use of advanced, graphic organizers as “an umbrella into which students can fit more detailed information” (Gredler, 2005, p215). The use of computer organizers can organize main points of information, through focusing on vivid details. The same vividness for details is consistent among visual learners. A key concept in Piagetian Theory, is to “provide opportunities for children to exercise logic in action.” Computer programs offer symbol-picture-logic. With software programs’ high use of graphics, children can make discoveries represented by symbols, complete symbol-logic statements, and develop insight into logical necessity.

On the opposing end of the spectrum, Bandura’s social-cognitive theory suggests the detrimental effects technology has on academic achievement. Bandura’s theory suggests that the students’ interaction with the environment is most important to successful learning. Teacher-to-student interaction, student-to-student communication, and student-subject-matter interactions are the keys to successful learning. With computer learning models, “the structure of information, the nature of questioning, and the nature of information feedback are all questionable in technological learning” (Gredler, 2005, p424). While it is unclear, in the PISA study why a high and low at home computer usage correlates with lower academic achievement, a high use of computers for simulations and non-educational games may be inconsistent with conventional instructional models of teaching. Even when its use seems beneficial, computer-instruction “has the disadvantage of not allowing for incidental learning as might occur when a teacher or student mentions in class, an anecdote related to the material being studied” (Schunk, 2004, p280).

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

With inconsistent findings from both the Attewell and PISA study, it is unclear whether home computer use and the Internet correlate with a high academic achievement in math, reading, and science. Since these two studies included data on fourteen and fifteen-year-old subjects, it would be beneficial to complete a similar stratified random cluster sample of elementary aged subjects. It is also unclear to what degree variables such as gender, socioeconomic status, and race had on this experimental study. In naturally occurring, primary and/or secondary elementary classrooms, researchers could conduct an experimental study using stratified random classroom clusters from districts with similar SES and racial make-ups. Recommended also is that use of the home computers be consistent among subjects, with regard to software and programming use. This variable is controllable by providing subjects with laptop PCs, granted research funds are available.

CONCLUSION

As educators, we should all be concerned with finding the best means to meeting our students at their current level of understanding, with regard to best instructional practices and theory. Specific to implementation of technology in instruction, it is imperative educators have a solid understanding of the effects of computer use on student achievement. Presented were two studies on the effects home computer use had on student achievement. In both studies, the empirical research on the usage of home computers and the Internet yielded correlations that were moderate or negative with a higher academic performance. With regard to instructional theories, the results of using a home computer and the Internet have their practical significance to education, yet leave many unanswered questions, especially, in regard with a lack of social learning. As educators, we can continue adding to the knowledge of education by continuing using the recommendations for future studies on the effects home computer use has on student achievement. Furthermore, we can develop our professional competence within education by analyzing the current research on computer usage and academic achievement from the standpoint of its practical significance in education, with relation to the empirical data we do have.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

1. Attewell, Paul. “Home Computers and School Performance,” Information Society 15 (January 1999).

2. Bielefeldt, Talbot. “Computers and Student Learning: Interpreting the Multivariate Analysis of PISA 2000,” Research on Technology in Education 37 (summer 2005).

3. Gredler, Margaret E. Learning and Instruction: Theory into Practice, 5th ed. Columbus, Ohio: Pearson, 2005.

4. Schunk, Dale H. Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective, 4th ed. Columbus, Ohio: Pearson, 2004.