Research Proposal Guide136985097824163205.weebly.com/.../blair.d_action_resea… · Web view2018. 10. 4. · The intervention group received an additional station using specific

Running Head: USE OF IPAD APPLICATIONS AND HIGH FREQUENCY WORD RECALL

High Frequency Word Enhancement Through the Use of Technology

Deanna M. Blair

East Carolina University

USE OF IPAD APPLICATIONS AND HIGH FREQUENCY WORD RECALL

Abstract

This quasi-experimental study was conducted to identify whether the use of iPad applications in

the classroom enhances teacher instruction by increasing the number of high frequency words

recalled by students. Two first grade classrooms, with demographic and academically similar

students, participated in five weeks of Balanced Literacy Stations. The intervention group

received an additional station using specific word applications on an iPad. Pre and posttest mean

scores indicated no significant difference in word recall by using the applications on the iPad to

support learning. Attitude toward reading was more favorable in the intervention class where this

tool was being used.

2


High Frequency Word Enhancement Through the Use of Technology

The majority of students are surrounded by technology in today’s society. They see

parents, siblings, and other leaders using computers, cell phones, iPods, and iPads throughout

their daily lives. Teachers not only use these devices, but also SmartBoards and digital e-readers

in the classroom. Churches are using technology as part of their services to project lessons or

music for the congregation. Technology is everywhere. Due to this exposure, students are

familiar with technology in their everyday learning environment. They thrive on using these

tools in the educational setting. How can educators use technology as a reinforcement tool in

today’s classroom?

The purpose of this research project is to describe the impact of the combination of

balanced literacy instruction and the use of iPad applications (apps) for the enhancement of high

frequency word recall in first grade students. Will allowing students to use technology tools,

specifically the iPad with apps that can be modified to meet the individual needs of students,

increase students’ high frequency word recall more than that of balanced literacy instruction?

Literature Review

In recent years, technology has played an important role in the education of students.

New technology tools have been introduced and used in various forms and systems. As

technology resources become more prevalent in schools, their use in the classroom is almost a

necessity. One way to incorporate technology into instruction is through mobile learning.

Mobile learning provides educational content on personal pocket devices such as PDAs,

smartphones, or handheld computers. Research from Hutchison, Beschomer, and Schmidt-

Crawford (2012) suggests that using mobile learning allows the teacher to be more flexible with

teaching within the classroom setting. These devices offer easy access to learning opportunities,

3


communications and information to all students (Newton and Dell, 2011). Many students

respond to this form of instruction because it is what they use at home on a daily basis.

Successively, this type of learning motivates many learners and helps increase self-confidence

(McKenna, Labbo, Conradi, & Baxter, 2001).

Using the iPad, a handheld, mobile device, along with appropriate applications can

enhance student learning in an educational setting. Getting and Swainey (2012) wanted to

determine the effects of using iPad applications with their lowest achieving reading groups in

order to find out if this tool made a difference in their reading achievement. They grouped their

students based on ability levels in reading and then provided interventions through apps on iPads

to increase sight-word recognition, comprehension, fluency, and vocabulary recognition and

meaning. They compared data between two groups of students; one group without the use of

iPads and the other with the use of iPads. They confirmed elevated gains and higher end of year

scores were reported for those students who routinely used iPad apps and websites. Although

there is limited research with using the iPad, due to it being new in the realm of technology, there

is ample research on the benefits of using technology tools in the classroom to support teacher

instruction. This review of literature will compile the evidence needed to justify additional

research.

Literacy Enhancement through Technology

Throughout the research, findings from multiple articles defend the idea of using

technology to enhance instruction in the classroom. Larson (2010) suggests that using digital

reading devices promotes new literacies and practices. Many students would rather read their

newest novel on a digital reading device compared to picking up that same book in print. These

devices also encourage students to make connections between the reader and the text being read

4


or listened to. The activities that accompany each digital text reinforce the higher order thinking

skills needed to become a strong, confident reader. Allowing these students the opportunity to

engage in meaningful activities through the use of technology puts them in greater control of and

more insightful while reading.

Digital, interactive books are one way the iPad provides useful opportunities for students

to learn (Hutchison et.al., 2012). Using this tool within this format provides support for the

individual readers’ text comprehension and engages those readers who are potentially struggling

(Hutchison et.al., 2012). There are various applications that offer digital books available to

teachers for free. Some applications have choices for books to be read aloud, while others only

present the words. Others also allow the reader to tap a word that is unknown and it will be read

aloud to them. Each application has its advantages and disadvantages.

The Smartboard is another tool that enhances instruction that the teacher has already

provided in the classroom. Activities from multiple websites are available for teachers. They

range in difficulty from kindergarten through college. Activities in all subject areas are found

within most websites. Teachers also have the opportunity to create their own activities for

students to interact with. Both activities, pre-made along with those that are made by the teacher

can be tailored to fit the needs of individual students. This is very important since students must

have practice on skills in order to retain and recall specific information. Students are able to

interact with the Smartboard and do follow up activities that involve skills that have already been

taught by the teacher. Computers are also needed for this tool. This tool also enhances

instruction by making the activity being worked on, interactive. Using programs that are

specifically designed for educational purposes are most reliable. According to McKenna et. al.,

(2012),students may work to produce book projects through word processing programs, have

5


online discussions with their peers from a safe blog or work on phonological awareness skills are

more likely to succeed.

E-Readers are another tool available to students and teachers. With e-readers, students

interact with texts that are either read aloud to them or they can choose to read them on their

own. If they need support, they can highlight the word and it will read the word for them. These

devices store thousands of books and allow the reader to choose a text that is appropriate for

them without other students knowing what book they choose (Larson, 2010).

Motivation

Motivation is an important part of the learning process. Students and teachers, who are

not motivated to learn new things, struggle throughout their career. On the other hand, students

who want to learn new things, usually excel in what they are learning. It is important for

students to want to learn. According to Hutchison (2012), the use of technology tools, as

mentioned above, will reinforce motivation, which will increase student’s productivity. Often,

student motivation increases when technology is used (McKenna, 2011). Confidence also shines

through when students prove to themselves that they have successfully used their technology

tool.

Motivation can also be looked at in a different way. Getting and Swainey (2012), noticed

that students who had disruptive, inattentive behaviors before using the iPad, suddenly became

intrigued by this tool. This form of enhancement became highly motivational for these students.

Other researchers reported the same findings. McClanahan, Williams, Kennedy & Tate (2012),

Hutchison, et.al (2012), Dobler (2011) and Walker (2009) report higher levels of engagement

when technology is used to enhance the lessons being taught.

Twenty-First Century Learning

6


In classrooms today, it is imperative to integrate core classroom instruction with

information and communication technologies (ICTs). As part of the North Carolina Teacher

Evaluation System, teachers are required to prepare students for jobs being designed with 21st

century learning in mind. Once again, use of handheld or mobile devices is one way to teach

students important skills needed in order to function in the 21st century work force.

Collaboration is an important skill needed for developing these talents. Murray and Olcese

(2011) state that, “Collaboration in ways that take advantage of the iPad hardware and operating

system capabilities could support 21st century skills”. It is imperative that teachers teach students

the correct way to use these devices. This includes being taught how to use these devices in a

way that encompasses project-based learning. Project-based learning is an instructional method

that provides students with complex tasks based on problems that involve the student having to

problem solve, make decisions, use investigative skills and reflect. The teacher facilitates, but

does not direct. While using technology, students are expected to use appropriate tools in

meaningful ways in order to help them investigate, collaborate, analyze, synthesize and present

their learning. This type of learning promotes thinking outside the box and responding in a

multitude of ways. According to Banister (2010), the iPad and iPod touch will play a significant

role in defining 21st century models of education. With new devices being developed, it is

imperative that educators remain familiar with what keeps their students engaged.

Applications

There are thousands of applications (apps) available for students to use today. Visiting

the iTunes store leaves the investigator with a plethora of opportunities of choice in this matter.

There are apps available for every subject, hobby, and age group. Educational apps have a

7


separate page where they are broken down into specific skills focused on during instruction or by

age. Teachers make the choice on which apps to use to strengthen these skills.

Shettel (2012) presents apps that are appropriate for use with literacy instruction to college

students at Millersville University. After researching, she compiled a list of appropriate apps

based on the age of the students for teachers to use in their classroom. This is a great resource

available at no additional cost. In another study, Murray and Olcese (2011), worked to design

and organize the apps available at that time into specific educational groups: tutoring apps,

exploring apps, tools for the classroom and communication. They also took it a step further and

devised whether each app fostered individual work or if it promoted collaboration with a partner

or group. While the study was helpful, it didn’t allow students the opportunity to experience

each app for feedback. The researchers used their own judgment in this report where the

students should have been allowed to give their perspective. Some apps allow educators and

parents to differentiate the words for each student individually. Other apps have been shown to

improve reading skills. Certain apps allow students to click on the unknown word and the device

will read it to them. This practice of building fluency and automaticity, will lead to

comprehension (Dobler, 2011).

The advancement and research into iPad applications will allow educators to plan more

effectively with the individual student in mind. Although research is limited in regards to studies

of iPad use, there is an overabundance of resources available to support the use of other forms of

technology to enhance instruction in the classroom.

Methodology

This was a quasi-experimental research study using a pre- and post-test design method

with both control and intervention groups. The independent variables in this study were the use

8


of specific iPad applications to enhance high frequency word recall. The dependent variable was

student achievement in recalling words read on both DIBELS and County Word Assessments.

There were two levels for the independent variable, use of applications on the iPad and

traditional Reader’s Workshop consisting of literacy work stations. Students worked in their

traditional work stations, consisting of word work, read to self, read with a buddy, listening,

work on writing, computer and Smartboard. Each day, after students met for a short, ten minute

teacher directed mini-lesson about reading strategies, they broke out of groups to work

independently or with a partner on the above activities. During the word work station time, the

intervention group used iPads with specific word work applications. The control group used

hands on activities to manipulate letters or words in order to make new words.

The dependent variable, student achievement in recalling words read, was measured as a

score on the mClass Reading 3D/ DIBELS words read and county word list assessments.

Participants

The participants in this study consisted of two first grade, self-contained classrooms. The

control group had 20 students, with one classroom teacher. It was made up of 10 girls and 10

boys. The intervention group had 19 students with one classroom teacher. It was made up of 9

girls and 10 boys. Both groups shared an assistant with two other first grade classrooms. She

came into each classroom once a day during the one hour block of Reader’s Workshop. She

facilitated learning throughout the classroom. The two classes were identical in ethnicity and

academic makeup as well. Six students in each classroom were ESL and one student from each

classroom was labeled EC (Exceptional Children) and was pulled daily for extra educational

services.

Setting

9


Participants in this study were from a small, rural town in southern Granville County.

The participating school was a Pre-K through 5th grade, Title1 School with 54.8% of its 514

students receiving free or reduced lunch. The demographics of the school were 48% Caucasian,

25% African American, 22% Hispanic, 4% multi-racial and 1% Asian. The average classroom

size throughout the school was 23 students per teacher. Most students come from single parent

homes and homes where parents work at state owned facilities.

Data Sources and Data Collection Procedures

Data was collected for this study using the mClass Reading 3D/DIBELS Next assessment

program, County’s high frequency word list, researcher log and Garfield Attitude Toward

Reading survey. DIBELS stands for Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills. It was

developed based on measurement procedures for Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) and

intended to be economical and efficient indicators of a student’s progress towards achieving a

goal. The Word Recognition part of this assessment was individually administered and allowed

the teacher to see the individual student’s ability to read high frequency words with accuracy and

fluency. This assessment is intended for use with students reading between instructional levels

A and E on the Guided Reading scale. When the test was administered, the student read words

aloud from a 24-item word list. There are three lists of words with 24 words on each list. The

assessor checked to see if words were read correctly, incorrectly, or not read at all. Then she

checked the appropriate box indicating the students’ response. The goal for this assessment was

for students to correctly read 18 or more words on the final word list, List C. The mClass

company believes that students who have achieved this level of mastery no longer need this type

of word recognition assessment.

10


The second assessment that was used was the county’s High Frequency Word list. This

was a list of words used by the county to check for automaticity in word recall knowledge. It

was made up of words from the Fry High Frequency Word list. The county used this assessment

to see if students were able to instantly recognize these words by sight. It was made up of ten

lists, with 25 words on each list. Students were required to know a certain amount of words from

each list by the end of each quarter in grades kindergarten through second in order to be

considered academically proficient. In order to use this assessment, the teacher called students to

their table one by one. Flashcards with each of the corresponding words were then shown to the

student and the student responded with the correct reading of the word, the wrong response, or

no response at all. The teacher checked the box on the form if they read the word correctly.

Their score was based on how many words they read correctly.

The Garfield Elementary Reading Attitude Survey is another tool that was used to collect

data. This survey offered a quick indication of student attitudes toward reading. It consisted of

20 items and was administered to both classrooms in about 10 minutes. Each question provided

a brief, simple worded statement about reading. It was followed by four pictures of Garfield

designed to portray a different emotion, ranging from very positive to very negative (McKenna

& Kear, 1990).

The last source of data was from a researcher log. Throughout the study, the researcher

took notes on the students’ reactions, findings, and attitude toward using technology to enhance

their knowledge of high frequency words. A notebook was kept with notes about each student

and their successes or problems they may have had throughout the project.

Data Analysis

11


The study was a quasi-experimental design consisting of a pre and posttest given to both

the intervention and control groups. An independent sample t-test was used to determine the

difference in the mean gain scores of both groups of students.

Intervention

Students that participated in this study were from two separate classrooms. The

intervention class consisted of 19 students and the control class consisted of 20 students, with

varying ability levels. Both classes had similar demographic and academic makeup. The last

week of January, students were given a series of pretests. Each student took the mClass Reading

3D/DIBELS Next assessment, the county word list assessment, and the Garfield Attitude Toward

Reading Survey. Next, the intervention began.

During weeks two through six, students in both classes participated in traditional

Reader’s Workshop. Here students worked independently or with a partner in workstations to

build literacy skills. In the Word Work Station, students participated in numerous hands on

activities in order to learn non-mastered high frequency words. During Work on Writing,

students had the opportunity to write in their journal about books they read previously or they

could write about a topic of their choice. In Read to Self, students picked a book to read

independently that was an appropriate reading level and practiced reading using a Whisper

Phone where they could hear themselves reading quietly. Reading to a Buddy was another

station they attended. Here, they picked a book of choice and practiced reading the book with

their partner. They helped and learned from each other with words that were difficult. At the

Computer and SmartBoard stations, students worked with their partner to build literacy skills by

engaging in games that promoted literacy skills that were being worked on during that part of the

year. Lastly, in the Listening station students share a book with their partner while listening to

12


the book read aloud by tape. Once they finished, they discussed the book with their partner and

then wrote connections they made or something they liked about the book.

Both classes participated in these work stations on a daily basis. During this time,

students that were in the intervention group had an additional station added to their routine. The

iPad, loaded with specific applications was added to the rotation. These applications consisted of

“Spellosaur”, “Word Wizard”, and “iBooks”. Each of these applications allows the teacher to

select words for individual students based on their needs. Words were selected for each student

based on data from the county k-2 word list and the mClass Words Read Assessment. iBooks

allowed students to see and hear the high frequency word within context. While using the app

“Spellosaur”, students listened for the correct word, filled in the missing letters to spell words

correctly, and also manipulated letters to find the correct word. Students worked independently

in this station. Each student had his or her own login and was assigned specific words within

each app. They manipulated words within applications, played games that increased repetition

of assigned words, and read or listened to words in context. This allowed for differentiation

based on each student’s individual needs. Students participated in this station two times a week

for 20 minutes each session. This allowed for six students a day to engage in applications on the

iPad for five weeks of intervention time.

Validity and Reliability or Trustworthiness

There were possible reliability issues related to this study. Over the course of time

unanticipated events may have occurred. This can cause pre- and posttest unreliability. History

and Maturation threats were two issues that may have caused inconsistencies during the duration

of this study. Certain students from either class could have had a bad morning before coming to

school. This could have caused their response to be different from what it might have been.

13


Maturation was also an issue that may have affected the outcome of this study. Students matured

over time and this may have caused a threat to validity. There is no way to control these threats

due to their nature.

There were also threats to validity that we minimized. Location threat, where some

students may have had more resources than others, was controlled to some degree. Both teachers

have worked together for nine years. They frequently got together and shared many of the same

activities that we do in our classes. We controlled the types of activities and the manipulatives

that students used in both classrooms in order to minimize this threat.

The last and most prominent threat to validity was that of subject characteristics. Each

group of students differed from one another in multiple ways. Academic levels, high frequency

word knowledge, attitude towards reading and reading ability can be different between both

classes. There was no way to control this threat due to our classes being permanent.

Results/Findings

Data collected during the course of this study were from pretest and posttest data attained

from the county k-2 word list, DIBELS Next/Reading 3D Words Read Assessment, Garfield

Attitude Toward Reading Survey, and observational/reflective notes provided in a journal by the

researcher. The county k-2 word list, Words Read Assessment, and Garfield Attitude Toward

Reading Survey are located in the Appendix.

Gain results from the county k-2 word list were entered into a t-test calculator, provided

by Dr. Del Siegle in the form of a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. This test provided meaningful

data by calculating and comparing the means of two groups. It was also used to determine if the

difference between the means possibly occurred by chance. This test provided an analysis of the

quantitative data collected during the course of the study. A “1” was used to represent the

14


intervention group and a “2” was used to represent the control group in the independent variable

column. The gain results were found by subtracting the score from the pre-test from the score on

the posttest. This difference score was then entered into the dependent variable column. The

results from this assessment tool recommended the use of equal variance due to the fact that

there was no significant difference in the number of students in each group (see Appendix D).

Because our main interest was in the mean score between the control group and

intervention group, we then analyzed that data. On the County k-2 word list, the intervention

group scored a mean score of 107.1 while the control group had a mean score of 106.9, therefore

indicating no significant difference in the effects of the intervention (see Table 1). Effect size for

both groups were not significant with d=0.0084. The standard deviation (SD) for the

intervention group was much less than in the control group indicating much less variability and

scores closer together (see Table 1).

Table 1

Summary of County k-2 Word List and Reading 3D/DIBELS Words Read Assessment

Measure Group Mean Change

SD t-value Effect size

p ofF-Max

County k-2 Word List

ControlIntervention

106.9107.2

46.530.7

0.02 .008 0.08

Reading 3D/DIBELS Words Read Assessment

ControlIntervention

11.315.6

12.310.6

1.18 0.35 0.52

Data from Reading 3D/DIBELS Words Read Assessment indicated a slightly different finding.

The mean score showed an 11.3 change for the control group, with a standard deviation of 12.3.

The intervention group had a 15.6 change with a standard deviation of 10.6. Using equal

15


variance with both groups, a mean differential score of 4.33 was calculated with a p value of

0.52. This indicated a significant difference, considering p>.05 is considered to be substantial

growth. Due to the fact that the sample size is so small, we looked at the effect size in order to

further determine if there was a significant difference in the intervention group compared to the

control group. According to Cohen, an effect size of 0.2 indicates a small effect, 0.5 is medium,

and 0.8 is large. Therefore, scores obtained from the Reading 3D/DIBELS Words Read

Assessment pretest and posttest, given to control and intervention groups, show a medium

significance (see Table 1 and Chart 1).

Chart 1

Mean Gain Scores from both Control and Intervention Groups

County k-2 Word List Reading 3D/DIBELS Garfield Attitude Toward Reading

Survey

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Control GroupIntervention Group

Data obtained from the Garfield Attitude Toward Reading survey revealed the mean

score for the intervention group was 6.52 with a standard deviation of 6.35. The control group

had a mean score of 4.5 with a standard deviation of 4.73. The effect size for this group was

16


0.31. This indicated a small significance in the intervention group compared to the control group

according to pretest and posttest data.

Researcher notes logged during the course of this study provided a detailed description of

how students worked independently and collaboratively during literacy workstations. Students

in the Intervention Group were very active in their learning and motivated to do “word work”

when assigned that station. In most situations, students could hardly wait until their turn to work

with words using the iPads. Students were happy and at least one student each day shared about

this station at meeting time to describe something they enjoyed about literacy time. In the

Control Group class, students worked well, but showed little excitement while moving around

the room in various workstations. There was good communication among partners working

together and they enjoyed the collaboration. This log was utilized to gather data in order to

analyze attitudes and observational notes throughout the course of research. It was a very

valuable tool for the duration of the research.

Discussion/Conclusion

This study aimed to determine the extent to which the use of iPads strengthens high

frequency word recall when combined with teacher instruction. The primary goal was to see if

students were able to recall more words if they used assigned iPad apps compared to those

students who used traditional hands-on word manipulation practice. Results were not largely

significant. Students in the intervention group made more gains compared to students in the

control group on majority of assessments, however they were only small gains. Results from

researcher notes and Garfield Attitude Toward Reading Survey indicated an even higher rate of

motivation toward reading in those students who participated in the Intervention Group. Data

from this study has provided evidence that using the iPad applications involved, increase high

17


frequency word recall in first grade students. More research is needed to see if long term use of

this tool largely impacts high frequency word recall.

The results from this study correlate with a study performed by Getting and Swainey

(2012), where growth was indicated by students who used iPads consistently, compared to those

who did not use the tool. Though limited research has been done to show iPads increase

educational growth, Banister (2010) concurs the iPad and iPod touch will play a significant role

in defining 21st century models of education. Behavior problems were not an issue in either of

the participating classrooms. According to Getting and Swainey (2012), usual behavior

problems do not appear when using this tool. Students who normally got in trouble because not

being able to stay focused, were able to concentrate and were much more motivated to work on

the technology device added to their work stations. Students who normally struggled with

reading were able to connect with what they were learning and were provided more support

(Hutchison et.al 2012). This tool provided the support they would not normally obtain during

partner or independent reading in the classroom. This was evident during the duration of the

study.

Limitations

There were certain limitations during the duration of this study. Due to sample size of

the study (39 students), the chance to show a significant difference between the mean scores was

minimal. Time was also a limitation throughout the study. Students worked using the iPad apps

two times per week for 20 minutes each session after receiving teacher directed instruction for

five weeks. Additional time added to the span of the intervention would aid in analyzing the true

potential for performance of that group of students. If the intervention had been started at the

beginning of the school year, students in the intervention group would have had the opportunity

18


to explore the apps assigned and begin learning about this new tool in order to become more

familiar with its uses. When the study actually began, they would have had full knowledge of all

the apps they would interact with and would understand how each one worked. These

limitations could have construed results of the intervention implemented during the course of the

study.

Implications and Future Direction for Educators

Findings from this research showed small significant growth with use of iPad apps as a

tool for word work compared to the control group who did not use the iPad as a reinforcement

tool. Teachers need to further explore principles guiding the use of technology in the classroom

in order to increase student achievement with high frequency word recall. It has been shown that

motivation in the classroom increases with the use of technology tools (McKenna, 2011).

Teachers agree that students who are motivated to learn are more productive than those who are

not motivated. McClanahan, Williams, Kennedy & Tate (2012), Hutchison, et.al (2012), Dobler

(2011) and Walker (2009) also reported higher levels of engagement when technology was used

to enhance the lessons being taught. With technology being readily available at home, school,

and public places, teachers must stay up to date on the newest and most comprehensive tools that

will motivate and engage our most hard to reach students.

Due to differing results, the focus of this research should be tested with larger sample

sizes, multiple times and in a variety of different locations. This would provide more accurate

results. Additionally, because all the participants in the study were in first grade, efforts should

be made to study other elementary school aged children. New studies will be needed to

investigate using the iPad apps, along with appropriate teacher instruction to determine if

together they increase high frequency word recall.

19


Reflection

I have enjoyed having the opportunity to switch rolls from being a teacher to becoming a

researcher. Through the years, I have constantly reflected on my instruction and what I see

working or not working. I believe reflection is part of being a good teacher. As an action

researcher, you follow those same principles, however you get to dig deeper. The new ideas that

you have heard about and researched more in depth, you now have the opportunity to try and see

if those same things work for your own students. Being a researcher has allowed me to critically

analyze existing research by implementing strategies that I feel passionate about into my

classroom. It has not been an easy job! It takes hours upon hours of time examining the most

current research in order to determine if what other teacher-researchers have tried will work for

my group of students as well. Once you put the plan in action, it is tedious and systematic

process of planning and completing the entire process. The evidence-based information

provided by researchers is so important and after completing my own, I understand and

appreciate the value of it even more. I know how much time and hard work it takes to evaluate,

self-reflect, act on the intervention and then reflect on the entire process of what you are trying to

do again. It is an ongoing process where you constantly improve your practices.

As a reading teacher, my ultimate goal is to instill a love of reading and to help our

students develop skills that will help them become lifelong readers. I truly believe that each

child can and will read; some may be at different points in their life. It is my responsibility as a

reading teacher to research and find what works for each student in order to help them be

successful in reading. After completing this action research, I believe I have the skills,

confidence and knowledge necessary to fulfill this responsibility.

20


References

Banister, S. (2010). Integrating the ipod touch in k-12 education: Visions and vices. Computers

in the Schools, 27, pp. 121-131. doi: 10.1080/07380561003801590

Dobler, E.(2011). Using ipads to promote literacy in the primary grades. Reading Today, 29(3),

pp. 18-19.

Getting, S. & Swainey, K. (2012). First graders with ipads? Learning & Leading with

Technology, 40(1), pp. 24-27.

Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt-Crawford, D. (2012). Exploring the use of the ipad for

literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 66(1), pp.15-23. doi: 10.1002/TRTR.01090

Larson, L.C. (2010). Digital readers: The next chapter in E-book reading and response. The

Reading Teacher, 64(1), pp.15-22. doi: 10.1598/RT.64.1.2

McKenna, M.C., & Kear, D.J. (1990). Measuring attitude toward reading: A new tool for

teachers. The Reading Teacher, 43(8), pp.626–639. doi: 10.1598/RT.43.8.3

McKenna, M.C., Labbo, L.D., Conradi, K., & Baxter, J. (2011). Effective uses of

technology in literacy instruction. In L.M. Morrow, L.B. Gambrell, J. Del Nero & N.

Duke (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (4th Eds., pp.361-394). New York, NY:

Guilford Press.

Murray, O.T. & Olcese, N. R. (2011). Teaching and learning with ipads, ready or not?

TechTrends, 55(6), 42-48.

Newton, D.A. & Dell, A.G. (2011). Assistive technology. Journal of Special Education

Technology, 26(2), pp. 55-60.

Shettel, J. (2012). Literacy ipad apps for teachers. Learning & Leading with Technology

(March/April 2012 Ed.). Retrieved from http://www.iste.org.

21

http://www.iste.org/


Siegle, D. (2002). An introduction to t-tests [Powerpoint slides]. Retrieved from

http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/t-test/ttest.pps.

Siegle, D. (2002). Using excel for t-tests calculations [Powerpoint slides]. Retrieved from

http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/t-test//ReadingT-testwithExcel.pps

Siegle, D. (2010). Dr. Del Siegle's Excel T-test Spreadsheet. Retrieved from

http://www.gifted.ucon.edu/Siegle/research/t-test/tTestExcel.xls

Walker, T. (2009). Turning the page: Students live in a digital world. Are schools ready to join

them? NEA Today, 28(2), pp. 24-27.

22


Appendix ACounty k-2 Word List

23


24


25


Appendix BReading 3D/DIBELS Words Read Assessment

26


27


28


29


30


31


32


33


34


Appendix CGarfield Attitude Toward Reading Survey

35


36


37


38


39


40


Appendix DDel Siegle’s Independent T-Test Spreadsheet


Value used for Group 1 ------------------> 1 This speadsheet was prepared by Del Siegle for use in EPSY 341Value used for Group 2 ------------------> 2 Note: The df for the Unequal Variance Independent t-test is an approximation.

p of F-Max--> 0.08319528 Effect Size Independent t-test Use Equal Variance d=

Equal Unequal 0.00667917 No Control GroupVariance Variance 0.00840501 Control Group is Group 1

Group 1 Group 2 Mean diff. 0.25789474 0.25789474 0.00554133 Control Group is Group 2Mean 107.157895 106.9 SE 12.6948896 12.5638657SD 30.6834432 46.540192 t-value 0.02031485 0.0205267n 19 20 df 37 18

two-tailed p 0.98390137 0.98374661

Paired t-test Correlation-> The scores are not paired.

0 Group 1 Group 2 Mean diff. The scores are not paired. 1Mean N/A N/A SE The scores are not paired. 1SD N/A N/A t-value The scores are not paired.n 39 0 df The scores are not paired.

two-tailed p The scores are not paired.

Group (IV) DV 2nd DV if calculating a paired (correlated) t-test1 98 981 147 1471 99 991 90 901 83 831 87 871 145 1451 138 1381 140 1401 79 791 102 1021 95 951 107 1071 88 881 23 231 139 1391 121 1211 125 1251 130 1302 84 842 124 1242 110 1102 146 1462 150 1502 150 1502 144 1442 135 1352 4 42 149 1492 104 1042 31 312 43 432 125 1252 100 1002 97 972 130 1302 150 1502 138 1382 24 24

41


Appendix EDel Siegle’s Independent T-Test Spreadsheet






two-tailed p 0.24746718 0.24571071




Group (IV) DV 2nd DV if calculating a paired (correlated) t-test1 12 121 0 01 19 191 21 211 11 111 4 41 9 91 2 21 12 121 26 261 17 171 36 361 27 271 16 161 35 351 22 221 13 131 0 01 15 152 5 52 34 342 4 42 12 122 2 22 1 12 0 02 8 82 13 132 4 42 0 02 -4 -42 22 222 29 292 35 352 14 142 0 02 1 12 26 262 20 20

42


Appendix FDel Siegle’s Independent T-Test Spreadsheet

Garfield Attitude Toward Reading Survey





two-tailed p 0.26422073 0.2685927




Group (IV) DV 2nd DV if calculating a paired (correlated) t-test1 4 41 2 21 10 101 5 51 3 31 0 01 -2 -21 4 41 12 121 4 41 7 71 17 171 9 91 6 61 3 31 13 131 12 121 -5 -51 20 202 4 42 12 122 4 42 7 72 9 92 0 02 6 62 3 32 -3 -32 2 22 -5 -52 9 92 1 12 6 62 9 92 12 122 0 02 4 42 1 12 9 9

43


Appendix EIRB Training Module Completion

Group 2.Social / Behavorial Research Investigators and Key Personnel: Stage 1. Basic Course Passed on 11/11/11 (Ref # 7014619)

Required ModulesDate

CompletedIntroduction 11/10/11 no quiz

History and Ethical Principles - SBR 11/10/11 4/4 (100%)

Defining Research with Human Subjects - SBR 11/10/11 5/5 (100%)

The Regulations and The Social and Behavioral Sciences - SBR 11/10/11 5/5 (100%)

Assessing Risk in Social and Behavioral Sciences - SBR 11/11/11 5/5 (100%)

Informed Consent - SBR 11/11/11 5/5 (100%)

Privacy and Confidentiality - SBR 11/11/11 5/5 (100%)

Research with Prisoners - SBR 11/11/11 4/4 (100%)

Research with Children - SBR 11/11/11 4/4 (100%)

Research in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools - SBR 11/11/11 4/4 (100%)

International Research - SBR 11/11/11 3/3 (100%)

Internet Research - SBR 11/11/11 4/4 (100%)

Vulnerable Subjects - Research Involving Workers/Employees 11/11/11 4/4 (100%)

For this Completion Report to be valid, the learner listed above must be affiliated with a CITI participating institution. Falsified information and unauthorized use of the CITI

course site is unethical, and may be considered scientific misconduct by your institution.Paul Braunschweiger Ph.D.

Professor, University of MiamiDirector Office of Research Education

CITI Course Coordinator

44


Appendix FIRB Approval and Exemption Forms

EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITYUniversity & Medical Center Institutional Review Board Office 4N-70 Brody Medical Sciences Building· Mail Stop 682600 Moye Boulevard · Greenville, NC 27834Office 252-744-2914 · Fax 252-744-2284 · www.ecu.edu/irb

Notification of Exempt Certification

From: Social/Behavioral IRB To: Deanna Blair CC: Elizabeth Swaggerty Date: 1/2/2013 Re: UMCIRB 12-002296 Blair: High Frequency Word Enhancement Through the Use of Technology

I am pleased to inform you that your research submission has been certified as exempt on 1/2/2013. This study is eligible for Exempt Certification under categories #1 & #2.

It is your responsibility to ensure that this research is conducted in the manner reported in your application and/or protocol, as well as being consistent with the ethical principles of the Belmont Report and your profession.

This research study does not require any additional interaction with the UMCIRB unless there are proposed changes to this study. Any change, prior to implementing that change, must be submitted to the UMCIRB for review and approval. The UMCIRB will determine if the change impacts the eligibility of the research for exempt status. If more substantive review is required, you will be notified within five business days.

The UMCIRB office will hold your exemption application for a period of five years from the date of this letter. If you wish to continue this protocol beyond this period, you will need to submit an Exemption Certification request at least 30 days before the end of the five year period.

The Chairperson (or designee) does not have a potential for conflict of interest on this study. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IRB00000705 East Carolina U IRB #1 (Biomedical) IORG0000418IRB00003781 East Carolina U IRB #2 (Behavioral/SS) IORG0000418 IRB00004973

45


Appendix GTable 1 and Chart 1: Gains/Data Results

Chart 1Gains Made on Assessment Tools

County k-2 Word List Reading 3D/DIBELS Garfield Attitude Toward Reading

Survey

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Control GroupIntervention Group

Table 1

Summary of County k-2 Word List and Reading 3D/DIBELS Words Read Assessment

Measure Group Mean Change

SD t-value Effect size

p ofF-Max


ControlIntervention

106.9107.2

46.530.7

0.02 .008 0.08


ControlIntervention

11.315.6

12.310.6

1.18 0.35 0.52

46

Documents

Research Proposal Guide136985097824163205.weebly.com/.../blair.d_action_resea… · Web view2018. 10. 4. · The intervention group received an additional station using specific