ERIC EJ1134394: Emergent Literacy Development and Computer Assisted Instruction

2017·0.29 MB·English

by  ERIC

Emergent Literacy Development and Computer Assisted Instruction

Judy Trotti: University of Mary Hardin-Baylor
Randy Hendricks: University of Mary Hardin-Baylor
Christie Bledsoe: University of Mary Hardin-Baylor

In this mixed-methods study, researchers examined the literacy development of prekindergarten
students (N = 162) randomly placed in one of two treatment groups with each receiving 15 minutes
of computer-assisted literacy instruction for four months. Literacy development of a control group
of children not receiving computer-assisted instruction was contrasted with the two treatment
groups. All children in the study were eligible for free or reduced lunch. Responses from a semi-
structured focus group of prekindergarten teachers (N = 5) were analyzed for corroboration.
Although all three groups progressed in literacy development, the control group had significantly
larger gains (p < 0.01). The effect size was moderate (eta squared = 0.63). Qualitative data
supported the use of one computer program over another, but none of the teachers supported daily
use of either software treatment.

H istorically, instruction in literacy has 2000). The National Center for Family
occurred in first grade. This practice Literacy (2004) reviewed studies that defined
was based in part on the conclusions early literacy skills needed for young
of Morphett and Washburn (1931) who found children. Skills listed in the panel’s report are
that maturity was an important factor in alphabet knowledge; phonological
gauging a student’s ability to begin to read. awareness; rapid automatic naming of letters,
Olson (1949) and Gesell (1940; 1946) also digits, objects, and colors; writing letters or
promoted the developmental theory of name; phonological memory; concepts about
reading readiness. However, Clay (1966) books; print knowledge; oral language; and
disavowed the maturational theories of visual processing. Instructional practices are
reading readiness and coined the term most useful when they are code-focused,
“emergent literacy” to describe what children involve shared reading, and promote
know about reading and writing before they language development focused on early
can actually read and write conventionally. literacy skills.
When children imitate reading and writing
activities, they are practicing emergent Pre-K in the United States
literacy behaviors (Cecil, Baker, & Lozano,
2015). According to longitudinal studies,
Over the past six decades, research on children who attended a high quality
emergent literacy has found a foothold in preschool were more prepared for
teaching practices designed for children kindergarten and outperformed their peers on
under age six. Data from longitudinal studies language, literacy, and mathematics (Freede,
reveal continuity between reading-related 2009). Further, these positive effects
skills exhibited by preschool children and persisted through elementary school at the
their reading performance in elementary least. In one longitudinal study, adults at age
school (Lonigan, Burgess, & Anthony, 40 who experienced a quality preschool
SRATE Journal Winter 2017, Volume 26(1) Page 30
program had higher salaries, were more competence in technology integration with
likely to be employed, committed fewer applications of technology that are
crimes, and were more likely to be high developmentally appropriate. Three different
school graduates (Schweinhart, et al., 2005). types of technology-based curricula were
Thirty-nine states in the U.S. provide state- examined in the above-mentioned literature
funded pre-K for children who are at-risk reviewed including Warterford Early
(WSDEL, 2013) for future high school Reading Program (Johnson et al., Tracy and
graduation because of other hardships. In Young, 2007 and Powers and Price-Johnson,
some states, children are eligible to attend 2007), ‘Ready, Set, Leap!’ (Davidson et al.,
free preschool if they meet all or some of the 2009) and LitTECH Outreach (Johanson,
following stipulations: come from a home Bell, & Daytner, 2008). Researchers
with a limited income, have a parent in the reported no convincing evidence that any of
military, have ever been in foster care, are these technology-based curricula resulted in
homeless, or do not speak or comprehend significant literacy gains when compared to
English by the time they are three years old the control groups.
(TEA, 2009; WSDEL, 2013). When CAI was used as an
Computer-Assisted Instruction intervention with pre-K children to advance
(CAI). CAI refers to specific computer vocabulary knowledge and promote reading
applications or supplemental activities to comprehension, the results were moderate
enhance the teacher’s instruction. It differs (Spencer, et. al, 2012). Andrews (2004)
from computer-based education and showed a statistically significant positive
computer-based instruction, which are terms correlation between technology integration
used to represent general use of computers in and literacy learning for children ages 7-11.
the classroom. The use of computer Children who used technology to enhance
applications as a supplement to instruction literacy learning had a 16% acceleration of
promotes student interest and motivation learning compared with children without
with pictorial displays, self-pacing, and technology integration. In the same study,
positive feedback built in the programs positive results in literacy progress were not
(Macaruso & Walker, 2008). Teacher roles evident for children ages 11-16.
are also found to be important for support of Paterson, Henry, O’Quin, Ceprano,
CAI. Teachers of young children who anchor and Blue (2003) scrutinized the effectiveness
their knowledge about developmentally of the Waterford Early Reading Program
appropriate practices regarding literacy with kindergarteners in an urban public
instruction to classroom management and school system. The Waterford Program
research support for early literacy instruction involved practice in rhyming, sound
have found CAI more effective than those segmenting and blending, alphabet skills, and
lacking knowledge of a specific role of the concepts of print. While findings failed to
teacher (Robinson et al., 2006). support success of the program, teacher
Data from various studies concerning performance variables were associated with
the educational benefits from use of CAI differences in classroom performance of the
show mixed results. A review of 46 articles kindergarteners. Students with teachers who
(Belo, MeKenney, Voogt, & Bradley, 2016), facilitated literacy learning and maximized
relating to early literacy development shows instructional time showed slightly more
that CAI supports children’s early literacy progress than the CAI students. Parr and
development when it is used appropriately. Fung (2000) concluded “the effect of
Suitable use of CAI integrates teacher
SRATE Journal Winter 2017, Volume 26(1) Page 31
computer-assisted instruction has not been 1978). According to Weiner (1986),
conclusively demonstrated” (p. V). students’ perceptions of their ability
The purpose of this paper is to influence performance. When learners
compare the effect of two computer programs believe poor performance is beyond their
with a control group on the literacy learning control, they tend to surrender easily.
of at-risk children at one pre-K campus. The Attribution theory emphasizes the
state in which this study was conducted importance of meeting needs of individual
provides free pre-K for four-year-olds who students and modifying learning
meet at least one of the following environments to provide for optimal success.
requirements: children of military parent(s), Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory emphasizes
homeless, low income, or lack of English the idea that social factors highly influence
language proficiency. However, only two of development. When individuals interact and
the ten quality standards noted by NIEER explore together, cognitive development is
(2014) are evident in the programing. The accelerated.
two quality benchmarks required by this state Both computer programs used in this
include comprehensive early learning study provided for individualized learning
standards and inclusion of at least 15 hours of within the classroom setting. Feedback was
in-service for teachers annually. provided through successful accomplishment
Students leaving this pre-K in 2013 of various tasks within the program design
lacked kindergarten readiness because of through auditory and visual reinforcements.
poor literacy skills, so school district leaders Since children were working independently
sought remedies for the lack of literacy of one another while involved in CAI, social
proficiency. A pilot study was implemented interactions with other children and the
in which two computer programs were teacher were limited.
examined to determine if the district should Methods. A mixed methods approach
purchase the software to help pre-K students was appropriate to determine both the
with literacy development. The study aimed literacy attainment of pre-K students and the
to answer the following research questions: teachers’ perceptions of each computer
(1) What are the differences in software program. A concurrent-
attainment of critical literacy skills of pre-K triangulation design (Fraenkel & Wallen,
students before and after the treatment of (a) 2009) was implemented since both
Imagine Learning (b) Waterford Early quantitative and qualitative data were
Learning, or (c) classroom instruction collected and analyzed at approximately the
without software instruction? same time. A between-subjects design with
(2) How did the pre-K teachers’ a control group was used for the quantitative
perceive the effectiveness of Imagine and phase.
Waterford Early Learning computer Through analytic induction, focus
programs for literacy development of group conversations were explored in the
students? qualitative phase after three months of
implementation. Analytic induction allows
Theoretical Framework for a proposition that can be verified through
qualitative data (Patton, 2002). The focus
Improvement of early literacy skills group was semi-structured with questions
can be examined through the theoretical designed before the group met. The focus
frameworks of attribution theory (Weiner, group meeting allowed pre-K teachers (N =
1986) and sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 5) to describe their observations of student
SRATE Journal Winter 2017, Volume 26(1) Page 32
learning and experiences with and without to promote literacy development (Imagine
the software support. Teacher responses to Learning, n.d.). Students worked at their own
nine questions were coded to reflect level and pace. Waterford Early Learning
observations and expectations about the (Group B) was advertised as research-based
results of the programs on early literacy and child-friendly for students in pre-K
learning. through second grade. Audio and multimedia
Data Collection. Four-year-old pre- prompts facilitated self-paced progress
K students (N = 162) in the study attended (Waterford, n.d.).
school for a half-day (3.5 hours) and were Data Analysis and Findings
divided into three groups: Group A (n = 51) Quantitative Findings. There were no
received daily instruction of 15 minutes using significant differences in two areas of
Imagine Learning computer software; Group literacy: Letter Recognition and Vocabulary
B (n = 60) received daily instruction of 15 Recognition. The data showed significant
minutes using Waterford Early Learning; and differences in Phonemic Awareness and in a
Group C (n = 51) received the regular composite literacy score. The ANOVA
instruction by the teacher without access to results revealed that instructional approach
the computer programs. Students in the had a significant effect on phonics gain, F(2,
experimental groups rotated to the computers 159) = 10.196, p < 0.001 Tukey’s post hoc
during the time normally allocated for test indicated that the Control group mean of
learning centers. All students were native 7.8 was significantly higher than both the
English speakers and were eligible for free or Imagine group mean (M = 3.1) and the
reduced lunch programs. Waterford group mean (M = 4.5). The
Pre- and post-tests using mCLASS: difference between the Imagine group and
CIRCLE by Amplify Insight were used to Waterford group was not significant (Tables
measure literacy skills before and after the 1 and 2). The effect size (eta squared =
treatment. Although the pre- and post-tests 0.114) is considered moderate (Stern, 2010).
were not identical, the skill level was similar
with questions being randomized in the Table 1
testing. The assessment provided brief tasks
that were automatically scored and timed by Descriptive Statistics for Phonics Gain
a teacher using an iPad to measure
development of children individually. Method Mean Std. N
Teachers administered both the pre- and post- Deviation
assessments using this computer-based control 7.8627 7.40546 51
instrument. Imagine 3.0980 4.26265 51
Following discussions with school Waterford 4.5167 4.38986 60
district leaders and classroom observations, Total 5.1235 5.79223 162
researchers developed nine questions
(Appendix A) to guide semi-structured focus
group conversations. One researcher asked
questions while one researcher took notes.
Additionally, a tape recorder was used to
record responses.
Imagine Learning (Group A)
software was designed to engage students
with interactive activities, games, and videos
SRATE Journal Winter 2017, Volume 26(1) Page 33
Table 2 The ANOVA revealed that
instructional approach had a significant effect
ANOVA Summary for Phonics Gain on literacy composite gains, F(2, 159) =
5.350, p =.006 (Tables 5 and 6). Tukey’s post
hoc test determined that the Control group
mean of 19.3 was significantly higher than
both the Imagine group (M = 11.8) and the
Waterford group (M = 13.1). The effect size
(eta squared = 0.63) is considered moderate
(Stern, 2010).

Table 5

Descriptive Statistics for Literacy Composite
Both the Waterford group (M = 32.5) Gain
and the Imagine group (M = 32.2) were found
to be significantly different from the Control Method Mean Std. N
group (M = 31.0) when controlling for pre- Deviation
test scores, F(2, 158) = 5.883, p = 0.003
control 19.2745 15.56288 51
(Tables 3 and 4). The effect size (eta squared
Imagine 11.7843 10.96050 51
= 0.069) is considered moderate (Stern,
Waterford 13.1000 10.46009 60
2010).
Total 14.6296 12.76296 162

Table 3
Table 6

Descriptive Statistic for Phonics Post-Test
ANOVA Summary for Literacy Composite

Gain
Method Mean Std. N
Deviation
control 31.0392 10.01990 51
Imagine 32.1961 8.05983 51
Waterford 32.4500 9.88480 60
Total 31.9259 9.35601 162

Table 4
The ANCOVA revealed that the
ANCOVA Summary for Phonics Post-Test
Waterford group post-test literacy composite
with Phonics Pre-Test as a Covariate
mean of 79.1 was greater than both the

Imagine group (M =7 8.5) and the Control
group (M = 72.2). However, the differences
between the means were found to be not
significant, F(2,158) = 2.816, p = 0.063
(Tables 7 and 8). These results indicate that
instructional approach had no discernable
effect on literacy composite post-test scores.

SRATE Journal Winter 2017, Volume 26(1) Page 34
Table 7 Teachers’ suggestions for future use
of either/both software programs is
Descriptive Statistics for Literacy Composite categorized in these ways: time, motivating
Post-Test students, literacy skill development,
technological tools, and program choice.
Method Mean Std. N Summarily, teachers perceived daily use of
Deviation either software program should be
control 72.1765 22.18441 51 abandoned. Teachers recommended using
Imagine 78.4902 25.90704 51 either program 2-3 times per week in the
Waterford 79.1167 24.64878 60 computer lab to avoid distractions. Updated
Total 76.7346 24.36391 162 computers could prevent technology failures.
Waterford was seen as the most helpful
Table 8 program by four of five teachers due to its use
of higher order thinking and tools that help
ANCOVA Summary for Literacy Composite children stay on track. Imagine Learning was
Post-Test with Pre-Test as Covariate perceived as more of a skills-based program
lacking authentic classroom connections for
students. One teacher had no preference
between the two programs and valued each
equally.
Convergence of Findings. The
control (Group C) had larger gains in the
composite score than either Imagine (Group
A) or Waterford (Group B). The qualitative
data corroborates these findings by relating
Qualitative Findings. Researchers
implementation issues with both programs
color-coded focus group responses and
related to scheduling, technology delays, and
categorized them in four ways: (a) positive
resistance of some children. Some children
and negative aspects of Waterford Early
wanted to be at learning centers while others
Learning; (b) positive and negative aspects of
were distracted by tasks performed by peers.
Imagine Learning; (c) positive and negative
The control group experienced greater
aspects of both programs, and (d) suggestions
flexibility in time management and tasks of
for future use of either/both software
choice.
programs.
When composite post-test scores
Teachers reported some positive
were examined with the pre-test as a
perceptions about both programs. Both
covariate, the differences between the three
provided troubleshooting, personalization,
groups were not statistically significant.
instruction and practice with literacy skills,
Teachers clearly supported Waterford Early
and increased readiness for technology use.
Learning over Imagine Learning for literacy
Teachers’ negative responses about both
development of students. One teacher
programs related to scheduling challenges,
commented, “I have seen students make
outdated computers, resistance of some
connections from the program (Waterford).
children, and advanced difficulty level for
They learned rhyming on Waterford and
struggling learners.
remembered when I introduced it in class.”
SRATE Journal Winter 2017, Volume 26(1) Page 35
Implications. Educators search for References
strategies to improve the academic
achievement of students. CAI has gained Andrews, R. (2004). The impact of ICT on
literacy education. New York:
prominence in this century as an instructional
RoutledgeFalmer.
tool; however, until recently few studies have
Belo, N., MeKenney, S., Voogt, J., &
been available to describe the effect of
Bradley, B. (2016). Teacher
computer programs on early literacy
knowledge for using technology to
learning. Recent studies show mixed results
foster early literacy: A literature
regarding effect on early literacy learning
review. Computers in Human
when CAI is implemented as part of the
Behavior, 60, 372-383.
curriculum. This study provides evidence Clay, M. M. (1966). Emergent reading
that the classroom teacher provides as much behavior (Unpublished doctoral
or more instructional support when compared dissertation). University of Auckland,
with CAI in early literacy development. Pre- New Zealand.
K students in this study may have had poor Cotton, K. (1991). Computer-assisted
performance due to factors beyond their instruction. Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory School
control as described when students cried or
Improvement Research Series (Series
ignored the teacher when asked to use either
V, Close-Up #10). Retrieved from
computer program. This behavior is
Education Northwest website:
supported by attribution theory (Weiner,
http://educationnorthwest.org/sites/d
1986) in which students believe they are
efault /files/Computer-
incapable of success, so they easily give up.
AssistedInstruction.pdf
Additionally, sociocultural theory
Dillon, A. and Zhu, E. (1997). Designing
(Vygotsky, 1978) provides additional support Web-Based Instruction: A Human-
for poor performance with CAI since some Computer Interaction (HCI)
children worked on the computer programs Perspective. In B. Khan (ed.) Web-
while others worked in table groups. Results Based Instruction (pp. 221-225),
of this study support previous findings of Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Belo et al., 2016, concerning CAI use with Technology Publications.
Fraenkel, J.R., & Wallen, N.E. (2009). How
young children. However, in the Belo study,
to design and evaluate research on
CAI was used with kindergarten children.
teaching (7th ed.). New York:
Implications from this study suggest that
McGraw-Hill.
independent practice may not be
Frede, E., Kwanghee, J., Barnett, S.W., &
developmentally appropriate for some
Figueras, A. (2009). The APPLES
children of pre-K age who desire more
blossom: Abbott preschool program
interaction with peers and the teacher. More
longitudinal effects study (APPLES),
research is needed across age groups and preliminary results through 2nd
types of computer software to determine Grade. Retrieved from the National
broader findings on the effects of computer Institute for Early Education
assisted instruction on literacy skill Research website: http://nieer-
development. www1.rutgers.edu/pdf/apples_secon
d_grade_results.pdf

SRATE Journal Winter 2017, Volume 26(1) Page 36
Hecht, S. A, & Close, L. (2002). Emergent Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation
literacy skills and training time and research methods (3rd ed.).
uniquely predict variability in Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
responses to phonemic awareness Robinson, L., Johanson, J., Schneider, C., &
training in disadvantaged Hutinger, P. (2006). Final report:
kindergartners. Journal of Interactive technology literacy
Experimental Child Psychology, 82, curriculum online (ITLC Online).
93–115. Macomb, IL: Western Illinois
Imagine Learning Programs (n.d.). In University. (ERIC Document
Imagine Learning. Retrieved from Reproduction Service No.
http://www.imaginelearning.com/pro ED495396)
grams/imaginelearning/ Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z.,
Ingersoll, R. (2003). Is there really a teacher Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., &
shortage. Retrieved from the Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects:
University of Pennsylvania Grade The HighScope Perry Preschool
School of Education website: study through age 40: Summary,
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/ conclusions, and frequently asked
viewcontent.cgi?article=1133&conte questions. Retrieved from the
xt=gse_pubs HighScope Educational Research
Macaruso, P. & Walker, A. (2008). The Foundation website:
efficacy of computer assisted http://www.highscope.org/file/specia
instruction for advancing literacy lsummary_ rev2015_01.pdf
skills in kindergarten students. Spencer, E.J., Goldstein, H., Sherman, A.,
Reading Psychology, 29, 266–287 Noe, S., Tabbah, R., Ziolkowski, R.
National Center for Family Literacy. (2004). & Schneider, N. (2012). Effects of an
The report of the national early automated vocabulary and
literacy panel. Washington, D.C.: comprehension intervention an early
United States Government. efficacy study. Journal of Early
Parr, J. M., & Fung, I. (2000). A review of Intervention 34(4), 195-221.
the literature on computer-assisted Stern, (2010). Statistics for the behavioral
learning, particularly integrated sciences. A visual approach to SPSS
learning systems, and outcomes with for windows: A guide to SPSS 17.0.
respect to literacy and numeracy. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Retrieved from Washington State Department of Early
http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/ Learning, (WSDEL). (2013). Pre-
__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/7672/A- kindergarten programs: An overview
Review-of-the-Literature-on- and comparison with other states.
Computer-Assisted.pdf Retrieved from
Paterson, W. A., Henry, J.J., O’Quin, K., http://leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees
Ceprano, M.A. & Blue, E.V. (2003). /EDU/Documents/UniversalVoluntar
Investigating the effectiveness of an yPreschool.pdf
integrated learning system on early Waterford Early Learning (n.d.) In
emergent readers. Reading Research Waterford. Retrieved from
Quarterly, 38, 172–207. http://www.waterford.org/waterford-
early-learning/
SRATE Journal Winter 2017, Volume 26(1) Page 37
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of
motivation and emotion. New York:

Springer-Verlag.
Wise, B., Ring, J., & Olson R.K., (2000).
Individual differences in gains from
computer-assisted remedial reading.
Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 77, 197–235.

SRATE Journal Winter 2017, Volume 26(1) Page 38
Appendix A

Focus Group questions
1. Describe the implementation process of the programs. What types of issues did
you encounter? Were there challenges?
2. Describe the ease of use of the programs for students. Were they user-friendly?
3. Describe the student’s responses to using each program. What behaviors did you
observe?
4. Did each program motivate or engage students? How do you know? Describe
student behaviors or comments to support your observation.
5. For teachers who used both programs, which one do you project will produce
better results on the 7 literacy skills?
6. Did you observe a transfer of learning to classroom activities/instruction for either
program?
7. Were the programs beneficial to students? How? Describe how you know?
8. Were the teacher supplemental resources useful to you? Which ones and why?
9. Do you have any suggestions for using the programs during the instructional day?
More time? Less time? None?

SRATE Journal Winter 2017, Volume 26(1) Page 39