|
INQUIRY
IN TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION There were 15
assignments completed throughout the course, many of which served as
scaffolding for the final literature review. The course included lecture,
discussion, review of quiz material, and a 74 question final exam. Below is
the final literature review that was submitted on June 21, 2005. Note: APA style has been adjusted
for ease of viewing on the Web. Effects of Electronic 1 Running head: ELECTRONIC GRAPHIC ORGANIZERS Effects of
Electronic Graphic Organizers on the Writing
Performance of Jay Brown Abstract Evidence of low achievement on the writing performance of upper elementary school students has led to numerous research studies. Analysis of the literature on writing performance of upper elementary school students identifies a lack of teacher training as a primary cause, with the use of graphic organizers frequently suggested as one method of intervention. This report reviews national and state guidelines for writing assessment, and literature on the positive effect of graphic organizers on the writing performance of upper elementary school students. Based on quantitative and qualitative research, it is hypothesized that the use of electronic graphic organizers has a greater positive effect than traditional paper, pencil, and chalkboard organizers on the writing performance of upper elementary school students. Effects of
Electronic Graphic Organizers on the Writing
Performance of Introduction Educational research studies point to deficiencies in upper elementary school student writing performance. Literature on the subject identifies motivation, organization, detail, and sequence as characteristic problems. Unsatisfactory student writing performance is documented through writing samples, local assessments, teacher surveys, and student surveys, and has led to action research on strategies designed to correct the problems (Harrington, Holik, Hurt, 1998). The literature also suggests that the probable cause of the unsatisfactory student performance can be traced to a lack of teacher training, inconsistent teaching methods, and assessment practices (Capretz, Ricker, Sasak, 2003). The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) has standards for the assessment of reading and writing. Definitions of terms such as aggregation, authentic, performance-based assessment, equity, norm-referenced and criterion-referenced assessment and testing, as well as reliability and validity exist. Much of the literature included in this report is based on aggregation, and authentic, performance-based assessment. According to the NCTE, aggregation is the process of collecting data for the purpose of making a more general statement, and authentic, performance-based assessment examines student writing in relation to literary standards. The researchers that are referenced in this literature review are careful to mention the equity, reliability, and validity of their studies. While the instruments used in the research studies contained in this report are different, the experimental research methods are clearly defined. The instruments for the studies in this report are the writing tests developed by teachers, based on academic standards for writing in the upper elementary grades. The independent variable in each of the studies is the experimental group. The experimental group receives the treatment, which in this case is instruction in, and application of graphic organizers. The dependent variable for the experimental group is the writing performance of upper elementary school students. We must also acknowledge that according to NCTE, a study can only be reliable if it is based on validity, and that a valid assessment is representative of a valid curriculum. The Pennsylvania Department of Education’s Bureau of Assessment and Accountability publishes state expectations for student writing. Included in the writing assessment for students in 5th grade is a test in which students write to one prompt from either the narrative, informational, or persuasive mode. Responses to the prompts are scored on focus, content, organization, style, and conventions. The NCTE assessment guidelines mention that when scoring student writing, people who are well trained in the application of specific criteria can achieve high rates of agreement. Results from the literature in this report on the effect of graphic organizers on the writing performance of upper elementary school students also refer to specific criteria when scoring writing samples used for comparisons between experimental and control groups. Conclusions from the literature measure writing improvement based on standardized curriculum, and accepted criterion for assessment, which is considered to be reliable and valid. The Problem This report will review the literature on the effects of graphic organizers, and electronic graphic organizers on the writing performance of upper elementary school students. A graphic organizer is defined as visual representation of knowledge (Bromley, Irwin-Devittis & Modlo, 1995). An electronic graphic organizer is defined as a computer software application capable of visually representing knowledge (Plotnick, 1997). A writing performance is defined as a test score for a writing assignment based on a valid curriculum, and an accepted criterion for assessment. An upper elementary school student is defined as child in the 3rd to 5th grade, generally between the ages of eight and eleven years old. Review of Related Literature Graphic organizers are included in much of the research on the writing performance of upper elementary school students. The strategy of visually linking important ideas helps students who struggle with organizing information (Fisher & Schumaker, 1995). Research confirms that students who use graphic organizers demonstrate improved organization and structure on writing assignments (Griffin & Tulbert, 1995). A report by the United States Department of Education notes that students who use visual planning methods do better on writing tests than those who do not (U. S. Department of Education, 1999). While it may be generally accepted that graphic organizers are a legitimate strategy for improving writing performance, it may also be true that many teachers do not consider electronic graphic organizers to have a greater positive effect than their low-tech predecessors. Studies illustrate that chalkboards, worksheets, and paper illustrations are effective delivery methods when using graphic organizers to teach upper elementary students. Teachers who employ this type of low-tech graphic organizer report having control over charts and diagrams, which provide students with consistent models important for writing structure (Baxendell, 2003). A study on the effect of graphic organizers on creative writing compared an experimental group of 3rd grade students using low-tech organizers, to a control group who did not use the organizers. Both groups used the same computer program to write their compositions. Results from the study indicated that the experimental group outperformed the control group, even though both groups used a computer to write (Meyer, 1995). Although electronic graphic organizers were on the market more than 10 years ago, teachers from this study, and the following two studies from the literature in this report did not take advantage of the new tools. A later action research study undertaken to analyze methods used to improve writing skills included the use of graphic organizers as an intervention treatment (Harrington, Holik, & Hurt, 1998). In this study, the entire 5th grade population from a suburban elementary school of a Midwestern city represented the experimental group. Students were instructed throughout the school year on the application and use of graphic organizers. Assessment based upon predetermined and agreed upon benchmarks for novice, intermediate, and advanced examples of student writing, as well as writing rubrics from the North Central Association accreditation process, student surveys, and teacher surveys were used. Results from the assessment techniques in this report offer strong evidence for progress when using graphic organizers for writing assignments. Researchers were looking for a percentage difference from the 1st quarter to the 3rd quarter of the school year. Teachers scored each others’ students post-intervention writing tests to avoid bias, and discovered that students increased their total score by 10%. Researchers
from Early research on the use of electronic graphic organizers raised concerns that the new high-tech method takes 5th grade students more time to achieve the same positive results as other low-tech strategies, such as mental modeling (Troyer, 1995). Teachers were concerned that electronic graphic organizers gave students too much time and opportunity to explore, slowing down the organization and planning process. A lack of teacher training on the use of electronic graphic organizers is mentioned as a contributing factor for not using the new tools (Adams, Power, Reed, Reiss, & Romaniak, 1996). However, teachers who were trained on the use of electronic graphic organizers discovered the advantages of using computer software applications over other low-tech organizers (North Central Regional Education Lab, 2003). Programs like those from Inspiration, Inc. include templates for prewriting activities, and enable teachers to quickly discover the potential for use in the classroom. While it is true that upper elementary school students enjoy adding color and graphics to their electronic organizers, they also demonstrate more enthusiasm in the beginning stages of the writing process (Roberts, 2002). Electronic graphic organizers, also referred to as concept mapping computer tools, are learning tools that stimulate critical thinking (Jonassen, 1996). According to Anderson-Inman and Zeitz (1994), there are clear advantages for using electronic mapping software over paper and pencil organizers for prewriting activities. Terms such as “globally expansible” in reference to page size, and “infinitely modifiable,” meaning unlimited number of edits, make the electronic organizer preferable to low-tech organizers (Anderson-Inman and Zeitz, 1994). Another advantage for using electronic organizers is the potential for consistent line, arrow, and shape tools, which allow teachers to create and modify custom diagrams to meet the special needs of their students (Baxendell, 2003). Summary References to quantitative research literature in this report conclude that the use of graphic organizers has a positive impact on the writing performance of upper elementary school students. Since the researchers followed methods that are aligned with standards for curriculum and assessment, the argument can be made that the improved writing performance for students who used graphic organizers was not a chance occurrence. However, the literature presented on electronic graphic organizers in this report is mostly qualitative, with experts from the field offering their opinions on the advantages for using the new tools. Given the positive results from the quantitative research on graphic organizers, combined with the strong qualitative opinions from experts in the field, it is hypothesized that electronic graphic organizers may have a greater positive effect than low-tech graphic organizers on the writing performance of upper elementary school students. An experimental research study is needed to further test the hypothesis. To test the hypothesis, researchers will use an experimental group, and a control group. The experimental group will be provided instruction with electronic graphic organizers, and the control group will get instruction using low-tech graphic organizers. The dependent variable will be identified as improved writing performance. Participants will be randomly assigned from a whole group population of 5th grade students within a particular school. Reliable instruments based on accepted state and national curriculum and assessment standards will be used to measure the performance of student writing samples. The scope of the research will be long enough to provide adequate instruction, and administer tests based on valid curriculum and assessment methods. References related attitudes among elementary school students. Action Research Project, Saint Reproduction Service No. ED 398 595). Anderson-Inman, L., & Ziets, L. (1994). Beyond notecards: Synthesizing information with electronic study tools. The Computing Teacher, 21(8), 21-25. Baxwell, B. W. (2003). Consistent, coherent, creative: The 3 c’s of graphic organizers. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35, 46-53. Bromley, K., Irwin-Devitis, L., & Modlo, M.
(1995). Graphic organizers: Visual
strategies for active learning. Capretz, K., Ricker, B., & Sasak, A. (2003). Improving organizational skills through the use of graphic
organizers. Action Research Project, Professional Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 473 056). Fisher, J. B. & Schumaker, J. B. (1995). Searching for validated inclusive practices: A review of the literature. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28, 4, 1-20 comprehension and recall of expository texts. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 11, 73-89. Harrington, M., Holik, M., & Hurt, P. (1998). Improving writing through the use of varied strategies.
Action Research Project, Document Reproduction No. ED 420 807). Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Meyer, D. J. (1995). The effects of graphic organizers on the creative writing of third grade students.
Research Project, Service No. ED 380 803). National Council of Teachers of
English (2005). Standards for the
assessment of reading and writing. Retrieved http://www.ncte.org/about/over/positions/category/assess/107609.htm North Central Regional Education
Lab (2003). What works - Enhancing the
process of writing through technology: Integrating research and best practice. enGauge resources. Retrieved http://www.ncrel.org/engauge/resource/techno/whatworks/index.html Pennsylvania Department of Education (2005). Writing highlights: PSSA 2005. Retrieved http://www.pde.state.pa.us/a_and_t/lib/a_and_t/WritingHighlights2005.doc Plotnick, E. (1997). Concept mapping: A graphical system for understanding the relationship between
concepts. Information Analyses, Center for Science and Technology, University. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 407 938). Roberts, S. K. (2002). Taking a
technological path to poetry prewriting. The
55, 678-687. Troyer, S. J. (1994). The effects of three instructional conditions in text structure on upper elementary students’ reading comprehension and writing performance. American Educational Research Association, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 373 315). United States Department of Education: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1999). The NAEP 1998 writing report card for the nation and the states. Retrieved May 8, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main1998/1999462.asp [TOP] |
