Technology Impact for Struggling Readers

If high school students across the country are anything like my 16 year old daughter, and they probably are, they seem to be permanently glued to some type of screen. On an almost daily basis, my daughter and wife argue over the amount of time my daughter spends on her cell phone. And I know how this argument will end: my wife will take away her phone for some extended period of time and my daughter will immediately lock herself in her room in order to reach out to her friends via Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or Snapchat on her school issued Chromebook by setting up a bypass proxy. My daughter, like so many other millennials, is pretty predictable and smart when it comes to using technology. The minute one of these “digital natives” loses connection with technology they act like addicts cut off from their suppliers. They have to read the latest tweet or post.

Not buying this narrative? Maybe this will convince you. In a series titled “Your Brain on Computers” New York Times reporter Matt Richtel interviewed 17 year old Vishal Singh. The story begins, “On the eve of a pivotal academic year in Vishal Singh’s life, he faces a stark choice on his bedroom desk: book or computer?” (Richtel, 2010). In this interview, Vishal clearly states why he surfed the internet as opposed to reading his summer assignment, Cat’s Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. “On YouTube, ‘you can get a whole story in six minutes,’ he explains. ‘A book takes so long. I prefer the immediate gratification’” (2010).

When our digital native students are given a classic novel to read such as Cat’s Cradle, their engagement seems to disappear quicker than a Snapchat. They immediately begin what I have called, “the lament of literature” by decrying that the book is too long and/or boring or that it does not grab their attention. As a teacher and lover of literature, this is unsettling for a number of reasons and I see it more and more with struggling readers at the secondary level.

What if we could engage students, specifically students who struggle with reading, to read the classics in the same way they read posts or tweets? Finding a way to do this would be the educational equivalent to finding the Holy Grail. Well, this is my mission as a language arts teacher and here is what I have been able to find in the last year and a half.

A Brief Literature Review

“Teachers will not be replaced by technology, but teachers who do not use technology will be replaced by those who do.” – Hari Krishna Arya

            The specific population of struggling readers at the secondary level offers many challenges to classroom instruction, as these students are often not making gains dictated by district benchmarks. In this age of accountability, test scores measure student, teacher, and school achievement, creating pressure for all involved. This pressure does not seem to manifest in student improvement as the population of students who struggle with reading continues to be substantial. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) proclaimed that standardized testing would level the playing field for all students. School districts across the nation embraced NCLB and completely changed the direction of classrooms and schools with their eye on having 100% of students on grade level by 2014. Furthermore, “accountability and surveillance have also intensified, in part to satisfy No Child Left Behind legislation mandating that high stakes standardized tests at every grade level” (Lipman, 2004, p.67). Although, this is a worthwhile pursuit, it is paired with the wrong method. NCLB was designed to help the very students it has harmed. The increase in standardized tests has merely lead to more testing and less time for instruction “in a drive to raise test scores in math and reading, the curriculum has moved away from. . .more advanced mathematical and literacy skills” (2004, p.7).

Technology integration may be able to help struggling readers achieve a level of success that they could not reach without it. As stated earlier, today’s students do love to interact with technology and seem to be highly engaged when they do. But are they really engaged? Could the influx of video games and web surfing be harming our students more than helping? What does it do to their attention spans? Author Nicholas Carr takes a close look at this issue in his book, The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains, “The influx of competing messages that we receive whenever we go online not only overloads our working memory; it makes it much harder for our frontal lobes to concentrate our attention on any one thing,” (194). Despite this concern and others that many have brought to our attention, few would suggest moving back to a time before computers and smartphones. Like it or not, this bridge has been crossed and there is no going back.

An essential issue between technology and education is the conditions for which technology can be effectively used in classrooms to truly improve student learning. This is a recurring theme in much of the research literature. Most research on the use of technology in reading instruction focuses on what is called “computer assisted instruction” or CAI. This technology is used primarily as a supplement for struggling readers as it can be used independently or with little teacher involvement. Thus it can be used to differentiate instruction for various students of various skill levels (Blok, et al. 2001). This appeal of independent work was later refuted by a different study. Lewandowski, Begeny and Rogers found that at-risk readers practicing alone with these programs did not improve as stated in earlier studies (2006). Their research showed that struggling readers who received personal tutoring did as well if not better than those working alone with the CAI programs.

Despite this research there has been increased interest in using this technology for high risk children identified as struggling readers. Reasons cited for the interest has been cost efficiency; it is far cheaper to buy software and hardware than to hire more teachers and support staff (Chambers, et al. 2011). One study mentioned by Chambers in particular showed that a program using CAI was more effective than direct instruction. Such a study is important to note as much of the research literature states that direct instruction is key to improving reading skills for struggling readers. However, the cost of this technology and it use (is it frequent or not?) was not addressed.

A different study using a survey of elementary teachers suggested that teachers use technology more as a supplemental tool as opposed to main tool of instruction (Franklin, 2007). It was mentioned that this may be due to the lack of help and/or training teachers receive to use the technology. This begs the question about the effectiveness of teacher training to use technology in regards to reading instruction. It makes little sense to spend large sums of money on technology without giving support to the teachers who will be using it in the classrooms. Other studies have shown that advancements in technology software can now individualize instruction for at-risk students. But there is still a general consciousness that for maximum effectiveness, the same studies have shown that these advances work best in conjunction with literacy coaches (Al Otaiba et al., 2011). Also, other research suggests that the most efficient way to enhance reading instruction is not through training in technology, but through training and collaboration with literacy coaches (Elish-Piper & L’Allier, 20011).

At this time I think it is important to note that based off this research, which seems to negate one finding after another, there is little information provided about teacher training with technology or even about teacher perspectives in using technology.  Also, so much of the literature and research on this topic is focused on the primary levels. There is little to no research on this issues in regards to struggling readers at the secondary level. Taking a closer look, there seems to be two glaring holes in what these studies/ research have been able to address.

So What?

            For me, I still want to know how I can best help my students who struggle with reading and I will always say that the first step in helping this problem is rather simple; it is to read to them. If you want students to be enthusiastic about a book, article or poem, you need to demonstrate your own enthusiasm while reading a book, article or poem. I know that there are all kinds of benefits brought to us from the advances of technology. However, the best way to get students to engage and connect to a text is to model that engagement and connection by reading to them.

References

Al Otaiba, S., Connor, C. M., Folsom, J. S., Greulich, L., Meadows, J., & Li, Z. (2011). Assessment data–informed guidance to individualize kindergarten reading instruction: Findings from a cluster-randomized control field trial. The Elementary School Journal, 111,  535–560.

Blok, H., Oostdam, R., Otter, M. E., & Overmaat, M. (2002). Computer-assisted instruction in support of beginning reading instruction: A re-view.Review of Educational Research, 72, 101–130.

Carr, N. G. (2011). The shallows: what the Internet is doing to our brains. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Chambers, B., Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Abrami, P., Logan, M. K., & Gifford, R. (2011). Small-group, computer-assisted tutoring to improve reading outcomes for struggling first and second graders. The Elementary School Journal, 111, 625–640.

Costa, A. L. (2014). Cognitive capital: investing in teacher quality. New York: Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Elish-Piper, L., & L’Allier, S. K. (2011). Examining the relationshbetween literacy coaching and student reading gains in grades K–3. The Elementary School Journal, 112, 83–106.

Franklin, C. (2007). Factors that influence elementary teachers use of computers.  Journal of Technology and Teacher Education (JTATE), 15, 267–293.

Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: transforming teaching in every school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Lipman, P. (2004). High stakes education. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Lewandowski, L., Begeny, J., & Rogers, C. (2006). Word-recognition training: Computer versus tutor. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Over-coming Learning Difficulties, 22, 395–410.

Plaut, S. (2009). The right to literacy in secondary schools: creating a culture of thinking. Denver, CO: Public Education & Business Coalition.

Richtel, M. (2010, November 20). Growing Up Digital, Wired for Distraction. Retrieved July 12, 2017, from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/technology/21brain.html

Schmoker, M. (2017, March 10). It’s Time to Restructure Teacher Professional Development. Retrieved July 17, 2017, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/10/21/its-time-to-restructure-teacher-professional-development.html

“Teachers will not be replaced by technology, but teachers who do not use technology will be replaced by those who do.” – Hari Krishna Arya, India. (n.d.). Retrieved July 12, 2017, from http://dailyedventures.com/index.php/2015/03/12/hari-krishna-arya/

What Is Successful Technology Integration? (2007, November 05). Retrieved July 13, 2017, from https://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-guide-description