Effects of an iPad-Supported Phonics Intervention on Decoding Performance and Time On-Task
Tóm tắt
Despite their recent popularity in schools, there is minimal consensus in the educational literature regarding the use of mobile devices for reading intervention. The word box intervention (Joseph Read Teach 52:348–356, 1998) has been consistently associated with improvements in student decoding performance. This early efficacy study examined an iPad-supported approach to the word box intervention. The participants were three students from the same first grade classroom, all of whom lacked basic decoding skills and two of which were English language learners. The research question was evaluated with a multielement single-case experimental design that compared the standard materials to an equivalent iPad application. Results did not reveal a clear pattern on measures of decoding across the participants. Time on-task was high for both conditions for all three participants. Results indicated a need for future study of mobile-supported reading interventions in similar contexts.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2005). Applied behavioral analysis for teachers (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Alvero, A. M., Struss, K., & Rappaport, E. (2007). Measuring safety performance: A comparison of whole, partial, and momentary time-sampling recording methods. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 27, 1–28.
AtReks. (2013). Build a word—easy spelling with phonics (Version 3.0) [Mobile application Software]. http://itunes.apple.com.
Blok, H., Oostdam, R., Otter, M. E., & Overmaat, M. (2002). Computer-assisted instruction in support of beginning reading instruction: A review. Review of Educational Research, 72, 101–130.
Burns, M. K. (2004). Empirical analysis of drill ratio research: Refining the instructional level for drill tasks. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 167–173.
Burns, M. K., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Boice, C. H. (2008). Best practices in intensive academic interventions. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Cavus, N., & Ibrahim, D. (2009). m-Learning: An experiment in using SMS to support learning new English language words. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 78–91.
Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). How features of educational technology applications affect student reading outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 7, 198–215.
Chiong, C., & Shuler, C. (2010). Learning: Is there an app for that? Investigations of young children’s usage and learning with mobile devices and apps. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.
Chun, D. M. (2006). CALL technologies for L2 reading. In L. Ducate & N. Arnold (Eds.) Calling on CALL: From theory and research to new directions in foreign language teaching (pp. 69–98). CALICO Monograph Series Volume 5. Texas State University San Marcos, TX: CALICO Publications.
Ciotti-Gardenier, N., MacDonald, R., & Green, G. (2004). Comparison of direct observational methods for measuring stereotypic behavior in children with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 25, 99–118.
Cumming, T. M., & Draper Rodriguez, C. D. (2013). Integrating the iPad into language arts instruction for students with disabilities: Engagement and perspectives. Journal of Special Education Technology, 28, 43–52.
Devault, R., & Joseph, L. M. (2004). Repeated readings combined with word boxes phonics technique increases fluency levels of high school students with severe reading delays. Preventing School Failure, 49, 22–27.
Elkonin, D. B. (1973). U.S.S.R. In J. Downing (Ed.), Comparative reading (pp. 551–579). New York: Macmillan.
Fälth, L., Gustafson, S., Tjus, T., Heimann, M., & Svensson, I. (2013). Computer-assisted interventions targeting reading skills of children with reading disabilities: A longitudinal study. Dyslexia, 19, 37–53.
Fishburn, T. A. (2009). Mobile device reading interventions in the kindergarten classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New Castle, DE: Wilmington University.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. (2004). Monitoring early reading development in first grade: Word identification fluency versus nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 71, 7–21.
Getting, S., & Swainey, K. (2012). First graders with iPads? Learning and Leading with Technology, 40, 24–27.
Good, R. H., Baker, S. K., & Peyton, J. A. (2008). Making sense of nonsense word fluency: Determining adequate progress in early first grade reading. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25, 33–56.
Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Nonsense word fluency. In R. H. Good & R. A. Kaminski (Eds.), Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed., pp. 23–29). Eugene, OR: Institute for Development of Educational Achievement.
Greaves, T., Hayes, J., Wilson, L., Gielniak, M., & Peterson, R. (2010). The technology factor: Nine keys to student achievement and cost-effectiveness. Chicago, IL: Market Data Retrieval.
Grindle, C. F., Carl Hughes, J., Saville, M., Huxley, K., & Hastings, R. P. (2013). Teaching early reading skills to children with autism using MimioSprout Early Reading. Behavioral Interventions, 28, 203–224.
Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Grounded tech integration: An effective approach based on content, pedagogy, and teacher planning. Learning & Leading with Technology, 37, 22–25.
Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt-Crawford, D. (2012). Exploring the use of the iPad for literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 66, 15–23.
Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of integrating information and communication technologies into literacy instruction: A national survey in the United States. Reading Research Quarterly, 46, 312–333.
Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Haywood, K. (2011). The NMC horizon report: 2011 K-12 Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Joseph, L. M. (1998). Word boxes help children with learning disabilities identify and spell words. The Reading Teacher, 52, 348–356.
Joseph, L. M. (2000). Using word boxes as a large group phonics approach in a first grade classroom. Reading Horizons, 41, 117–127.
Joseph, L. M. (2002). Facilitating word recognition and spelling using word boxes and word sort phonic procedures. School Psychology Review, 31, 122–129.
Kaminski, R. A., & Good, R. H. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, 215–227.
Kendeou, P., Van den Broek, P., White, M. J., & Lynch, J. S. (2009). Predicting reading comprehension in early elementary school: The independent contributions of oral language and decoding skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 765–778.
Lang, L., Torgesen, J. K., Vogel, W., Chanter, C., Lefsky, E., & Petscher, Y. (2009). Exploring the relative effectiveness of reading interventions for high school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 149–175.
Lopez, O. S. (2010). The digital learning classroom: Improving English language learners’ academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 54, 901–915.
McClanahan, B., Williams, K., Kennedy, E., & Tate, S. (2012). A breakthrough for Josh: How use of an iPad facilitated reading improvement. TechTrends, 56, 20–28.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication no. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Northrop, L., & Killeen, E. (2013). A framework for using iPads to build early literacy skills. The Reading Teacher, 66, 531–537.
Path to Reading Excellence in School Sites Research Group. (2013). Intervention manual. Minneapolis, MN: Author. http://www.cehd.umn.edu/reading/PRESS/resources/interventions.html.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317–344.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9, 1–6.
Quinn, B. S., Behrmann, M., Mastropieri, M., Bausch, M. E., Ault, M. J., & Chung, Y. (2009). Who is using assistive technology in schools? Journal of Special Education Technology, 24, 1–13.
Schmidgall, M., & Joseph, L. M. (2007). Comparison of phonic analysis and whole word-reading on first graders’ cumulative words read and cumulative reading rate: An extension in examining instructional effectiveness and efficiency. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 319–332.
Shapiro, E. S. (2004). Academic skills problems: direct assessment and intervention (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Shuler, C. (2009). Pockets of potential: Using mobile technologies to promote children’s learning. New York, NY: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.
Shuler, C. (2012). iLearn II: An analysis of the education category of the iTunes App Store. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.
Smith, S. J., & Okolo, C. (2010). Response to Intervention and evidence-based practices: Where does technology fit? Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 257–272.
Swanson, H. L., Trainin, G., Necoechea, D. M., & Hammill, D. D. (2003). Rapid naming, phonological awareness, and reading: A meta-analysis of the correlation evidence. Review of Educational Research, 73, 407–440.
Traxler, J. (2009). Learning in a mobile age. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1, 1–12.
Vanderwood, M. L., Linklater, D., & Healy, K. (2008). Predictive accuracy of nonsense word fluency for English language learners. School Psychology Review, 37, 5–17.
Volpe, R. J., Burns, M. K., DuBois, M., & Zaslofsky, A. F. (2011). Computer-assisted tutoring: Teaching letter sounds to kindergarten students using incremental rehearsal. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 332–342.