A comparison of young children's technology-enhanced and traditional responses to texts: an action research project.

Abstract. This action research project was conducted in a 2nd-grade classroom in the Midwest to determine the effects of technology on responses to texts. Six texts, representing a variety of rending levels, were selected for the children to read. Children in the control group read and did research from printed texts, and children in the treatment group rend and did research from online texts. After reading, students responded to their reading with paper and pencil activities or with technology-based activities. All children wrote answers to comprehension questions after rending, and filled out a survey about how much they enjoyed doing the activities and how much they learned from completing the activities. Results showed that the control group outscored the treatment group on the comprehension questions for every text and the response activities for every story, except one. On the surveys, the treatment group outscored the control group for every text, except one. Mitigating factors include that students' attention was taken up by experimentation with the computer, asking questions and receiving answers, sharing information, and a lack of critical reading skills. Children were focused on these activities rather than on reading and responding meaningfully to the texts.

**********

Technology is changing the ways in which children use their literacy skills. It requires increasingly more sophisticated strategies than reading from a static printed text or writing with a pencil on paper (Leu, 1997). In what Reinking (1998) calls a "post-typographic world," being able to communicate involves the ability to meaningfully interact with texts that are not isolated, but require sophisticated navigation strategies, critical reading strategies, and the ability to integrate reading and writing (El-Hindi, 1998). The Internet allows teachers to do less transmitting of knowledge and allows for more construction of knowledge as children interact with the multimedia environment offered there (El-Hindi, 1998). While the Internet does present some navigating challenges, it also offers opportunities for children to explore topics in more depth (Coulter, Feldman, & Konold, 2000). Multimedia has much to offer in a classroom that allows for and values individual response to texts (Meskill & Swan, 1995).

Studies have shown that the effects of technology on comprehension are mixed. Under certain conditions, children's comprehension improved when technology was involved (Flood et al., 1997; Goldman, 1988; Greenlee-Moore & Smith, 1996; Mayer, Schuster, & Blanton, 1999). Other studies have shown that comprehension was not affected in technology-based reading events (Fountaine, 2000; Orabuchi, 1992; Tillman, 1995; Tzung-Yu, 1993). Although the data on comprehension effects are mixed, data show that when technology is involved, students' attitudes do seem to be positively affected (Despot, 1992; Gambrell, Bradley, & McLaughine, 1987; Harper & Ewing, 1986; Keene & Davey, 1987).

Given the interesting and mixed effects on comprehension and attitudes, more research is needed to explore how they are affected by the integration of technology. Labbo, Reinking, and McKenna (1998) have suggested that educators should provide more opportunities for students to interact with digital texts, as well as to represent their thoughts through digital composing. A case has been made that technology education research should be focused on classroom practice. With some support, teachers can be critical partners in exploring important questions in technology education (Benenson, 2001; McCormick, 2000).

This action research project was conducted by a 2nd-grade teacher in her classroom, to discover in what ways reading comprehension and attitudes were affected when children were involved in reading digital texts and responding to those texts with technology-enhanced activities.

Method

A 2nd-grade class of 15 students (seven in the control group, 8 in the experimental group) in a Midwestern elementary school was the setting for this study. The researchers were interested in integrating technology into the reading curriculum and wondered if it would be motivating to students. The research question underlying this study was, "Would technology improve children's comprehension and recall of information?" The classroom teacher had previously experimented with creating a WebQuest for the students. In addition, university students had created online activities for children to engage in. However, no measure had been made to assess how children reacted to this technology. Given children's interests and experiences, the following action research project with technology-enhanced activities was employed. Some of the children would read and do research from printed texts. Others would read and do research from online texts. Also, some students would respond to their reading with paper-and-pencil activities while others responded with technology-based activities. The guiding action research questions were: 1) Would there be differences between the two groups in comprehension and recall of information, as measured on answers to questions about the texts?, 2) Would the quality of children's responses to the literature vary when technology was used to complete the response options?, and 3) Would children's attitudes toward what they had read and done vary based on whether or not technology had been used during the activity?

The project began by evaluating each child's reading level, using an informal reading inventory. The children were then assigned to either the treatment or the control group in a stratified way. Each group had students who had high, average, and low ability as readers. The children in each group ranged from having a reading level of preprimer through grade 3.

Six texts were chosen that represented a range of reading levels. For each text, a response activity was designed for students to show the meaning they had gained from the text (see Figure 1 for an example). The classroom teacher also developed several comprehension questions that would elicit students' recall and understanding of the text (see Appendix A for one set of questions). Finally, the teacher prepared a short survey to be completed by the students after each activity, which elicited their perceptions about how much they learned and how much they enjoyed the reading and the activities (see Figure 2). The same survey was used with each text.

[FIGURES 1-2 OMITTED]

Before each story, the teacher introduced the response activity and gave directions for how to complete it. Students then read the text. Some children read it alone, but most read it in a paired reading situation with another classmate. After reading the story, the whole class moved to the computer lab. The treatment group completed most of their response activities on the computers, while the control group completed similar response activities (usually using paper, pencil, and crayons) at a table in the lab. (See Table 1 for information regarding each text, the type of response activity, and the reading level.)

After the students completed the response activity, they were given a list of questions to elicit their comprehension and recall of the text. Finally, they were given the survey to find out what they thought of the story and how much they believed they learned while reading it and completing the response activity. The teacher developed a rubric to evaluate each response activity (see Appendix B for an example), and there was a different rubric for each activity. The classroom teacher scored all response activities and answers to comprehension questions. The mean for each instrument was calculated to determine the results.

Results

Results showed that the control group outscored the treatment group on the comprehension questions for every text. The control group outscored the treatment group on the response activities for every story, except one. On the surveys, the treatment group outscored the control group for every text, except one (see Table 2).

Findings

Although students' demonstrations of comprehension when they used technology in the activities were not higher than the control group, the findings did report more interest in the story. This is not an insignificant finding. Young children often find using the computer to respond to literature to be very motivating.

There are many possible reasons why the group that used the computers did not do as well on the comprehension questions and response activities. The children in the treatment group spent a lot of their time simply navigating the computer. For example, initially, they had difficulty finding the right keys as they typed. Keyboarding is very difficult for children, as they must pay attention to letter recognition and spelling. Thus, time and attention were paid to typing versus thinking about the story. These students also delighted in exploring ways to change the text appearance in terms of style, size, and color. There was more off-task behavior among the treatment group at the computers. As new discoveries were made, word would pass from one student to the next, until the information had made it around the room, and every child had tried it. This happened, for example, as one student found out how to type uppercase letters. Within a few minutes, all the children at the computers were typing in capitals. Students even got out of their seats and moved across the room to tell other students about exciting discoveries they had made on the computer. Although this behavior resulted in lower quality products and perhaps distracted the students from comprehending the text, El-Hindi (1998) maintains that this type of social interaction is essential to developing higher order thinking skills.

It quickly became known that one student, Reilly, was proficient at using the computer, keyboard, and printer, and children often got up to ask him questions. He was gracious in giving assistance. These help sessions took the children away from their work. This did not happen in the control group. The children mostly stayed in their seats and talked only to those near them. They did not help each other as often as did the students at the computers. These results confirm the ideas of Labbo and Kuhn (1998), who propose that children do a great deal of tinkering when they compose at the computer by manipulating symbols. Although the endpoint of the activity was not necessarily a finished product, the children's experimentation with symbols at the computers is a valued experience in and of itself (Labbo, 1996).

Olson (1994) found that 1st-grade students' revisions were frequent when students wrote at the computer and that these revisions tended to be at the surface level. Furthermore, the students in the study spent more time composing, yet produced texts that were no longer nor of higher quality than those they produced with paper and pencil. Word processing allows for recursive movement between drafting and editing (Labbo, 1996). Because word-processed text is less permanent and easy to change than hand-written text, there was a lot of backspacing and retyping that went on in this study. In one instance, Chris quickly typed strings of letters without looking at the keys, and said, "Look. I'm really writing!" Of course, he then had to backspace to erase the characters he had just typed and then start again with the hunt and peck, one-finger method of typing. Another student, Tyler, had great difficulty with spelling, the result of which involved him typing words, deleting them, and starting over many times for each spelling. The treatment group did not get as much completed on their response activities because of the impermanence of the texts they were creating. They also had difficulty copying information from the computer screen.

The text on the Internet is not very child-friendly in that there is not much consideration for font sizes, styles, and colors. The text tends to be very dense on Web pages, which also makes it hard for students to read. The young children in this study were not skilled at skimming or scanning text, so most of them simply started at the beginning of a Web page and read until they got some information they needed. They would then copy the information onto their papers. Coulter et al. (2000) have stated that educators have placed too much emphasis on having students find information and not enough emphasis on their use of that information. In order to effectively use information found on the Internet, students must be particularly skilled at critical thinking (Leu, 1997).

There was greater talk in the treatment group--both from student-to-student as well as self-talk. Students at the computers shared more about what they were typing and what they were creating with each other. They pointed out interesting images they found on the Internet to the students next to them. They asked more questions about the author. They helped each other spell words, find information on Internet pages, save documents, and print them. They also read aloud from the computer screen more than the control group did. Perhaps they did this to try to focus more on what they were reading. Students often talked to themselves as they worked. For example, Katie said, "Find the 'e'," as she scanned the keyboard. Reilly said, "Where does it tell what veterinarians do?" as he read a Web page. So, although one way to look at this talk is that it is good for children, the end result is that not as much work was produced.

Conclusions

Using the Internet for research presented several challenges for the students. Just navigating the Internet was difficult for some. The

non-linear nature of hypertext made it difficult for these young children to find their place or get back to a Web page they wanted to read. These students are just beginning to have directionality under control. Web pages include many distractions, such as pop-up ads, animated graphics, and banners that move across the screen. Students spent much time looking at the screens of the children sitting next to them. There were many exclamations of "Look at this!"

Many children complained that the texts on the screen were too long. However, in reality, the texts the control group members were reading were longer. Perhaps because they did not have the chance to turn a page on the Internet, the children perceived the texts to be lengthier. Despite the challenges the computers offered, the data showed that the treatment group reported they enjoyed the texts they read, learned from them, and liked the response activities more than the control group.

In summary, some possible explanations for the lower comprehension and response activity scores within the treatment group could be that students' attention was taken up by experimentation with the computer, their asking questions and receiving answers, and sharing information. The students also lacked scanning/skimming skills. Children were focused on these activities rather than on reading and responding meaningfully to the texts.

Implications

After seeing how students responded to technology-based activities, the authors suggest that much can be learned that will help teachers who are integrating technology into their class activities. Children need to be familiar with the computer and with keyboarding before teachers can expect them to do meaningful work. Time should be provided for experimentation on the keyboard. The authors do not recommend that children spend their computer lab time exclusively on keyboarding instruction. Experimentation time with some instruction would allow for familiarity and would decrease the novelty factor.

When using the Internet, it is essential for the teacher to pre-select sites for the children. There are not many good Internet resources for very young children, and teachers report having difficulties locating sites to fill their classroom needs ("Technology Counts," 1999). A search engine, such as Yahooligans!, is a good place to start searching for subject-related sites. Brief lessons on skimming and scanning text would be helpful for young readers. The ability to zero in on important information is essential to efficient use of Internet resources. Another Internet skin that should be briefly taught is how to navigate Web pages. Children should be taught how to move back and forth among Web pages, as well as how to bookmark sites and cut and paste text into word-processed documents. Copying from the Internet to paper with a pencil was extremely tedious for these 2nd-grade children.

To increase productivity and eliminate some off-task behavior, it might work well to assign one buddy per child for assistance and sharing of information. That way, children still have a chance to share with their buddies, but they can do it within some limits. Assuring children they will have an opportunity to share what they have found on the Internet with the whole group may also reduce some of the non-productive talk.

Finally, teachers must be aware that for young children, technology-based activities take more time than paper-and-pencil activities. The computers create excitement and the desire for experimentation, which is very important in education. The teacher must be "committed to student-centered meaning-making rather than machine-centered knowledge" (Meskill & Swan, 1995, p. 23). Ultimately, the teacher's judgment is critical in determining how to effectively use the Internet and other technologies in the classroom (Coulter et al., 2000).

Appendix A

Comprehension Questions--Henry & Mudge (Big Bear Lake)

1. Why does Mudge love camping?
2. Why does Henry love camping?
3. What might have happened if the family had seen a bear while
   camping?
4. Is it a good idea to take a dog on a camping trip? Why or why not?
5. What would have been different about Henry's trip if it had rained
   the whole time?
6. If you were to go on a nature walk with Henry and Mudge, what would
   you enjoy most?

Appendix B
Story Map Rubric

                        0                     1

Story Elements     No accurate           One accurate
                   story parts          story part is
                  are included             included

Captions           No accurate           An accurate
                  captions are          caption is in-
                    included.         cluded for one of
                                       the three story
                                      parts (beginning,
                                       middle, and end)

                        2                     3

Story Elements     Two accurate        All three story
                   story parts        parts are included
                   are included        and are accurate
                                     (beginning, middle,
                                     and end of the story)

Captions           An accurate           An accurate
                  caption is in-          caption is
                cluded for two of       included for
                    the three            each of the
                   story parts           three story
                                            parts

Table 1
Text Characteristics and Response Activities

Text                   Reading   Genre        Treatment Response
                       Level                  Activity

Henry & Mudge            2.1     Fiction      Designed story map
                                              using Kid Pix.

Veterinarians            2.0     Nonfiction   Researched online.
                                              Made flip book w/ 5
                                              things learned
                                              about vets.

Around the Pond          2.1     Nonfiction   Wrote (word processed)
                                              five facts about a chosen
                                              animal presented in
                                              the story.

Christopher Columbus     2.5     Nonfiction   Researched online.
                                              Designed a mini poster
                                              w/ 3 facts about
                                              Columbus.

Cat on the Mat           1.5     Fiction      Designed a story map
                                              using Kid Pix.

What Is Chinatown?       2.1     Nonfiction   Described favorite
                                              restaurant (word
                                              processed).

Text                   Control Response
                       Activity

Henry & Mudge          Designed story map
                       using paper &
                       pencil.

Veterinarians          Researched in
                       books. Made flip
                       book w/ 5 things
                       learned about vets.

Around the Pond        Wrote (paper &
                       pencil) five facts
                       about a chosen
                       animal presented
                       in the story.

Christopher Columbus   Researched in
                       books. Designed a
                       mini poster w/ 3
                       facts about
                       Columbus.

Cat on the Mat         Story Map-paper
                       & pencil

What Is Chinatown?     Described favorite
                       restaurant (paper
                       & pencil).

Table 2
Results of Response Activity Evaluations and Surveys

                        Treatment       Control       Treatment
Story Name            Comprehension  Comprehension    Response

Henry & Mudge           4.43/6.00      4.63/6.00      2.67/6.00
Veterinarians           4.00/5.00      4.63/5.00      4.83/6.00
Around the Pond         4.00/5.00      4.31/5.00      2.14/3.00
Christopher Columbus    4.07/6.00      4.25/6.00      5.71/6.00
Cat on the Mat          4.21/6.00      5.19/6.00      3.43/6.00
What Is Chinatown?      3.71/6.00      3.94/6.00      1.14/2.00

                         Control       Treatment       Control
Story Name              Response        Survey         Survey

Henry & Mudge           5.50/6.00         NA             NA
Veterinarians           5.63/6.00      6.57/8.00      6.86/8.00
Around the Pond         2.63/3.00      7.33/8.00      5.00/8.00
Christopher Columbus    5.13/6.00      7.14/8.00      6.38/8.00
Cat on the Mat          5.25/6.00      6.14/8.00      4.50/8.00
What Is Chinatown?      1.25/2.00      6.57/8.00      5.50/8.00

References

Benenson, G. (2001). Teachers researching, children designing. Retrieved on February 20, 2003, from http:/scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/ JTE/v12n2/benenson.html

Coulter, B., Feldman, A., & Konold, C. (2000). Rethinking online. Learning & Lending with Technology, 28(1), 42-47.

Despot, P.C. (1992). Nurturing the communication abilities of second-grade students by using notebook computers to enhance the writing process. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova University, Ft. Lauderdale, FL (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 351 700).

El-Hindi, A. (1998). Beyond classroom boundaries: Constructivist teaching with the Internet. Retrieved on February 20, 2003, from www.readingonline.org/electronic/ elec_index.asp?HREF=/electronic/RT/ constructivist.html

Flood, J., Lapp, D., Fisher, D., Lungren, L., Flood, S., Frey, J., & Eyres-Wright, D. (1997, December). Enhancing the literacy curriculum with visual technology. Paper presented at the annual mooting of the National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ.

Fountaine, D. (2000). Technical advances and fifth grade reading comprehension: Do students benefit? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 448 416).

Gambrell, L. Bradley, V., & McLaughline, E. (1987). Young children's comprehension and recall of computer screen displayed text. Journal of Research in Reading, 10(2), 156-163.

Goldman, J. M. (1988). The use of computers versus basal readers for rending comprehension in the primary grades. Illinois (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED299548).

Greenlee-Moore, M. E., & Smith, L. L. (1996). Interactive computer software: The effects on young children's reading achievement. Reading Psychology, 17(1) 43-64.

Harper, J.A., & Ewing, N.J. (1986). A comparison of the effectiveness of microcomputer and workbook instruction on reading comprehension performance in high-incidence handicapped children. Educational Technology, 26(5), 40-45.

Keene, S., & Davey, B. (1987). Effects of computer-presented text on LD adolescents' reading behaviors. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10(4), 283-290.

Labbo, L. (1996). A semiotic analysis of young children's symbol making in a classroom computer center. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 356-385.

Labbo, L., & Kuhn, M. (1998). Electronic symbol making: Young children's computer-related emerging concepts about literacy. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, & L. Labbe (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology (pp. 79-91). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Labbo, L. D., Reinking, D., & McKenna, M. C. (1998). Technology and literacy education in the next century: Exploring the connection between work and schooling. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(3&4), 273-89.

Leu, D. (1997). Caity's questions: Literacy as deixis on the Internet. The Reading Teacher, 51, 62-67.

Mayer, R. E., Schuster, M. W., & Blanton, W. (1999). What do children learn from using computers in an informal, collaborative setting? Educational Technology, 39(2), 27-31.

McCormick, R. (2000, December). Theoretical and empirical issues of technology education research. Paper presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Conference on Research in Technology Education, Washington, DC.

Meskill, C., & Swan, K. (1995). Roles for multimedia in the response-based literature classroom (Report No. R117G10015). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 387 803)

Olson, K.A. (1994). Writing and revising with pencils and computers: An analysis of the processes and products of seven first-grade children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(22). (University Microforms No. 95-13, 449)

Orabuchi, I. (1992, August). Effects of using interactive CAI on primary grade students' higher-order thinking skills: Inferences, generalizations, and math problem solving. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Woman's University, Denton.

Reinking, D. (1998). Introduction: Synthesizing technological transformations of literacy in a post-typographic world. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, & L. Labbo (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology (pp. xi-xxx). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Technology Counts: Education Week's National Survey of Teachers' Use of Digital Content. (1999). Retrieved on February 20, 2003, from www.edweek.org/sreports/tc99/index.htm

Tillman, G. (1995). Will implementing reading computer assisted instruction compared to traditional reading instruction produce more effective comprehension at the elementary school level? New York: Berrent Publications. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 392 025)

Tzung-Yu, C. (1993). Comparing the use of computers with traditional print in reading instruction: What the research says. Muncie, Indiana. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 362 831)

Children's Literature 

Christopher Columbus: Explorer. (2003). Retrieved on February 24, 2003, from www.enchantedlearn ing.com/explorers/page/c/columbus.shtml

George, LB. (1996). Around the pond. New York: HarperCollins.

Low, W. (1997). What is Chinatown? New York: Holt.

Rylant, C. (1980). Henry and Mudge and the starry night. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Schade, S., & Buller, J. (1999). Cat on the mat. New York: Golden Books.

Two different cultures. (2001). Scholastic News, 58(2), 1-8.

Veterinarian, Dr. Faye Vittotoe. (n.d.). Retrieved on February 24, 2003, teacher.scholastic.com/ commclub/vet/index.htm

Susan M. Tancock

Ball State University

Janis Segedy

Burris Laboratory School