1. Using Technology/WEB 2.0 Tools to Improve Writing Yves Antenor CBSE 7202T.NET Seminar in Applied Theory and Research II Prof. O'Connor-Petruso

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS Problem Statement.………..…………………………………..…3 Statement of Hypothesis….………………..…………………….3 Literature Review……..……………………..…………...………4 Research Design………………………………..…………………5 Procedure………………………………………..………………...6 Statistical Analysis………………………………..…………7, 8, 9 Implications……………………………………….……………..10 Threats to Validity………………………………………………11 References………………………………………………………12 2

3. Problem Statement: How can I integrate technology in the classroom in order to improve writing quantity and enjoyment? Statement of Hypothesis: With the inclusion of technology, the quantity, the enjoyment, and overall time spent writing should improve.

4. LITERATURE REVIEW:  The novelty of the devices made journaling more engaging for students, which was not lost on the authors. A feature of the devices allowed students to “beam” their work to others for peer editing, which led to improved spelling and writing (students increased their time polishing their work). While the study did not have a long duration, the gains for student achievement were real. Swan, van‘t Hooft, Kracoski, and Unger (2005)  A study in a first grade classroom looked to see the impact word processing would have on them. The attitudes to writing among the students were positive, overall. But they found it easier to write using computers as opposed to pen and paper, they had to exert more energy when hand writing their stories. They complained of their hands getting tired when writing on paper, and think about their letter formations. While those who lacked keyboarding skills, on the other hand, took a lot longer to compose their work, and did not enjoy word processing at all. Gabriel and Van Leeuwen (2007)

5. RESEARCH DESIGN: This action research project will be conducted on a group of six 1st Graders at P.S. 282 Writing assignments by group, in a three-week period (Mondays & Wednesdays starting 11/4/13) Written assignments will be done on 3 wifi-enabled laptops. On each laptop, students will be directed to a blank document page within the group’s Google Docs page: PS.282.db@gmail.com. A Pre-test (O) and post-test (O) will consist pre- and post- surveys. Treatment (X) will consist of ReadyGen writing assignments set by co-operating teacher on laptops. Design Representation: OXO 5 BoysGirls S1.LGS2.J S3.FJPS4.SK S5.RBS6.BW

6. PROCEDURE:  Get permission to implement action research: 1. Cooperating teacher 2. technology teacher 3. principal  Secure laptop availability: Equipment available on Mondays and Wednesdays mornings during third period  Conduct Pre-Survey (O) on majority of classroom before the start of ELA ReadyGen program.  At the start of new ELA program, apply the treatment (X). Participants complete their composition work using Google Docs for 3 weeks: Mondays: S3.FJP (High); S5.RB (Average); S2.J (Low) Wednesdays: S6.BW (High); S4.SK (Average); S1.LG (Low)  Conduct Post-Survey (O) on research participants

7. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: NameAverage/weekSample% Change S1.LG27.3337-26.13% S4.SK20.3352-60.90% S6.BW34.3358-40.80% S3.FJP56.3357-1.17% S2.J18.0056-67.86% S5.RB25.3340-36.67% All students, regardless of performance levels, experienced a sharp drop in words written.

8. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:

9. XY 282 254 3169 161 376 1103 0.431rxy There is a correlation between time spent at home writing with devices (from post survey) and the amount of words students were able to type during the treatment.

10. IMPLICATIONS:  Based on the Post-Survey, participants had favorable attitudes about writing with tech devices after the treatment.  Technology can be used to mitigate perception that writing is a gendered craft.  All students took significantly longer to write their compositions  While Gabriel and van Leeuwen’s 2007 study showed that students were frustrated with writing on computers as a result of poor keyboarding skills, the first graders were not discouraged. Typing should be introduced early on!

11. THREATS TO INTERNAL VALIDITY Differential Selection of Subjects – A sampling of only high or low performing students can negatively impact the results. Statistical Regression – A small number of participants may yield results, which are statistically insignificant. 11 THREATS TO EXTERNAL VALIDITY Experimenter effect – Students may become too familiar with me and may try harder than usual because of their exposure to the experimenter. As a result, the effect of the inclusion of technologies may be trumpeted by familiarity between the subject and the experimenter. Reactive arrangements – Some students may not be comfortable with typing on an iPad for an extended period. Specificity of Variables – Because research collects subjective/opinion data, differences between pre and post surveys may be hard to distinguish.

12. REFERENCES: O’Connor-Petruso, S. (2013). Descriptive Statistics Threats to Validity. PowerPoint slides. Retrieved from Blackboard Action Research site. Swan, K., Hooft, M. van’t, Kratcoski, A., and Unger, D. (2004). Uses and effects of mobile computing devices in K-8 classrooms. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(1), 99-112. Van Leeuwen, C., and Gabriel, M. (2007). Beginning to write with word processing: Integrating writing process and technology in a primary classroom. Reading Teacher, 60(5), 420-429. DOI: 10.1598RT.60.5.2 12