Tag: Lindsay Yearta

Smore learning please! Using digital flyers to think and learn

by mputman13

Author: Lindsay Sheronick Yearta (Winthrop University)

The winter break over, students and teachers are gearing up for the second semester of the year. As students stream into the hallways and clamor into their classrooms, the excitement is contagious.  How do we keep our students excited about learning long after the first bell has rung?  One way to increase engagement in learning is to integrate technology into the curriculum (Mills & Levido, 2011) to provide students with increased opportunities to collaborate and learn in authentic ways. Provided that students have access to a device and the Internet, thinking and learning can be transformed into a more collaborative, connected, and engaging endeavor.

Using digital flyers in the classroom is one way in which students can  use technology to increase engagement and deepen their learning. Take for example, the students in Mr. John-Joseph’s seventh grade social studies class. At the beginning of the Cold War unit, Mr. John-Joseph realized that some of his students were struggling with the more difficult concepts.  After talking to one of his colleagues who used Smore as a presentation tool with his students, Mr. John-Joseph thought about how he could have his students use the features of this tool to increase thinking and learning in a digital space.

Using Smore as a tool for thinking and learning

Smore is an easy to use website that allows users to create digital flyers. In addition to creating digital flyers or posters, this site can also be used as a digital note-taking pad of sorts. Students can use this site to collect and reflect upon meaningful information.  Instead of one-dimensional, traditional note taking, students can insert videos, links to other sites, images, and can share their thinking and learning with peers.

In other words, Smore can be used as a tool to help students create digital concept maps in the classroom. Concept maps have many synonymous names such as mind maps, semantic maps, and learning logs. These graphic organizers allow students to use the space to record what they already know about a topic, activating schema (McLaughlin, 2010). Students are also able to take notes as they progress through the unit, and reflect on their learning upon completion of the unit. In this way, the mind map can grow with the student.  A problem arises, however, when students are unable to fit the entirety of their thoughts on a traditional paper mind map.

Creating and maintaining the mind map in a digital space allows students to document their learning, reflect upon and question their newfound knowledge, and collect links to supplemental materials all in one place. Embodying the principles of Universal Design for Learning, the teacher can help to build or activate schema for all students using this digital tool (Lapinski, Gravel, & Rose, 2012).  Specifically, if students are lacking in background knowledge of a specific topic, they can easily find videos and websites to help build that schema.

With Smore, after users create an account and log in with an email and a password, they can create up to five free flyers. Students can sign up for individual Smore accounts or can create flyers through the teacher-created educator plan. The educator plan is $39 a year and allows for unlimited flyer creation for educational purposes. In this way, students and the teacher alike could use one login name and password to create unlimited flyers.

Once a template is selected, the user can add a variety of components such as audio, text, picture, form, and gallery onto the flyer by clicking on the appropriate buttons at the bottom of the flyer.  Students can then immediately begin inserting information. Clicking the text button offers students a chance to take notes or reflect on a particular concept.  There are several word processing features that students can use such as making the font bold or in italics. Students can insert text in a bulleted or numbered list format and can also hyperlink text.

A benefit of Smore is the ability for the creator to access analytics.  Analytics provide information such as the geographic location of the viewer, the number of times users have clicked on links, and the frequency of users reaching the end of the infographic. Through the examination of this information, users have a visual understanding of the scope of their words as they gain access to information such as frequency and an awareness of a wide audience.

Smore Learning in the Classroom

After he decided to use Smore in the classroom, Mr. John-Joseph began by creating a sample infographic using Smore to show his students (see figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1
Figure 1

He told his students that this was not a presentation, or even a finished product. Rather, this was a repository of his learning. Mr. John-Joseph pointed out that he included the state standards as his first text box so that he could continuously check and see what his teaching goals were. He used it as a roadmap to guide instructional planning and delivery. He told students that when they created their own Infographic, they could also include the state standards or unit objectives to help them gauge their own progress in learning.

Mr. John-Joseph also started a concept map, using the site Bubbl.us.  He linked his in-progress concept map of the Cold War in his Smore and also inserted a screenshot to show students what it looked like (see figure 2). He thought it was important to show students his work in an in-progress state.  He wanted to demonstrate to students that his knowledge would grow as he investigated topical concepts. Additionally, Mr. John-Joseph shared how he needed to research information on the Truman Doctrine, because he was not certain of the details. After finding a quality website, he linked the site to his page.  He could then review the notes, from his smartphone, anytime he needed to, including while he was waiting in line in the cafeteria.  Mr. John-Joseph also found a short video clip on the Marshall Plan and linked it in his Smore.

Figure 2
Figure 2

After reviewing the  components of his own flyer, Mr. John-Joseph asked his students to take our their devices and go to the Smore website. He explained that students would take notes using the online format in a way that was personally relevant. He reiterated that these flyers were not finished products. In fact, they were to serve as works in progress. They would be repositories of student thinking. These flyers were going to grow in breadth as the unit progressed. Mr. John-Joseph created a Google Doc so that each student could provide a link to his/her personal digital flyer in one, communal place. This would enable  Mr. John-Joseph to monitor students’ progress throughout the unit. Additionally, students would had access to one another’s thinking and could link personal flyers to peers’ flyers.

Marquis, one of the students in Mr. John-Joseph’s class, was struggling with the concept of the Truman Doctrine. So, he searched for additional information and found a website with valid information. He decided to hyperlink the site on his digital flyer. He typed Truman Doctrine, used his mouse to highlight the phrase, and clicked on the hyperlink button.  He then put the website link in the box and clicked link.  The website, with background information, was then hyperlinked to the phrase Truman Doctrine, just as it is here.

Some students prefer to listen to and view information instead of reading. To add a video, students click on the video button and are then prompted to add the link.  After inserting the link, students click embed.  The video is then placed in the digital flyer.  Carolyn found this hyperlinked video on the Marshall Plan and placed it in her flyer.  One of her classmates liked the video so much that he used the share button on Carolyn’s flyer placed it in his flyer as well.

As students progressed through the Cold War unit, using the digital flyer, Mr. John-Joseph noticed that students appeared to be more engaged.  Students were able to locate materials on individual reading levels and utilize supplemental materials as well.  Many students were curious about classmates’ digital flyers and while exploring, had access to increased materials. While Mr. John-Joseph still required his students to read portions of text from the class textbook, he noticed that students seemed better able to grasp the information. He attributed this increased success to students’ augmented background knowledge.

Final thoughts

While Smore can be used for a myriad of purposes such as presentation tools, expert projects, digital mind maps, and for ongoing assessment (Yearta & Mitchell, 2016), in this article, we focused on using the digital flyer for the purpose of  creating and maintaining digital mind maps.

An additional feature of the digital learning is that students can share their learning with family, friends, and people from their community with the touch of a button. Students can receive nearly instantaneous feedback and sharing their knowledge with others makes the learning that much more authentic.

References

Lapinski, S., Gravel, J., & Rose, D.H. (2012). Tools for practice: The Universal Design for Learning guidelines. In T.E. Hall, A. Meyer, & D.H. Rose (Eds.), Universal Design for Learning in the classroom: Practical Applications (pp. 9-24). New York: The Guilford Press.

McLaughlin, M. (2010). Content area reading: Teaching and learning in an age of multiple literacies. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Mills, K.A., & Levido, A. (2011). iPed: Pedagogy for digital text production. The Reading Teacher, 65, 80-91. doi: 10.1598/RT.65.1.11

Yearta, L. & Mitchell, D. (2016). Infographics: More than just digitized posters. Reading Matters, 16, 66-69.

Lindsay Yearta

Lindsay Sheronick Yearta is an Assistant Professor of Literacy at the Winthrop University. A former elementary school teacher, her research interests include digital literacy, vocabulary acquisition and retention, and critical literacy. She can be contacted at yeartal@winthrop.edu.

The Digital Word Wall in the Elementary Classroom

by mputman13
Lindsay Yearta
Lindsay Yearta

Author: Lindsay Sheronick Yearta, University of South Carolina Upstate

 As one of the National Reading Panel’s five components of literacy (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD], 2000) and as a component that shares a strong link with students’ reading comprehension (Graves, 2004; NICHD, 2000), vocabulary instruction has always been an essential part of the school day. Furthermore, vocabulary acquisition and retention has been receiving increased attention recently (Manyak, Von Gunten, Autenrieth, Gillis, Mastre-O’Farrel, Irvine-McDermott, Baumann, & Blachowicz, 2014). While the literacy community is witnessing a renewed interest in vocabulary instruction, my interest in digital vocabulary study began a few years ago in a graduate course at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. I was learning about an interactive word wall (Harmon, Hendrick, Wood, Vintinner, & Willeford, 2009) and, as a fifth grade teacher with a multitude of standards to teach, I thought about how I had allowed vocabulary instruction to take a backseat in my classroom. I was interested in the interactive word wall and wanted to integrate my love of technology. I knew how much my students enjoyed using digital tools and I wondered if an interactive word wall was beneficial for student learning, what might adding digital tools do to the process?

Research Questions

The aim of the study was to determine what effect, if any, digitizing the word wall had on students’ vocabulary acquisition, retention, and/or motivation.  Specifically, the research questions were:

  1. What effect does the use of a digital word wall have on students’ vocabulary acquisition when compared to the use of a non-digital word wall?
  2. To what extent do students retain knowledge of the vocabulary words when using the digital word wall when compared to the non-digital word wall?
  3. What are teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the digital word wall?

Methods

The study was conducted in two fifth grade classrooms using an explanatory mixed-methods approach (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Quantitative data were collected in the form of pretests and posttests administered at the three week, six week, and eight week marks. These tests were comprised of multiple-choice tests (Graves, 2009) and a vocabulary knowledge scale test, validated by Wesche and Paribakht (1996) and found to be an accurate measure of student vocabulary knowledge. The quantitative data helped to answer research questions one and two. Qualitative data were used to answer research question three as well as to help explain the quantitative data. The qualitative data were collected in the form of interviews with participating teachers and several of the participating students.

The fifth grade students engaged in six weeks of vocabulary instruction on Greek and Latin roots. Each student was able to experience three weeks of instruction with a non-digital word wall and three weeks of instruction with a digital word wall.  As aforementioned, students were given a pretest, an assessment at the three-week mark, the six-week mark, and the eight-week mark (to test for retention).

To maintain consistency, students worked on modified Frayer models (Yearta, 2012) with both the non-digital and digital word walls for 20 minutes a day (see Figure 1 for an example of a modified Frayer model and an explanation of the components).

 image001 Components of the Modified Frayer Model:
(1) Root- the Greek or Latin root goes in the center of the Modified Frayer Model.
(2) Meaning- the meaning of the root goes in the top left box.
(3) Example- an example of a word containing the root goes in the top right box.
(4) Definition- the definition of the example goes in the bottom right box.
(5) Illustration and Sentence- an illustration and sentence, containing the example word, go in the bottom left box.

Figure 1.

In regards to the digital word wall, students also had access to digital tools and used PBWorks as a forum to post and discuss their models. PBWorks is a wiki and is free for classroom teachers with up to 100 users. Additionally, students had access to digital tools such as Greek and Latin root websites, digital dictionaries, and countless photographs and images (see Figure 2 for links).

Digital Tools Links
PBWorks https://plans.pbworks.com/academic
Greek and Latin root websites https://www.learnthat.org/pages/view/roots.htmlhttps://www.msu.edu/~defores1/gre/roots/gre_rts_afx2.htm
Digital Dictionaries http://www.merriam-webster.com/http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/

http://dictionary.reference.com/
Photographs & Images http://search.creativecommons.org/

Figure 2.

Findings

Findings from the study indicate that the word wall is a thorough method to instruct students on Greek and Latin roots. Posttest scores were significantly higher than pretest scores in the multiple-choice assessment and the vocabulary knowledge scale assessment. In regards to the digital versus non-digital methods of instruction, there were several interesting findings. First, this study did not prove a significant difference in students’ simple recall of Greek and Latin root meanings. However, when considering deeper levels of word meaning, as indicated by the vocabulary knowledge scale, the digital word wall was a more successful method of vocabulary instruction. In regards to retention, the only significant gains were from pretest to eight-week posttest gains.

Both participating teachers, regardless of personal comfort with technology, were motivated to use technology in their classrooms for the sake of their students.  They also felt that students were more engaged when they were working on the digital word wall, one student mentioned that she was better able to remain focused on the computer, “I can stay focused on the reading.” A student from the other participating class mentioned how she would lose focus when dealing with the hard copies, “You get tuned out after a book. Like, after so many pages, you get tuned out.” However, she enjoyed that with a computer she could go through, “different pages” and “different sites” while she was constantly “learning something new.”  Additionally the teachers felt that the students enjoyed the digital word wall more. One of the participating teachers noted, “When the computers cooperated, they enjoyed the digital way more.”

Data from student interviews indicated that students felt the digital word wall was faster, easier, and more motivating than the non-digital word wall. While faster certainly does not mean better, the interviewed students seemed to enjoy this perceived benefit. A student specifically stated, “you just click on a button, you can just start typing, and it’s up. Then you gotta get your root and go!”   Several of the students mentioned the ease of locating information with the digital word wall and one of the students mentioned how he enjoyed being able to “open new tabs to do more than one at a time.” The data also seemed to suggest that students found the computer to be more motivating.  Students felt like they could make a mistake on the computer, as they felt they had the option to retry until it was correct.

Successes

This project had several outcomes that could be viewed as “successes.” Both the digital and non-digital word walls were much more effective than the previous method of vocabulary instruction at the elementary school in which the study was conducted. Furthermore, both the students and the teachers discussed how the digital tools that students used for the digital word wall were helpful. Students could use the online dictionaries to look up the meanings of words without having to possess a strong grasp of sound-symbol relationships. Students could find appropriate photographs or clipart to serve as visual representations of their root words. Additionally, students had greater access to their digital word walls than the non-digital word walls. This would be especially helpful for students with iPads or laptops.  The students could access their digital word walls from anywhere as long as they had Internet access.

Vocabulary instruction should be engaging and active (Manyak, et al., 2014; Taylor, Mraz, Nichols, Rickelman, & Wood, 2009) and the participating students and teachers felt that the digital word wall was. One of the teachers mentioned how, while she didn’t know if she’d use the non-digital or digital word wall the following year, she would “definitely do one of those over what we used to do.” She believed that having students engaged in the word wall was beneficial, “I think they learned more from both of them, more than anything we’ve ever done before.”  A student, in a separate interview, stated how he enjoyed working on each of the word walls. He even mentioned how the word walls were better than the method his class had been using to study vocabulary.

Challenges

This study was conducted on a small scale. There were two participating fifth grade classes, situated in a suburban area in the southeast. The time span of the study was only 8 weeks. It would be interesting to see this study replicated with a larger, multi-grade group over a longer period of time. An additional consideration would be conducting the study in a 1:1 school.

Final Thoughts

Of course, some students and teachers are going to prefer the more traditional, non-digital word wall. The digital word wall is not being presented as the only method of vocabulary instruction; it is simply one more tool that teachers can add to their repertoire. Furthermore, the access to and experience with the digital tools that accompanied the digital word wall may transfer into other academic areas.

We know that when done correctly so that it is an active process (Manyak, et al., 2014; Taylor, Mraz, et al., 2009), vocabulary learning can be time consuming (Manyak, et al., 2014). Therefore, teachers are constantly looking for ways to fit as much instruction as is possible in the short time they have for class. The digital word wall, as presented here, allows teachers to maximize their instructional time.

References

Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.W. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

Graves, M.F. (2004). Teaching prefixes: As good as it gets? In J.F. Baumann & E.J. Kame’enui(Eds.), Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (pp. 81-99).New York: The Guilford Press.

Graves, M.F. (2009). Teaching individual words: One size does not fit all. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Harmon, J. M., Hendrick, W. B., Wood, K. D., Vintinner, J., & Willeford, T. (2009). Interactive word walls: More than just reading the writing on the walls. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52, 398-408.

Manyak, P.C., Von Gunten, H., Autenrieth, D., Gillis, C., Mastre-O’Farrel, J., Irvine-McDermott, E., Baumann, J.F., & Blachowicz, C.L.Z. (2014). Four practical principles for enhancing vocabulary instruction. The Reading Teacher, 68(1), 13-23.

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. Retrieved on June 29, from: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.htm

Taylor, D.B., Mraz, M., Nichols, W.D., Rickelman, R.J., & Wood, K.D. (2009). Using explicit instruction to promote vocabulary learning for struggling readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25, 1-16.

Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T.S. (1996). Assessing second language vocabulary knowledge: Depth versus breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(1), 13-40.

Yearta, L.S. (2012). The effect of digital word study on fifth graders’ vocabulary acquisition, retention, and motivation: A mixed methods approach. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.