Category: Featured Article #2

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.

Choosing Effective Technology Tools for Struggling Learners

by mputman13
Eric MacDonald
Eric MacDonald

Author: Eric C. MacDonald, Ed.D., Benchmark School, Media, PA

Technology presents both challenges and opportunities for the struggling literacy learner. Living in the world of the Internet has increased the amount of text and reading as well as the complexity of finding the information one seeks. Yet there are a wealth of tools available to students that can be helpful to their strategic approach to literacy and learning in general.

Over the past 30 years, I have taught struggling literacy learners at Benchmark School. Benchmark is a small, private school for students who have experienced difficulty with literacy learning and other related learning issues. Our primary goal is to help students develop an understanding of their approach to learning and to approach learning in a strategic manner that will lead to increased success as they move on to other schools. As far back as the late 1980s, one might find me absconding with any computer in the building that seemed to be underutilized by its owner so that we could use it in my classroom. Back then, we used those computers mainly for word processing, though sometimes you might find us dissecting a 5” floppy disk to see what was inside. The dawn of the Internet has presented many new possibilities for teaching students to use technology tools for strategic learning. There are several key guidelines that I generally use in selecting tools to teach to my students.

Focus on strategic learning. During the course of the year, it seems helpful to focus on a few key tech tools that enable students to become more strategic, effective learners. There are many technology tools that helps teachers to scaffold student learning and enhance classroom instruction. Technology can be great for presenting information to students, but helping them to find and use tools that help them become successful learners is what is most important. For example, SmartBoards are found in many classrooms and can be excellent instructional tools. However, students cannot take the SmartBoard with them when they leave the classroom. VoiceThread is an exciting tool for engaging students in multimedia discussion of content and for many other exciting instructional opportunities, but it is not a tool that will help them to approach their own future learning strategically. Yet, if I teach a student how to use a graphic organizer tool, the student can use this for planning writing, note taking and more anywhere they go. Struggling learners, even the middle school students with whom I work, seem to need lots of practice with strategies to develop proficiency with that strategy and this seems true with strategic tech tools as well. It appears helpful for many students to focus on teaching them how to use a few, powerful tools that will help them to be more strategic learners.

The best tech tools are the easiest tech tools. A key criteria in choosing tools is to find ones that are easy to use. Often if a tool is too complex, students may not persist long enough to really learn how to use it effectively. Many struggling learners have issues remembering things. Even most adults have difficulty remembering all their usernames and passwords. Yet many great tech tools require logging in with a username and password. There can be a lot of wasted classroom time helping students with this issue. When I look for tools to use with my students, I try to limit the number of different tools that require login information, as well as work with students on strategies for keeping track of such information.

Users of the Internet browser Google Chrome, can add many great strategic tech tools through the Google Chrome store and create shortcuts to these apps on a homepage in Chrome. Some examples of great apps available in the Chrome Webstore include:

  • Draw.io – a free diagramming, concept mapping tool
  • Lucidcharts – another, slightly more complex diagramming, concept mapping tool
  • Quizlet – a flashcard, studying app
  • WeVideo – while not really a strategic learning tool, this is a great cross-platform and collaborative video editing app

There are a growing number of such technology tools available through the Google Chrome store and that can be easily accessible to students through their browser.

Even better, a growing number of schools have adopted Google Apps and many great tools now allow students to login through Google Apps or Google Drive. This keeps the amount of login information students need to keep track of to a minimum. Now Google Drive allows users to add apps that can be accessed directly through Drive. Among the useful apps that can be added to Google Drive are:

  • Draw.io and Lucidcharts – diagramming tools mentioned above
  • Mindmup – another mind mapping/concept mapping tool
  • Todo List – a to do list and organizer app

There are a growing number of such useful apps. Beyond strategic apps, there are apps for creating better presentations and collaboration. To check out these apps, go to your Google Drive and click on the gear icon in the upper right corner. From there, go to “Manage Apps” and click on “connect more apps” where you can view the variety of different available apps.

Even better, Google now has “Add-ons” in their Google Docs word processing program that can provide even more support for students as they write. A sampling of some of the tools available include:

  • Mindmeister – turns bulleted lists into a mind map/concept map
  • Texthelp Study Skills – allows for highlighting information in documents and collecting them into a new document.
  • PRO Writing Aid – a proofreading tool
  • Kaizena – allows teachers (and others) to provide verbal feedback on documents

Again, the list of Add-ons will grow and hopefully include more powerful, strategic tools for students. To find out what Add-ons are available, in a Google Doc document, there is a menu item “Add-ons.” Click on that menu item and then click on “Get Add-ons.”

Another reason I adopted the use of Google Docs (the word processing predecessor of Google Drive) when it first became available was its ease of use for students. Not only did it present a familiar interface, somewhat similar to Microsoft Word, it was more streamlined and eliminated some of what made word processing difficult for struggling learners. For example, students no longer need to remember to save their work. If the computer crashes or they “accidently” hit the delete key, the information is still there. Even if they forget to name the document, there are ways to try to locate it.

Students must be able to utilize tools beyond my classroom. My goal is to develop effective, strategic learners who know what tools, including technology tools, can best help them to learn. When evaluating technology tools, I want to choose tools that students can use not just in my classroom, but in their other classes and when they leave Benchmark and move onto a variety of other schools for high school. This requires me to consider two other related points: choosing “device agnostic” tools and free or inexpensive tools.

Tools that Transcend Platform. Students today have access to a variety of different devices, from Windows-based, to Mac, to iOS, to Android and beyond. Students need to be able to access the tools across different devices if the tool is to be useful to them beyond my classroom. Many of the tools that I use are browser-based. Some also have iPad or other tablet apps in addition to their web-based site.

Choose free or inexpensive tools. When possible, teaching students to use tools that will be available to them for free or at low-cost will help ensure access for these tools beyond their time in your classroom or school. Most of the time when I recommend my school purchase a tech tool it is to enable teachers to better utilize it with students through teacher dashboards that allow monitoring of student work or provide other collaboration and instructional tools. However, it is important that the tool be available for free or at a very low cost to students when they leave our school so that they can continue to use the tool. Otherwise, it is important to teach students how to transfer what they have learned to do in the paid tech tool to more readily available free tools. For example, Benchmark subscribed for a number of years to Webspiration Classroom, which is an online concept mapping tool. It provides easy sharing of assignments and concept maps with students, among other teacher tools. However, we also would introduce students to other concept mapping/diagramming tools that did not require an expensive subscription. We also subscribe to a great research tool called NoodleTools. This tool helps students with the research process using an interface similar to the index cards and file box of years past. (But with that information virtual, you can’t spill and mix up or lose the cards!) While we pay for this tool, students when they move onto new schools can purchase access for an extremely low cost, currently $15/year for an individual/family subscription.

Collaboration is an important digital age skill. The final element that I consider when choosing tech tools for struggling learners is that it provide a means for collaboration. Collaboration features allow for teacher and peer scaffolding of learning. It is also a key skill for students to develop that will help them be successful in the digital age workforce. One of the things that drew me to Google Drive early on was the collaboration features that it offered. Many of the tools mentioned earlier that integrate with Google Drive allow for collaboration. There are also many other tools available with collaboration features. For example, NoodleTools, the research tool mentioned earlier, has collaboration features that allow for multiple students to work on the same research project.

Technology tools provide students with much support in developing into effective and strategic lifelong learners. Through teaching students how to use a few, powerfully strategic technology tools that provide easy access and use, work across platforms, allow for collaboration, and are easily accessible on a variety of devices, we empower students to become more successful. That is why literacy educators should be on the forefront of technology integration.

Contact information: Eric MacDonald – ericmacdonald@benchmarkschool.org