Literacy development in Kindergarten: A comparison of ...



Young Children’s Knowledge-Building and Literacy Development

through Knowledge Forum®

Janette Pelletier, Richard Reeve & Cindy Halewood

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto

Address correspondence to: Janette Pelletier, PhD, Institute of Child Study, OISE/UT, 45 Walmer Road, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5R 2X2

Email: jpelletier@oise.utoronto.ca

Phone: 416-934-4506

Abstract

This study examined how the use of Knowledge Forum (KF)®, a networked, internet-based learning environment, was related to the literacy development of children in a 4-year old classroom in a laboratory school affiliated with OISE/University of Toronto. Junior K is not a common term in US. If you use “Kindergarten” only, it would cause confusion. I would suggest that you get rid of any reference to “kindergarten.”//. Over the course of the year, the children participated in a longitudinal photo journal project. With adult support, children posted their photo journals and ideas to Knowledge Forum in the form of electronic “notes,” which allowed children to view each other’s work and to build on ideas by posting their responses and comments. Results showed that children were motivated to read and to respond to the notes of their peers using invented spelling. Gender differences were found in the number and type of notes posted. Implications of the study were discussed regarding the motivation for literacy among boys and girls and the benefits for teachers and children in having electronic archives of literacy development in a comparison to a non-KF® class.

Knowledge Forum: Computer Technology for Kindergarten Knowledge-Building and Literacy Development //please consider my suggested title on the cover page//

Introduction

Given that Kindergarten children are increasingly exposed to computers in school, it is time for us to understand how technology in early childhood classrooms can serve the purpose of catapulting children’s learning to new heights. Rather than simply “use” their knowledge to write stories or fashion products, children now “build” knowledge in collaborative on-line environments that allow them access into each others’ and experts’ theory-building and problem-solving (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003a). Yet, some contend that computer technology does not have a place in an early childhood class or may cause children to be bored or experience decline in literacy learning (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). Others caution that starting children on computer technology at a very young age may cause a decline in children’s imaginative play (Miller, 2005). Nevertheless, many believe that young children can indeed profit from specific competencies that are developed through familiarity with computer technology (Calvert, Rideout, Woolard, Barr & Strousse, 2005; Haugland, 1992). However, in referring to computer technology, we must go beyond the simple realities of “having computers in the classroom” (Cohen, 2005) or using computers as a “benign addition” to the curriculum (Plowman & Stephen, 2003) to using technology in innovative ways such as telecommunication exchanges among young children (Cohen, 2005) and the development of new literacies for the knowledge generation (Wood, 2004). These new literacies range from multimedia, interactive websites, ICT or digital literacy (Plowman & Stephen, 2003) to recording theories and connecting children’s ideas so that the product becomes new knowledge (Hewitt & Scardamalia, 1998). Furthermore, research has shown other benefits of computer use in early childhood settings; as an example, the ERIC Resource Center cites a number of studies that show improvements in thinking, problem-solving, manual dexterity, creativity and verbal skills (ERIC, 2000).

In her reviews of Facer et al.’s (2003) book, ScreenPlay: Children and Computing in the Home and Holloway and Valentine’s (2003) book, Cyberkids: Children in the Information Age, Willett (2005) cautions us about oversimplifying both of these positions, that is, children’s facility (or lack thereof) with computers. Authors Facer et al. claim that there is no evidence that children are natural born experts vis-à-vis computer technology and claim that adults and children have different strengths when it concerns computers. Children may more readily access information and fashion artifacts, but adults have better judgment about the validity and usefulness of information that is obtained through this medium. This difference is important to the teacher’s role in facilitating “what” computer experiences children will have in school. It has been shown that children who have experience with computer software that facilitates and reinforces learning make notable gains in conceptual, language and dexterity skills (Calvert et al., 2005; Haugland, 1992). Yang & Liu (2005) showed that learning information literacy through the Learning Together approach helped Grade 3 students to design projects collaboratively. Although these points are well-taken, this article is less concerned with children’s use of programs and information accessed on computers and is more concerned with children’s use of computers as a shared “headspace”, a forum for depositing and reworking ideas in a sustained and creative way.

What is “Knowledge-Building”?//APA 5th uses Italic for Level 2 &3 headings//

Scardamalia & Bereiter (2003b) contrast the “soft skills” that are taught in schools to meet curriculum expectations – skills such as communication, thinking, and human relations – with ability for “innovation”, a requirement for success in the Knowledge Age. That is, we must meet the demands of society to have citizens who, in addition to having competent basic skills, will be prepared to share and extend ideas in order to solve complex problems and to fashion new products. Knowledge-building is concerned with the production of ideas that are sustained through continued improvement. Ideas become the focus of reflection, iteration and modification. Another contrast is made between “learning” – an unobservable change in belief, attitude or skill – and knowledge “building” – the creation of observable, public knowledge (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003b). It is more than collaborative learning, which can mean learning together material that is already known; rather, it is about knowledge advancement.

All this may seem rather esoteric in its application to early childhood classrooms and yet, when considered in the simple context of responding to photographs in an electronic journal format, we can begin to see the roots of how young children can advance their own and others’ knowledge via a community platform. By making their views public, children open their ideas to reflection, feedback and modification by others. Knowledge, written down, becomes “objective” and revisable (Olson & Bruner, 1996).

Knowledge-Building and Social Constructivism in Early Childhood

The principle of knowledge-building in early childhood does not differ from knowledge-building in later childhood; that is, more sophisticated understandings about what is learned and how it is learned are “built” as children ask and answer authentic questions on a shared computer database. The classroom community is created by a belief system and support structures that encourage shared learning environments. Rogoff et al’s notion of a community of learners (Rogoff, Matusov & White, 1996) or Vygotsky’s notion of social constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978) are examples of the social importance in learning. Case’s (1996) description of social constructivism provides an appropriate foundation for the consideration of technology and knowledge-building. With reference to Vygotsky’s contribution to this perspective, children’s thought is seen in light of its biological and its cultural evolution (Case, 1996, p. 80); that is, humans have language, they fashion tools for thought and work and they have institutions to perpetuate their cultural innovations and beliefs. In this view the importance of the social context is realized through language and social interaction. Language helps direct children’s attention and organizes their thinking. As children mature, they internalize the language and thinking of their culture. The role of the teacher is critical in supporting, “scaffolding” or helping children “build” thinking through language (Vygotsky, 1962). Teachers create a learning environment that allows for discussion and shared understanding. Curriculum implications relate to use of time, space and materials to allow for this (XXXX, 1996) //unmask these citations// including the use of the computer as a “tool” that “mediates the human experience” (Wood, 1994, p. 24). Teachers and peers operate within what Vygotsky termed the “zone of proximal development”, allowing the learner to be supported to understand more than she would on her own. To extend this line of thinking to technology, scaffolds are “built in” to assist children, or to reach children within their ZPD (Hyun & Davis, 2005). When children are working together with the assistance of supportive technology, they are in essence building knowledge collectively. This type of classroom environment, facilitated by linked network technology is known as a knowledge-based learning community (Hewitt, 2004). Its purpose is to improve ideas and as a result, to build new knowledge (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003a). Knowledge-building assumes that the learner brings theories to bear on her surroundings, including for example, what she sees and hears. A knowledge-building community, including a virtual one, can provide prompts, or “scaffolds” to help children articulate and refine their ideas. The power of technology, in the form of the shared database, is in its capacity to store and organize these ideas. For example, children’s ideas about why some things float or sink or why leaves change color, can be clustered into groups which become an organizational framework for investigation and further theory-building. Children’s ideas are archived for later use, such as comparing what one knows now to what one thought earlier. Children come to understand what knowledge they create and how knowledge is constructed – an authentic example of constructivist learning. Teachers have records of children’s knowledge construction, records that provide rich fodder for reflective practice and research.

Knowledge Forum®: Technology for Knowledge-Building

Knowledge Forum® is a networked, internet-based environment in which students create notes that are then available to all participants in the community (Scardamalia, 2002). //can you provide an URL and an example?// Other students can “build on” if they have something to add or wish to request clarification. The build-on notes appear as linked rectangles with visible note titles. Only the author/s of each note can modify their own notes. Authors can highlight important “keywords” and create pictures and diagrams with their notes to further explain their ideas. Each note is titled and automatically displayed in the “view” along with other notes. The classroom database may include many separate views to help organize notes. Teachers have observed that motivation is heightened when the creation of each view comes from student suggestions during class meetings. Views are titled and may contain a background illustration. Links from one view to others’ views aid navigation within the database; that is, a visible line connects the notes to show that new information has been added on. All of these features are designed so that teachers can turn over control to their students, thereby facilitating the transference of creating knowledge from teacher to student.

Knowledge Forum® and Photo Journals in Kindergarten

In the Laboratory School at the Institute of Child Study, OISE/University of Toronto, Knowledge Forum® has been in use for 9 years at the Grades 1 – 6 levels (see Caswell & Lamon, 1998; Messina, Reeve & Scardamalia, 2003; Moreau, 2001; Reeve & Lamon, 1998, for teachers’ examples of Knowledge Forum® classroom teaching and research). For example, the Grade 4 teacher carried out an in-class research project on the study of light over a 3-year period. In Year 1, students used KF® to record their own investigations but did not build on to others’ notes. In Year 2 students formed interest groups and built on to each others’ notes within their groups. In Year 3, students did not form groups but rather participated in knowledge building with everyone else. Assessments of the three cohorts’ knowledge of light showed increases in understanding over the three years, suggesting to the teacher that the larger knowledge-building community led to greater gains by the children. This approach was then successfully implemented in Grade 1 (MacDonald, 2001), and the question arose as to whether Knowledge Forum® could be successfully employed in classrooms of even younger children. Would the children catch on to the idea of entering their theories on a shared database? Would they have the conceptual and fine motor skills to carry out tasks that required a keyboard and writing? The Kindergarten teacher decided to take this question on as an action research project, one that grew into the school-university partnership study reported here.

The impetus for this study was a photo journal project taking place in the Kindergarten class at the Institute of Child Study Laboratory School in Toronto. A similar project was taking place in a partner Kindergarten class at a similar university laboratory school in the United States (USLS). The children in both classes were engaged in writing about digital photos that were taken throughout the school day. The intent was to promote children’s writing in the context of reflecting about their own experiences, since children are more inclined to write about what is familiar to them (Haneda & Wells, 2000). The photographs also provided a way to include parents in the kindergarten experience, because young children do not always share what happens in a day with their parents. To that end, photo journals provide both documentation of writing and a record of what happens in a day. Photo journal projects are characteristic of what has become known as the “Reggio” approach; that is, long-term projects that employ digital cameras, videotapes and electronic documentation (Trepanier-Street, Hong & Bauer, 2001). In the project described here, children chose from dozens of photos and included them in their photo journals. They either wrote about them using their emerging knowledge of phonics or they had their ideas scribed for them by an adult. The adult assisted children, if asked, to read the entries of other children. Initial pictures were about school life-on the playground, eating lunch, free play, etc. As the children ventured deeper into discovery, pictures were taken of science experiments, field trips, or answers to questions the children were asking (such as what happens when icy snow and icy mud come inside). However, the goal for the project remained the same: to promote early literacy in a way that was both meaningful and developmentally appropriate for young children. It is noteworthy that “literacy” is naturally associated with reading and writing skills that are taught in school; yet as Plowman and Stephen (2003) note, traditional literacy skills may not be directly transferable to or from computer technology. Thus the question arose as to whether these traditional literacy skills would transfer in this context. Children at the ICS Laboratory School employed Knowledge Forum®, that is, they entered their ideas about the photographs onto the Knowledge Forum® database and “built on” to each others’ ideas (see Figure 1). //Consider: use one tree from Fig 1 as an example to briefly talk about how they build each other ideas. Where did Figure 1 come from? From the project reported here or a different project. Can you provide URL for more information//

//please move all figures/tables to pages after references. One figure/table a page. In the text, indicate where you want to place them. For example://

>

Figure 1. Children’s knowledge building notes on Knowledge Forum®

Research Question

We were interested to know whether and how //do you look at “how?// the Knowledge Forum® technology might contribute to children’s literacy learning. Since a longitudinal study of reading was taking place in the ICS Laboratory School at the time (see XXX, 2005), we decided to employ some of the same pre/post methodology to examine change in the Kindergarten children’s literacy development. //consider proposing some specific hypothesis or questions here//

A gender related question was based on the ICS teacher/s’ observations of boys and girls in the class. Boys, who in general were less likely to voluntarily take part in literacy activities in their play and free time activity, appeared to be interested in looking at what other children had written and in writing on the KF® database. Given the boys’ preference for non-literacy activity in class, the question of gender difference was explored in the research study. Certainly there has been research to suggest that by later grades, boys have greater computer literacy than girls (Christensen, Knezek & Overall, 2005; Hackbarth, 2002). In the early grades, girls typically engage in more computer “work” whereas boys engage in more video-gaming (Clayton, 2003). We were interested to know whether knowledge building using photographs and classmates’ ideas might appeal to boys and whether they might make as many entries as girls on the database.

Methods

Choice of Methods

Although the photo journal project itself, and the Knowledge Forum® technology in particular, are examples of a social constructivist form of teaching and learning, it was necessary for the purpose of the research to employ quantitative measures in order to answer the question about whether Knowledge Forum® would actually contribute significantly to children’s literacy development. As Hill & Nichols (2006) explain, there are changing theoretical perspectives in understanding emergent literacy, ranging from maturationist to emergent to social constructivist to critical perspectives, and it is important to draw from a wide range of perspectives. This paper draws on social constructivist theory but acknowledges the necessity of employing empiricist methods to answer some questions. In addition to the data collected for the research, teacher kept anecdotal records and portfolios to document the qualitative aspects of children’s literacy growth. However this paper is limited to a report of the pre- and post- comparison //you didn’t mean experimental-control group comparison, right?// data on the literacy measures.

Participants

Child participants included 22 4-5 years old //as I suggested in the abstract: get rid of reference to Junior Kindergarten// children in a full-day program from the Institute of Child Study (ICS) Laboratory School at the University of Toronto (mean age 52.1 months). A comparison group of 20 Senior Kindergarten children from the Laboratory School at a top-ranked university in the United States (USLS – U.S. Laboratory School) (mean age 63.4 months) employed the same measures to examine literacy development among the children who were using paper and pencil photo journals. However, given the age difference between the two groups, the USLS data are used here only for the purpose of discussion rather than as a control group.//please emphasize this throughout the paper//

There were 10 boys and 12 girls at the ICS Laboratory School and an equal number of boys and girls at USLS. The racial and socioeconomic backgrounds of the children were similar across the two contexts, that is, both were predominantly White, middle to upper-middle class. Approximately 30% of students entering the ICS Laboratory School represent visible minority groups. Children in both schools had access to computers and other forms of technology in the home. Data about parental support and monitoring of computer use at home were not available for this study although parent involvement is recognized as key in monitoring computer activity (Clayton, 2003).

Teachers were White and middle class, both with significant experience teaching Kindergarten in a private university laboratory school. Both teachers were connected to and interested in classroom research. The ICS teacher had presented papers on her classroom research at scholarly conferences. Both teachers held strong beliefs in the importance of social-emotional security as a foundation for children’s learning. Both teachers had support for research initiatives in their schools. In the case of the ICS teacher, there was particularly strong support for computer technology since the school as a whole had received funding to participate in knowledge-building research at the university. The ICS teacher was very familiar with the Knowledge Forum® technology and in addition, had the support of a teacher-researcher to develop the knowledge-building initiative and a faculty researcher who with the help of graduate students carried out the research. Good teacher training and support in technology have been shown to be critical for success in implementation (Brooker, 2003).

Procedures

Children and teachers took photographs of events in the class and in some cases, brought in pertinent photographs from home. This part of the photo journal project engaged children through group discussion and actual taking of the photographs in the class. Teachers began the project by bringing in photographs of meaningful places or events in their own lives and by sharing those with the children to give children a sense of the purpose. Children quickly grasped the idea of documenting their ideas through photographs. The KF® photographs were scanned from hard copy or were entered electronically depending on the source of the photograph. At USLS, photographs were pasted into the children’s journals; children then wrote journal entries about the photographs, using regular pencils and/or markers. Children in the KF® class also used pencil and paper journals to write about other photographs. This provided an in-class comparison of electronic and paper contexts. In the Knowledge Forum® database, photos were downloaded into the children’s electronic journals and children then used the computer to write journal entries.

This section provides some description of the KF® context. //This section needs rework. It is quite confusing. It might be helpful to describe by chronicling of what children do on KF – download, upload, write comments, posting notes. Comment on others etc.. Breaking into a couple of short paragraphs might help too.//Children were gradually introduced to the computer project by the teacher and teacher candidate who was on placement in the class. Children observed the //so only teachers did downloading?// downloading of the photographs and were scaffolded by the teacher/s to move the mouse in order to place the photo where they wanted on the desktop screen. Children were familiar with alphabet letters and sounds through daily natural experiences with stories and some instruction in letter/sound correspondence. Thus, children knew that the keyboard letters were the same as the alphabet letters they had been learning in other parts of their program. When time was allotted for KF®,//how often, how long? What time of the day?// each child was seated at one computer station in the classroom //were there enough computers for all children? please specify how many computers available//(there was a row of computers along a cheerful wall in the room). Children took turns in groups sitting at the computer. //how? Set by the teachers? How much did each child have on computer// Children knew how to open the database that contained the photo journal project. Children could see their own folders and those of their peers; they quickly learned how to open those folders by dragging the mouse and double-clicking. When files were open children could see the photograph/s and the ideas posted by their peers. By clicking on a peer’s entry, scaffolds in the database would appear that gave children choices; for example: “my theory is…” or “I want to know….”//in text or audio// The teacher candidate assisted the children at the computers. This assistance took the form of listening to children’s comments and encouraging them to write or giving children guidance about particular keyboard letters when asked. Knowledge Forum® thus allowed the children to view each others’ photographs and written comments and to build on each others’ ideas by “posting notes,” an important component of “knowledge building” in Knowledge Forum®. Children could simultaneously view on their own screen the communal database containing everyone’s ideas. In the case of the science photographs, children recorded //how? By writing, audio or posting notes?// their ideas about the experiments. Children had access to their photo journals every day for a three-month period and could write comments or post notes about the photographs as they chose. Children likewise used their paper journals to record other observations for approximately the same time. Session times were not fixed; however most children spent about 15 minutes at the computer and at their paper portfolio journals. It is important to note that Knowledge Forum® did not replace play, crafts, music or any other form of developmentally appropriate practice in Kindergarten. Children made their photo journal entries as a regular part of their activity time.

In order to compare across children, taking age into account, it was decided to employ a standard early reading task as well as a research-based early writing task that gave information about both process and “level”. In addition to these more standardized research tasks, teachers at both schools developed portfolios for the children which were used for planning purposes and for conferences with children and parents. The curriculum and assessment portions of the portfolios are not reported in this research paper. All children participated in a battery of pre- and post-assessments before and after the photo journal project. These took place in the fall and spring respectively of the school //be consistent if you do decide to get rid of reference to kindergarten// year. Children were withdrawn to a quiet area near the classroom by a familiar graduate or teacher education student research assistant. Task administration time ranged from 20 – 40 minutes per child.

Measures

Early literacy measures included a standardized early reading test and a developmental writing task. The Test of Early Reading Ability-2 (Reid, Hresko & Hammill, 1989) measures early reading in children between the ages of 3 years 6 months and 8 years 6 months. The TERA-2 assesses children’s understanding of Alphabet, Conventions and Meaning. Although we now use the TERA-3 (Reid, Hresko & Hammill, 2001) in research, the TERA-2 was employed in this study to be consistent with another longitudinal research project that was underway in the ICS Laboratory School. That is, children who had been in Junior Kindergarten a number of years ago had been administered the TERA-2.

The developmental writing task measures English language children’s early writing development along a continuum and provides insight into children’s emerging ability to use letters to represent “sounds” in contrast to using letters to represent “objects” (XXX, 2002; XXX, 2006 in press). Unlike the standardized tests of literacy development, this task is designed to examine the “clever” theories that children have about print as they begin to interact with written text (XXX, 2002). This form of developmental writing assessment has been carried out in other contexts by other researchers (Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982, 1996; Levin & Korat, 1993; Tangel & Blachman, 1992). A copy of the early writing task is available from the first author. In addition to the pre- and post-assessments, children’s entries in either the Knowledge Forum® database or in the paper journals were counted to provide a quantitative account of writing.

Results

//Please consider extending this short section to a longer one with a heading. The results here are really interesting!!!//

Descriptive results//?? Observations? Descriptive data from where???// revealed that children at KF class (??) were engaged and productive. The ICS children began their Knowledge Forum® work by being introduced to the computer as a place where they could write about the digital pictures taken throughout the day. Knowledge building took place as the children identified authentic problems that they wanted to discuss on the database (see Figure 2). //see my notes regarding figures/tables earlier//

Figure 2. Beginnings of the photo journal database

//you cannot just throw a figure here for readers to decipher. How does this example illustrate your point? You need to elaborate…//

Many children were motivated to make the entries themselves using whatever strategies they had available, including use of invented spelling (see Figure 3). //Again, you need to elaborate. Also, please tell us more about their strategies. If you do not plan to discuss this type of results further, you need to state something like “this is out of scope of this report…” although I find these results fascinating. Can you possibly elaborate more… //

Figure 3. Example of a 4-year-old child’s Knowledge Forum® “note”

Results for Early Reading

The TERA provides standard scores which take into account children’s age at the time of the assessment. A standard score (reading quotient) between 90 and 110 is considered in the average range. The children in the ICS and US Laboratory Schools had mean reading quotients that fell in the “above average” range, which was not surprising due to the demographic profiles of the children’s families at both schools (ICS Mean standard score = 115.1; USLS Mean standard score = 112.1). The USLS scores are presented here for the purpose of the discussion, not as a control group.

Results for Early Writing

The early writing task measures children’s developing ability to convey meaning in print. Thus, even children who do not understand or use the alphabetic code are able use a system of written communication that “makes sense” to them (Kress, 1997) (see Figure 4). //the results here are extremely thin. Only two examples without any explanation??? You need to present some overall pattern of the results before presenting these two examples. What do these examples tell us??? //

Figure 4. Four-year old writes “two horses”

As children develop, writing increasingly employs conventional letters and phonetic principles (see Figure 5).

Figure 5. Five-year old writes “two horses”

Gender Differences in Reading

A comparison between boys’ and girls’ performance on the pre- and post-test reading scores revealed that girls’ scores were significantly higher at both time points (p < .05) (see Table 1). //see my comments earlier and move the table.//

Table 1. Girls’ and boys’ pre and post-test reading quotients

Gender Mean Standard Deviation

Pre-test F 118.8 11.7

M 110.8 12.9

Post-test F 130.4 3.0

M 123.3 11.2

However, when change in standardized scores were calculated, it was found that boys and girls made equal gains in reading (see Figure 6).

Figure 6. Girls’ and boys’ reading quotients at pre and post tests

Gender Differences in Writing //format your heading//

Analyses of children’s performance at pre and post tests on the developmental writing task showed that girls were further along the developmental writing continuum than boys but this difference was not significant. The coding system reflected children’s ability to convey a message (for example drawing a picture of two horses or writing “2 hors”) and their use of conventional phonetic cues. The mean score for girls at pre-test was 33.3 and for boys, was 28.1. At post-test the mean score for girls was 39.4 and for boys, was 32.1. //why are not these results appeared in “results of early writing” means, coding etc…//

Qualitative Differences in the Knowledge Forum® and Paper Journal Formats //forma all the headings//

Having the paper journals to compare differences between boys and girls in electronic versus paper format allowed us to examine whether context made a difference in how boys and girls engage in literacy activity. Across all boys and girls in both contexts, girls made more entries in the paper format of the photo journals than they did in the Knowledge Forum® format. That is, girls appeared to use the paper format more than the electronic format. Girls made more entries than boys in the paper format; that is, boys did not seem to use the paper format as often as girls did. However, when boys’ and girls’ entries were compared on the paper journals and Knowledge Forum®, boys made the same number of entries as girls on the Knowledge Forum® database. That is, in this one context (Knowledge Forum®), boys actually performed at the same level as girls. This suggests that the electronic format may have been more motivating for boys and prompted them to do more writing (see Figure 7).

Figure 7. Boys’ and girls’ entries in the paper and computer-based journals

Discussion

This study set out to examine the effect of a new form of computer technology on the literacy development of Kindergarten children, specifically, the use of Knowledge Forum®, a networked, internet-based learning environment used in one class. Children were engaged in a longitudinal photo journal project that involved writing about photographs taken throughout the course of the day in 4-year classroom. Many of the photographs represented scientific experiments the children were carrying out with the teacher and served as fodder for the children’s writing. Children used the electronic forum to record and respond to their photographs digitally. The unique feature of Knowledge Forum® technology is that children view each others’ ideas, posted as electronic “notes”, and build on to those theories by linking to another’s note and adding their ideas to the database. This “knowledge-building” environment, from a social constructivist perspective, puts ideas, in contrast to activities, at the centre of children’s experiences at school (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003). That is, rather than taking part in literacy activities that require drill and rehearsal, children used their emerging literacy skills to develop ideas and to form concepts. The shared virtual space enables children to construct an understanding of own and other, to see how individual ideas are brought to bear on the collective. This notion of socially constructed computer experience that addresses issues related to self and other has also been considered from a transactional perspective in an ethnographic study of children in a Grade 1 classroom (Wang & Ching, 2003).

Support for Technology in the School

An important consideration in making this form of technology use successful in a Kindergarten class is the level of support in the school and in the class. A doctoral thesis carried out in California examined the important context of classroom culture in promoting or constraining literacy development through technology. The study concluded that the beliefs and goals of the classroom teacher are critical to the success of this kind of initiative. Furthermore, children need sensitive scaffolding by adults to understand and use technology in ways that foster rather than impede literacy development (Carroll, 2001). //But you do not have any data from this project to talk about scaffolding and teacher’s support// Teacher training and follow-up support are also necessary for effective implementation (Epstein, 1993). In keeping with Carroll’s and others’ findings, in the study reported here, the teacher’s beliefs and training and the level of school support in the Knowledge Forum® school were consistent with a positive philosophy and goal-orientation vis-à-vis knowledge building with computer technology. Thus the results achieved in this context may not be replicable in a less supportive environment. Furthermore, children in this study represented a middle- to upper middle-class sociodemographic group; research has shown that minority children and those from lower socioeconomic groups have less exposure to computers at home than children from higher socioeconomic groups (Rathburn, West & Hausken, 2003). Nevertheless current related research in low socioeconomic and culturally diverse areas of the city is showing benefits for more diverse populations as well.

Do Children Learn Literacy from Technology in Kindergarten?

Pre- and post-assessments of children’s early reading ability and early writing ability were carried out in the fall and spring terms respectively in the Knowledge Forum® class and in another university laboratory school Kindergarten class. Teachers in both classes were interested in their children’s change in reading; thus this allowed an informal comparison of the electronic and paper-only journal formats on children’s literacy development. In addition, a within-class comparison of paper and electronic journal formats was carried out. Results of the analyses revealed that children who participated in the Knowledge Forum® learning environment made greater gains in early reading over the course of the year. They also made greater gains in early writing development. It would be worthwhile to replicate this study with a larger number of participants, controlled for age and demographic factors, to examine the degree to which these differences may be significant. Other research reports are consistent with our findings that children appear to benefit from high quality computer technology. For example, Haugland (1992) has shown that children who use computers as part of their early childhood program have significantly greater developmental gains in knowledge, skills, and dexterity than children without this experience. Similarly a qualitative study carried out in six southern California school districts reported that Kindergarten students who used the Writing to Read computer program achieved at least two grade levels higher than similar classes of Kindergarten students who did not use this technology (Casey, 2001).

Gender Differences

The study showed that there were gender differences in children’s early literacy development and in their preference for and use of the paper or electronic media. As expected, girls’ early reading and writing scores were higher on the average than were boys’. An important finding was that although girls made more entries in the paper journals than they did in the electronic format and made more entries than boys did, both boys and girls made the same number of entries on the Knowledge Forum® database. This finding suggests that the electronic learning environment may have been more motivating for boys than was the paper activity and therefore, they wrote as much as the girls did. Wood (2004) believes that most children prefer to write on a computer than on paper and therefore these results are not surprising.

Usefulness of the Study

The study provides a very useful base to extend this line of research. It has demonstrated that computer-linked on-line learning environments are motivating for young children and provide the scaffolds children may need to generate theories and record their ideas. The study also suggests that the on-line environment may be more motivating for boys than are paper and pencil writing activities.

Children benefit from the shared knowledge-building environment in a number of ways. Conceptual knowledge is “constructed” in an authentic social-constructivist fashion (Vygotsky, 1978). Children become the holders not only of their own theories, but of those of the group. The database allows them to view theory construction and to have the written archives as “objects of reflection” and further inquiry (Olson, 1994). Literacy learning is fundamental to engaging with this technology but is also a beneficial by-product. In a descriptive comparison it was shown that children who engaged in the on-line project showed greater gains in both reading and writing than their paper counterparts.

//Strongly recommend that you discuss the limitation of this study. The #1 concern on the action letter, you need to discuss here. Lack of control group.. etc…//

Acknowledgements

References

Brooker, L. (2003). Integrating new technologies in UK classrooms: Lessons for teachers from early years practitioners. Childhood Education, 79 (5), 261- 265.

Calvert, S., Rideout, V., Woolard, J., Barr, R., & Strouse, G. (2005). Age, ethnicity, and socioeconomic patterns in early computer use. American Behavioral Scientist, 48 (5), 590-607.

Carroll, M. (2001). Whitecaps on the keyboard: A voyage of discovery with computers in an elementary classroom. Dissertation Abstracts International, The Humanities and Social Sciences, 62(1). Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Case, R. (1996). Changing views of knowledge and their impact on educational research and practice. In D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Handbook of Education and Human Development: New Models of Learning, Teaching and Schooling, pp. 75-99. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Casey, J. (November, 2001). A path to literacy: Empowering students in your classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the California State Reading Association. Ontario, CA.

Caswell, B., & Lamon, M. (April, 1998). Development of scientific literacy: The evolution of ideas in a Grade Four knowledge-building classroom. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Available from bcaswell@oise.utoronto.ca.

//Refer to APA about how to cite online document//

Christensen, A., & Kelly, K. (2003). No time for play: Throwing the baby out with the bath water. Reading Teacher, 56(6), 528-530. //no space between vol# and issue#, please fix the rest//

Christensen, R., Knezek, G., & Overall, T. (2005). Transition points for the gender gap in computer enjoyment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38 (1), 23-37.

Clayton, B. (2003). Parental perceptions of computer-based gaming technology: An evaluation of children’s leisure pursuits in the computer age. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 28 (3), 37-43.

Cohen, R. (2005). An early literacy telecommunication exchange pilot project: The MMM project. Educational Media International, 42 (2), 109-115.

Epstein, A. (1993). Training for quality. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope Press.

ERIC Digest (2000). Computers and young children. ERIC Digest. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. ED438926.

Facer, K., Furlon, J., Furlong, R., & Sutherland, R. (2003). ScreenPlay: Children and Computing in the Home. London: Routledge-Falmer.

Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1982; 1996). Literacy Before Schooling. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hackbarth, S. (2002). Changes in 4th graders’ computer literacy as a function of access, gender, and email networks. Tech Trends, 46 (6), 46-55).

Haneda, M., & Wells, G. (2000). Writing in knowledge-building communities. Research in the Teaching of English, 34 (3). Retrieved May 2, 2005 from

Haugland, S. (1992). The effect of computer software on preschool children’s developmental gains. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 3 (1), 15-30.

Hewitt, J. (2004). An exploration of community in a Knowledge Forum classroom: An activity system analysis. In S. Barab, R. Kling & J. Gray (Eds.) Designing virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 210-238). Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.

Hewitt, J., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Design principles for distributed knowledge building processes. Educational Psychology Review, 10 (1), 75-96.

Holloway, S., & Valentine, G. (2003). Cyberkids: Children in the Information Age. London: Routledge Falmer.

Hyun, E., & Davis, G. (2005). Kindergartners’ conversations in a computer-based technology classroom. Communication Education, 54 (2), 118-135.

Kendrick, M., & McKay, R. (2004). Drawings as an alternative way of understanding young children’s constructions of literacy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 4 (1), 109-128.

Kress, G. (1997). Before writing: Rethinking the paths to literacy. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2002). Children, literacy and the UK National Grid for Learning. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 2 (2), 167-194.

Levin, I., & Korat, O. (1993). Sensitivity to phonological, morphological, and semantic cues in early reading and writing in Hebrew. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39(2), 213-232.

MacDonald, P. (2001). Knowledge building from the beginning. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Available from pmacdonald@theschool.columbia.edu. //online resource –APA//

Messina, R., Reeve, R., & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Collaborative structures supporting knowledge building: Grade 4. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Available from rmessina@oise.utoronto.ca.

Miller, E. (2005). Less screen time, more play time. Principal, 85 (1), 36-39.

Moreau, M.J. (2001). Knowledge building pedagogy: One teacher’s journey. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Available from maryjane@mabin.ca.

Olson, D. (1994). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Olson, D., & Bruner, J. (1996). Folk psychology and fold pedagogy. In D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Handbook of Education and Human Development: New Models of Learning, Teaching and Schooling, pp. 9-27. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Plowman, L., & Stephen, C. (2003). A ‘benign addition’? Research on ICT and pre-school children. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 149-164.

Rathburn, A., West, J., & Hausken, E. (2003). Young children’s access to computers in the home and at school in 1999 and 2000. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.

Reid, D.K., Hresko, W., & Hammill, D. (1989). Test of Early Reading Ability, Second Edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Reid, D.K., Hresko, W., & Hammill, D. (2001). Test of Early Reading Ability, Third Edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Reeve, R., & Lamon, M. (1998). Factors to be considered: Overlapping communities of inquiry and a knowledge-building classroom. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Available from rreeve@oise.utoronto.ca.

Reeve, R., Halewood, C., & Pelletier, J. (2004). Photo Journals and Knowledge Forum in Junior Kindergarten. Paper presented at the annual conference of the National Association of Laboratory Schools, Apple Valley, CA. Available from chalewood@oise.utoronto.ca.

Rogoff, B., Matusov, E., & White, C. (1996). Models of teaching and learning: Participation in a community of learners. In D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The Handbook of Education and Human Development (pp. 388-414). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Saracho, O. (2001). Teachers’ perceptions of their roles in promoting literacy in the context of play in a Spanish-speaking kindergarten. International Journal of Early Childhood, 33 (2), 18-31.

Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago: Open Court.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003a). Beyond brainstorming: Sustained creative work with ideas. Education Canada, 43 (4), 4-7.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003b). Knowledge-building. In Encyclopedia of Education (2nd edition), pp. 1370-1373. New York: Macmillan References.

Scully, P., & Roberts, H. (2002). Phonics, expository writing, and reading aloud: Playful literacy in the primary grades. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30 (2), 93-99.

Tangel, D.M., & Blachman, B.A. (1992). Effect of Phoneme Awareness Instruction on Kindergarten Children’s Invented Spelling. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24(2), 233-261.

Trepanier-Street, M., Hong, S., & Bauer, J. (2001). Using technology in Reggio- inspired long-term projects. Early Childhood Education Journal, 28 (3), 181- 188.

Turnbull, J. (2001). A researcher goes to school: Using technology in the Kindergarten literacy curriculum. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 1 (3), 255-279.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press.

Wang, C., & Ching, C. (2003). Social construction of computer experience in a first-grade classroom: Social processes and mediating artifacts. Early Education and Development, 14 (3), 335-361.

Willett, R. (2005). Book Review: ScreenPlay: Children and Computing in the Home, Cyberkids: Children in the Information Age. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 5 (1), 87-90.

Witte-Townsen, D., & Whiting, A. (2003). Lessons in sweet words: Supporting children’s preschool language and literacy development. Developmentally Appropriate Practice. Journal of Early Education and Family Review, 11 (1), 6-21.

Wood, J. (1994). Literacy Online: New tools for struggling readers and writers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Yang, S., & Liu, S. (2005). The study of interactions and attitudes of third-grade students’ learning information technology via a cooperative approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 45-72.

Author/s’ References

XXX (1996)

XXX (2002)

XXX (2006, in press)

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download