Effects of Digital Storytelling on Third Grade Student...

1

Running head: EFFECTS OF DIGITAL STORYTELLING ON STUDENT WRITING

Effects of Digital Storytelling on Third Grade Student Writing

Jean K. Martin

University of West Georgia

2


Introduction

Learning to write has long been considered a cornerstone of U.S. primary and secondary

education (National Commission of Writing, 2003). Writing is also acknowledged to be a skill

that requires years of practice (National Commission of Writing, 2006). It is a non-linear

process that requires the writer to rethink, review, and revise throughout the writing experience

(Dyson, 1992). When learning to write sentences, paragraphs, and various genres, elementary

students are learning to develop their ideas and express these ideas through writing. The new

writers require time and guidance through the process (National Commission of Writing, 2006).

Writing test scores show that there is a need for student performance improvement across

the nation. In 2007, twelfth grade students evaluated throughout the U.S. in writing showed only

25% were writing at a proficient or higher level (The Nation’s Report Card, 2007). Many

students continuing their studies at the university level require remedial writing instruction in

their first years of study (Gregory, Steelman, & Caverly, 2009). During the elementary and

secondary school day, however, writing instruction is competing for instructional time with the

subject areas of reading and math. Across the nation, student progress in these grades is

evaluated in annual high stakes reading and math tests. The results are reviewed for Adequate

Yearly Progress (AYP) as defined in the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. There are

significant federal penalties for individual schools and districts that fail to demonstrate AYP.

For this reason these two subject areas receive a high priority in scheduling and resources often

at the expense of other subjects such as writing.

Today’s educators also understand that students are part of the digital age. Instant

messages, emails, telephone texts messages, abbreviating phrases, incorporating sound and

3


images into messages are all now the norm (Robin, 2008; Sylvester & Greenidge, 2009).

Writing using pencil and paper can seem to be unrelated to students' interests and methods of

communication. However, the development of written language must be viewed within the

context of the social and artistic lives of the children (Dyson, 1992). Communication technology

therefore needs to be considered when developing writing instruction. Digital storytelling may

be an effective instructional intervention to provide students with both an authentic use of 21st

Century technology in the school setting and strengthen student writing skills.

Literature Review

Teaching students to use a defined writing process began to be wide-spread in the U.S. in

the 1980’s (Gillespie, 2001). This process includes idea collection, drafting, revising, editing,

and publishing. The foundation of this instruction was to honor the individual writer and support

the development of quality independent writing (Cullam, 2003). Writing workshop (Calkins,

1986) then extended the process instruction to included mini-lessons, self-selection of writing

topics, individual student-teacher conferences, whole class sharing, and publishing opportunities.

Writer’s workshop instruction has been found to be effective in developing independent and

confident first grade student writers. (Jasmine & Weiher, 2007). In this study, writing was a

daily classroom event. There continues to be interest in understanding the nature of process of

writing. A case study was undertaken to reveal the narrative writing process of an individual

second grader (Ranker, 2007). By recording student group conversations, asking questions, and

reading the student’s writing, Ranker discovered that rather than copying a combination of

personal experiences, popular culture, and children’s literature, the student was actually

remaking those experiences to be uniquely his own.

4


Once students have a writing product, the evaluation process begins. Evaluating student

writing has moved from a letter grade with minimal written teacher commentary to a scoring

rubric based on the grade-level writing standards and characteristics (Burke, 2006). The State of

Georgia, for example, evaluates student writing in the fifth, eighth and twelfth grade levels using

the State of Georgia’s Writing Rubric (Georgia Department of Education, 2011). To guide the

student writing process towards producing higher quality writing product, the traits of good

writing have been defined by student performance standards that are then translated into a rubric.

The desired writing traits have also been incorporated into writing instruction. The Six + 1

Traits of Writing books by Ruth Culham have the stated goals that students and teachers: 1)

speak a common language based on the traits 2) nurture process learning 3) use criteria to set the

standard (Culham, 2003, p. 7). These traits are identified as Ideas, Organization, Voice, Word

Choice, Sentence Fluency, Conventions, and Presentation (Culham, 2003).

Although definition and clarity have come to the instruction of the writing process and

the traits of quality writing, writers continue to struggle. The impact of self-regulated strategy

development on struggling writers was studied Tracy, Reid, and Graham (2009). The

instruction’s goal was to increase student’s independent use of the strategies while improving the

quality of student writing. Explicit instruction and the use of graphic organizers and mnemonic

devices were taught to students with the goal of students including seven defined story elements

in their writings independently. While student writing showed improvement with this

instructional method, the control groups in this study did not have consistent writing process or

traits of writing instruction with regular student-teacher writing conferences.

5


A concentration of struggling writers are often identified as students of urban high-

poverty and high-diversity schools. Walker-Dalhouse and Risko studied best practices to

increase student literacy in this context and writing performance was addressed. Instruction that

supports student learning was identified to be both connected to the lives of the students and

involved more than one content area. Successful teachers highlight the differences of students’

culture and language and incorporated those differences into content and skills instruction.

(Walker-Dalhouse & Risko, 2008).

Instruction that meets the needs of a diverse student population is growing in importance.

For example, as of 2008, 21 percent of school-age children spoke a language other than English

at home ( U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Developing academic writing instruction for

this group of students has created additional challenges. Camhi and Eisenstein-Ebsworth have

piloted writing instruction that addresses both the sentence level structure and the rhetorical

structure of academic English writing (Camhi & Eisenstein-Ebsworth, 2008). The GAINS

approach (Grammar Awareness through Isolation, Integration, and Scaffolding) was developed

to support non-native college ELLs' writing development through the addition of a metacognitive

component in a process-writing classroom. These instructional strategies may have application

to English Language Learners in the primary and secondary grades to reach grade-level writing

performance.

To achieve relevance for students, educators must strive to connect the students’ social

reading and writing with the context of academic literacy at school (Consididine, Horton, &

Moreman, 2009). Technologies such as digital storytelling may provide that bridge. “However,

it is clear to many that content integration, supported by powerful computer technologies, is

6


needed, and the impact that computer technology can have on students is much more meaningful

when it involves an impact on higher order thinking skills …. (Robin, 2008, p 227)”. Recent

qualitative research conducted by showed examples of students overcoming specific difficulties

in writing through their experiences with digital storytelling (Sylvester & Greenidge, 2009). In

this research, students recorded their writing and added images that were either selected by or

created by the student to illustrate their narrative writing. The results included examples of how

this initial digital storytelling project had started the students on the path to improve their

writing. Other researchers have observed that students using digital storytelling have

demonstrated increased confidence (Gregory, Steelman, & Caverly, 2009). Bringing images and

sound into the classroom through digital storytelling has the potential to provide in-school

instruction in literacy that is both vibrant and unified (Walsh, 2008). Questions remain as to

what impact digital storytelling instruction will have on student learning.

Problem Statement

Further research is needed to determine if there are quantifiable improvements in student

writing performance once student-created digital storytelling has been used as an instructional

strategy. By studying the effects of digital storytelling instruction on third grade students,

student writing will be evaluated at the earliest stage of comparative scoring of student writing.

The State of Georgia conducts a mandatory evaluation of student writing using the Georgia

Writing Assessment Scoring Rubric in grades three, five, eight, and twelve (Georgia Department

of Education, 2011). The six traits of writing in this rubric are: ideas/content, organization,

voice, word choice, sentence fluency, and conventions.

7


If an increase in student writing performance were measured in third grade students, educator

interest in implementing digital storytelling as an instructional approach could grow.

Data will be collected and analyzed to answer the following research question: How does

digital storytelling impact student performance on the six traits of writing?

Research Methodology

This will be a quantitative research study. The research method for this project will use

the multiple-case design (Johnson & Christensen, p. 408). There will be three different

instructional interventions 1) writers workshop, 2) traits-based writing instruction, and 3) writing

instruction through a student-created digital storytelling project. Three third grade classes will

participate in the study from three separate elementary schools, for a total of nine classes of

students participating in the study. Each school will administer each of the three instructional

interventions. The scoring results from the writing rubric will be quantified and analyzed. Each

of the four domain categories in the writing rubric (Appendix D) will be included in the analysis.

Each student’s base line writing sample will be compared to their post-instruction writing sample

to determine what effect, if any, the instruction had on student writing performance (Appendix

E).

Research Participants

There will be a total of nine classes of students in the study with an estimated student

population of 240. The study will use convenience sampling (Johnson & Christian, 2008, p.

238) a nonrandom sampling technique. Three schools in the same district have been

encouraging their staff to improve the quality of their writing instruction through participating in

8


the National Writing Project’s Summer Institute. Each of the nine teachers delivering instruction

in this study has completed a Summer Institute and is committed to daily writing instruction in

their classrooms.

Each class will contain students who are classified as general education and also students

who are receiving services in educational programs. There will be students identified as “gifted”

through standardized testing. There will also be students in Georgia’s Early Intervention

Program (EIP). EIP students have been identified to be at risk in math, reading or both by their

second grade CRCT scores or other screening methods if CRCT scores are unavailable. A few

classes will have a number of students in the English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)

program. The ESOL students have been identified through testing as being English Language

Learners through ACCESS test used by the State of Georgia for all students with a language

other than English in their backgrounds.

Design

Each school will provide each of the instructional interventions by classroom. The

combined population of student participants will be analyzed before deciding which class will

receive which instruction. The objective will be to have a balance of all student academic

profiles participating in each instructional method. Three classes will receive the grammar mini-

lesson and process writing instruction, three classes will receive 6 Plus 1 Traits writing

instruction with written feedback, and three classes will receive instruction on both process and

traits through the digital storytelling project (Appendices A, B, & C) By completing the data

collection within a 9 week period, some of the threats to internal validity that are inherent in

9


qualitative research such as history, maturation, and testing will be minimized (Johnson &

Christenson, p. 258).

Instruments

There will be two data collection instruments used in this study 1) pre and post student

writing samples and 2) a spreadsheet to analyze the data obtained from scoring the writing

samples using the writing rubric. The writing rubric will be the evaluating instrument.

Procedure

Students will produce their initial writing sample. Once the student writing is scored and

the student academic profiles are analyzed, each class will be assigned their writing instruction

intervention. The objective will be that a cross-section of students is receiving each instructional

intervention. Once instruction is complete, the students will produce final writing samples. All

writing samples – pre and post – will be analyzed withholding the identities of each student. The

analysis tool will be the state writing rubric and it will be conducted by a team of three teachers,

two who are participating in the instruction and one who is not. The rubric results will then be

analyzed to determine whether or not student writing has improved. Using three teachers should

increase the inter-rater reliability of the data by attempting to neutralize potential evaluator bias

(Johnson & Christenson, p. 253).

10


Phase Action Instrument(s)

Planning Arrange 9 classes of third graders

- three classes at three schools -

each school providing classes

with similar student-body

makeups (ie. EIP reduced class

size, general education, etc.)

9 teachers establish method

of communication during

project (ie. GoogleDocs

document) for weekly

communication throughout

the project for updates and

to address any issues that

arise

each of the three

instructional intervention

having its own GoogleDoc

for communication.

shared scheduled writing

instruction time so that each teacher

of the 3 teachers at each school will

be able to take one of the 3 groups

of students for instruction.

Baseline data &

Instructional Group

Assignments

Students create baseline writing

sample

writing prompt for genre identified

for instruction in this 9 week period

(recommend 2nd 9 weeks to reduce

pressure on Spring CRCT

preparation and give students the

opportunity to settle into school)

collaboratively score the writing

samples using rubric (minimum

of 3 teachers blind scoring each

3rd grade writing rubric

from local school system

instructions for

collaborative scoring

11


writing sample and then

collaboratively arriving at

scores.)

Select which class will receive

each of the 3 instructional

strategies.

scored writing samples, DRA2

Reading Levels, identification of

any special program such as EIP,

ESOL, Target, and SPED

Instructional start 3 different writing

instruction interventions

1) writer's workshop

2)writing instruction using mini-

lessons on 6 Traits of writing

3) digital storytelling (DS)

instruction

Unit Overview Plan

(media center specialist is prepared

to support the digital storytelling

instruction by providing additional

instructional support and by

blocking additional computer lab

time for these classes to work on

their projects)

Post Data Collection

and Analysis

Each class completes the final

assessment writing prompt.

Provide enough time so that each

student has adequate time to

complete the assignment

applying the writing process.

12


Compile student results by

instructional method

change in writing

performance

Writing Rubric

data spreadsheets

Data Analysis

The rubric scoring data from each student’s pre and post writing samples will be entered into its

own spreadsheet for comparison to detect any change in student writing performance. The total

population will be analyzed for change in writing performance by instructional intervention.

Each subpopulation within the student sample will be analyzed separately by instructional

intervention as well.

Concluding Summary

This study is designed to compare the effectiveness of three writing strategies on a

diverse third grade student population. Two of the instructional strategies, Writer’s Workshop

and Traits Writing, are research-based and known to improve student writing when properly

implemented (National Commission on Writing, 2006). Each teacher in the study have been

selected for the training they have completed in writing instruction and their on-going

commitment to quality writing instruction in their classroom. At the time of this study, the effect

of writing instruction using digital storytelling is unknown. The three classes that will receive

13


the digital storytelling intervention will be lead by teachers with a proven commitment to writing

instruction. This study should provide data that will further the discussion of digital storytelling

technology and writing instruction.

14


References

Burke, K. (2006). From standards to rubrics in six steps: Tools for assessing student learning,

K-8. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Camhi, P., & Einstein-Ebsworth, M. (2008). Merging a metalinquistic grammar spproach with

L2 academic process writing: ELLS in community college. Teaching English as a

Second or Foreign Language, Vol 12 No. 2, Retrieved from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ898151.pdf

Culham, R. (2003). 6+1 traits of writing: The complete guide grades 3 and up. Portland,

Oregon: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Culham, R. (2005). 6+1 traits of writing: The complete guide for the primary grades. Portland,

Oregon: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Considine, D., Horton, J., & Moorman, G. (2009). Teaching and reading the millennial

generation through media literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,52.6: 471-481.

Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 11.

Dalhouse, D., & Risko, V. (2008). Learning from literacy successes in high-achieving urban

schools. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 422-424. Retrieved from ProQuest Education

Journals. (Document ID: 1427782881)

Dyson, A. (1992). From prop to mediator: The changing role of written language in children’s

symbolic repertoires. Occasional paper No. 32, Washington D.C.: Office of Educational

15


Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education retrieved from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED354521.pdf

Eckhoff, A., & Urbach, J. (2008). Understanding imaginative thinking during childhood:

sociocultural conceptions of creativity and imaginative thought. Early Childhood

Education Journal, 36(2), 179-185. Retrieved August 25, 2010, from Research Library.

(Document ID: 1897318401).

Foulger, T., & Jimenez-Silva, M. (2007). Enhancing the writing development of English

language learners: Teacher perceptions of common technology in project-based learning.

Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 22(2), 109-124. Retrieved October 17,

2010, from ProQuest Education Journals. (Document ID: 1411756371).

Georgia Department of Education

http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/ci_testing.aspx?PageReq=CITestingWA3

Gillispie, M. (2001). Research in writing: implications for adult literacy education. Review of

adult learning in literacy, 2 (3), Retrieved from


Graham, S., MacARthur, C. A., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.). (2007). Best practices in writing

instruction. New York: Guilford Press.

Gregory, K., Steelman, J., & Caverly, D. (2009). Techtalk: Digital storytelling and

developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education, 33(2), 42-43. Retrieved

from Academic Search Complete database.

http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/ci_testing.aspx?PageReq=CITestingWA3


16


Hairston, M. (1982). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the teaching of

writing," CCC 33, pp. 76-88, rpt. in The Norton Book of Composition Studies, ed. Susan

Miller. New York: Norton.

Iverson, K. (2009). The write-brain: How to educate and entertain with learner-centered writing.

Performance Improvement, 48(7), 20-25. Retrieved October 15, 2010, from ProQuest

Education Journals. (Document ID. 1893304341).

Jasmine, J., & Weiner, W. (2007). The effects of writing workshop on abilities of first grade

students to become confident and independent writers. Early Childhood Education

Journal, 35(2), 131-139. Retrieved October 17, 2010, from ProQuest Education Journals.

(Document ID: 2142196101).

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research. Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Marcus, S. (2009). New basics for new literacies. Journal of the American Society for

Information Science & Technology, 60(9), 1933-1938. doi:10.1002/asi.21135.

Merchant, G. (2007). Writing the future in the digital age. Literacy, 41(3), 118-128.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9345.2007.00469.x.

Murry, D. (1972). Teach writing as a process not a product. Reprinted from The Leaflet

http://www.paulmuhlhauser.org/CourseArchive/English630/PDF/Murray.pdf

http://www.paulmuhlhauser.org/CourseArchive/English630/PDF/Murray.pdf

17


National Commission on Writing, The neglected "R": The need for a writing revolution, (2003).

Retrieved from

http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/writingcom/neglectedr.pdf)

National Commission on Writing, Writing and school reform ( 2006). Retrieved from

http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/writingcom/writing-school-reform-natl-

comm-writing.pdf

Nation’s Report Card. (2007). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/

Nelson, M. (2008). Multimodal literacies: Linking theory, research, and practice [review of the

books Gaming Lives in the Twenty-First Century, Literate Connections, Multimodal

Pedagogies in Diverse Classrooms: Representation, Rights, and Resources, and Visual

Approaches to Teaching Writing: Multimodal Literacy 5-11]. Language Arts, 86(2), 142-

145. Retrieved September 2, 2010, from ProQuest Education Journals. (Document ID:

1607951441).

No Child Left Behind Act, (2001). Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html

Parry, B. (2010). Moving stories: Exploring children’s use of media in their story telling and the

implications for teaching about narrative in schools. English Teaching: Practices and

Critique, 9(1), 58-72. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ890514.pdf

http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/writingcom/neglectedr.pdf

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/EJ890514.pdf

18


Ranker, J. (2007). Designing meaning with multiple media sources: A case study of an eight-

year-old student's writing processes. Research in the Teaching of English, 41(4), 402-

434. Retrieved October 17, 2010, from ProQuest Education Journals. (Document ID:

1284720721).

Robin, B. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st century

classroom. Theory into practice, 47(3), 220-228. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Salahu-Din, D., Persky, H., and Miller, J. (2008). The nation’s report card: Writing 2007 (NCES

2008–468). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.

Department of Education, Washington, D.C. (retrieved from

http://nationsreportcard.gov/writing_2007/)

Santangelo, T. & Olinghouse, N. (2009). Effective writing instruction for students who have

writing difficulties. Focus on Exceptional Children. Dec 2009; 42, 4; ProQuest Education

Journals

Sylvester, R. & Greenidge, W. (2009). Digital storytelling: Extending the potential for struggling

writers. The Reading Teacher, 63(4),284-295. doi: 10.1598/RT.63.4.3

Tracy, B., Reid, R., & Graham, S. (2009). Teaching young students strategies for planning and

drafting stories: The impact of self-regulated strategy development. Journal of

Educational Research, 102(5), 323-331. Retrieved from ERIC database.

19


U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). The condition of

education 2010 (NCES 2010-028), Indicator 5. (retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=96)

Walker-Dalhouse, D. & Risko, V. (2008). Learning from literacy successes in high-achieving

urban schools. The Reading Teacher, 61 (5), 422-424. Retrieved September 2, 2010, from

ProQuest Education Journals. (Document ID: 1427782881).

Walsh, M. (2008). Worlds have collided and modes have merged: classroom evidence of

changed literacy practices. Literacy, 42(2), 101-108. doi:10.1111/j.1741-

4369.2008.00495.x.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/section1/indicator05.asp

20


Appendix A

Class: Third Grade

Subject: English Language Arts - Writing

Content: Response to Literature – Using Digital Storytelling

Standards: ELA

ELA3C1.e Conventions ELA3C1.g Conventions ELA3C1.k Conventions ELA3W1 Writing Process ELA3W1.a Writing Process ELA3W1.b Writing Process ELA3W1.c Writing Process ELA3W1.d Writing Process ELA3W1.k Writing Process ELA3W1.m Writing Process ELA3W1.n Writing Process

ELA3W2d Response to Literature ELA3W2e Response to Literature

Technology

T3.a T4.a

Supplies needed:

Folktale to read

Windows MovieMaker

Storyboard format

GPS in student friendly language:

Know: How to write a response to literature using the writing process.

Understand: The elements of the response to literature and the writing process.

Do: Write a response to literature including the required elements and conventions.

Assessment of Prior Knowledge:

Baseline writing sample.

http://picasso.cobbk12.org/index.php?module=curriculum&type=standards&func=display&StandardID=16523&CourseID=















21


Instruction:

Heterogeneous grouping

Tiers of Differentiation:

H.O.T.S.:

Applying, Comprehending/Understanding, Remembering

Assessment Strategies:

Formative: a minimum of 3 individual writing conferences during the 9 week period

A student-friendly conference rubric

Summative: Final writing sample completed at the end of the 9 week period, evaluated using the 3rd

grade writing rubric

22


Appendix B

Class: Third Grade


Content: Response to Literature – Using Writers Workshop

Standards: ELA

ELA3C1.e Conventions ELA3C1.g Conventions ELA3C1.k Conventions ELA3W1 Writing Process ELA3W1.a Writing Process ELA3W1.b Writing Process ELA3W1.c Writing Process ELA3W1.d Writing Process ELA3W1.k Writing Process ELA3W1.m Writing Process ELA3W1.n Writing Process ELA3W2d Response to Literature ELA3W2e Response to Literature

Supplies needed:

Folktale to read

Student friendly rubric

Student conferencing forms




















23


Instruction:



H.O.T.S.:





Summative: Final writing sample completed at the end of the 9 week period, evaluated using the 3rd

grade writing rubric

24


Appendix C

Class: Third Grade


Content: Response to Literature – Using Traits based Writing

Standards: ELA

ELA3C1.e Conventions ELA3C1.g Conventions ELA3C1.k Conventions ELA3W1 Writing Process ELA3W1.a Writing Process ELA3W1.b Writing Process ELA3W1.c Writing Process ELA3W1.d Writing Process ELA3W1.k Writing Process ELA3W1.m Writing Process ELA3W1.n Writing Process ELA3W2d Response to Literature ELA3W2e Response to Literature

Supplies needed:

Folktale to read







Instruction:















25



H.O.T.S.:





Summative: Final writing sample completed at the end of the 9 week period, evaluated using the 3rd grade writing rubric

26


Appendix D (1 of 5)

27


Appendix D (2 of 5)

28


Appendix D (3 of 5)

29


Appendix D (4 of 5)

30


Appendix D (5 of 5)

31


Appendix E

Effects of Digital Storytelling on Third Grade Student...

Documents

Transcript of Effects of Digital Storytelling on Third Grade Student...