Using Digital Recorders in2nd Grade WritingMaggie Harvin22 April 2010

Does the use of recording and playing back students’

own stories increase students’ writing fluency

and use of details?

Theory Base

•Barone and Wright (2009)‘New Literacies’

•Labbo (2005)Implementing technology into teaching

•Fisher, Lapp, Flood (1999)Technology in writing

•Peterson-Karlan, Hourcarde, and Parette (2008)Writing process strategies

Studies in Writing and Technology•Palak and Walls (2009)

Student center learning in technology classrooms Technology still used in highly-controlled

teacher driven methods

•France (2003)Lack of interest and success in writing:

Motivation in writing Complexity of writing process Pressure in writing scores

Research Design

•Students: 20 second graders

•Length of Study: Three weeks

•Subject: Writer’s Workshop ▫4 days a week, 45 minute periods

Weeks of Study ‘Small Moment Stories’

•Week One:▫No change in teaching

•Week Two:▫Students required to use recorders

•Week Three:▫Students could choose to use

recorders

Student Writing Routine

•Create a plan for small moment story▫Beginning Middle End

•Told story to recorder from plan (at station)▫Could add details to the story as telling

•Listen to story (at station)▫Wrote in new words to plan as they heard

them•Wrote story from revised plan•Revised stories

Instruments of Research

•Rubric (Week 1, Week 2, and Week 3)

•Student Attitudinal Surveys (Pre- and Post-)

•Anecdotal Records (Off Task Behaviors)

Results – Behavior

Writer's Workshop Behavior

0

5

10

15

20

Total Wk 1 Total Wk 2 Total Wk 3

Off Task

Not Working

Out of Seat

Results - Attitudes

Telling Stories to Others

0

1

2

3

4

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P R S T U

8 of 20 showed an increase in enjoyment

8 of 20 showed a decrease in enjoyment

Results – Attitudes Af ter Recording, I Was Able to Start Writing ...

0

2

4

6

8

Very Easily Easily Not so Easily Didn't Help

Student’s opinion on whether the recording device helped their writing.

Results – Attitude Comments• Positive Comments▫ Got to add really ‘cool

words’ ‘good words’▫ Helped me add new

things▫ Helped to hear missing

words and then write it down

▫ Made me start thinking about the storys more

▫ Telling me what I did rong

▫ Helped in my head what I was going to write

• Negative Comments▫ I liked the other way

better▫ Made it harder to choose

(between original plan and revised plan)

▫ I didn’t understand it▫ It made me rush▫ Spelling the words was

hard

Results – Rubric GradesDetail Scores

0

1

2

3

4

A B* C D E F G H I J K L M N O P R S T U

9 out of 20 students had more details in their stories after using the recorders

Results – Rubric ScoresFlow Scores

0

1

2

3

4

A B* C D E F G H I J K L M N O P R S T U

Results – Rubric Grades

13 of 20 students increase their scores6 of the 13 who increased their scores during week 2 with the recorder

had a decrease in week 3 when they chose not to use the recorder

Results – Rubric Scores

Total Score Changes

I ncrease in Score

No Change in Score

Decrease in Score

Conclusions•Student writing improved with the recording

device especially in flow and details▫Being able to hear stories▫Talking to ‘someone’

•Not all students realized the value of the recording device based on their responses

•Difficulty in grading writing as it is subjective▫Story topic may not lend to details▫Thinking about this is good for student B

Conclusions

•Some students really took to the recorder and used it as often as possible as a tool▫Enjoyed something new with writing▫Liked the extra attention

•Other students did not like the recorder▫Found it difficult to use▫Were confused▫Writing while listening was difficult

Changes for the Future

• Introduce the recording device more explicitly

•Lead a mini-lesson on how to work the recorder

•Be Consistent – even with the changes in scheduling

In the Future

•Begin using the recorders early in the school year▫Introduce with lessons on planning

•Possible extension study: using to revise story▫Students record stories after having a draft▫Circle areas that need more details or don’t

flow

Thank You…

• Sarah Pruett and her classroom▫ For allowing me to try something new with their writer’s

workshop and teaching me it is ok to ‘adjust’ as things come up

• Nancy Ruppert▫ For advice and direction throughout the research process

and telling me we’ll make it through the snow!• Ms. Barefoot▫ For the recording device

• Fellow 396 and 496 Students▫ For reading through my research papers and proposals

and offering suggestions to improve my research

BibliographyBarone, D. & Wright, T. (2008). Literacy instruction with digital and media technologies. Reading

teacher, 62(4). 292-302.

Black, N., Brill, A., Eber, D., & Suomala, L. (2005). Using technology to compare the instructional effectiveness of read aloud and read along materials in an elementary classroom. Retrieved from ERIC. (ED496975)

Fisher, D., Lapp, D., & Flood, J. (1999). Technology & literacy: Is there a positive relationship? The California reader, 32(4). 35-38.

France, C. (2003). Improving student interest in writing through the integration of technology. Dissertation. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED478462)

Labbo, L. (2005). From morning message to digital morning message: Moving from the tried and true to the new. Reading teacher, 58(8). 782-785.

McKenna, M. C., & Kear, D. J. (1990). Measuring attitude toward reading: A new tool for teachers. Reading teacher, 43(9). 626-639.

Palak, D., & Walls, R.T. (2009). Teachers’ beliefs and technology practices: A mixed methods approach. Journal of research on technology in education,41(4), 417-441.

Peterson-Karlan, G., Hourcarde, J. J., Parette, P. (2008). A Review of assistive technology and writing skills for students with physical and educational disabilities. Physical disabilities: Educational and related services, 26(2), 13-32.

Warren, S., Dondlinger, M., & Barab, S. (2008). A MUVE towards PBL writing: Effects of a digital learning environment designed to improve elementary student writing. Journal of research on technology in education, 41(1), 113-140.