Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

Running head: DIGITAL WRITING AND DIVERSITY 1

Analysis and Summary of Digital Writing and Diversity: The Effects of

School Laptop Programs on Literacy Processes and Outcomes.

Adrienne Hill, Joshua Scott and Jacqleen Wilkins

Oakland University

Introduction
DIGITAL WRITING AND DIVERSITY
2

Journal of Educational Computing Research began publishing issues in 1985 and

continues to produce newer issues to this day. Volume 55 Issue 6 released January 2017 is an

edition that covers the analyzation of the blended learning context in the university setting and its

effect on the learning platform of these students. This edition focused on the analyzation of

college students on self efficiency factors including facilitating conditions, subject norm and

anxiety. Data was collected based off of quick surveys, individual interviews and focus group

discussions in the University setting. Preliminary results insinuate that further refinement of the

learning platform and development of learning analytics need to be pursued. Volume 48 Issue 3

was published April 1, 2013 titled: “Digital Writing and Diversity: The effects of school laptop

programs on literacy progress and outcomes” by Binbin Zheng, Mark War Schauen, and George

Farkas. It focuses on the growth of U.S schools using one-to-one laptops. The key goal was to

test if these one-to-one laptop programs (when implemented in the schools) improve students

writing via technology. Two districts were chosen for the analysis: a school in California and a

school in Colorado. Both schools were elementary school settings and the analysis was

performed on grades four and five. The researchers selected these two locations because of the

consistent background of student demographics between the two school districts and both

elementary schools had netbook access throughout the day. They observed, interviewed, and

surveyed these particular group of students every year starting from 2007 and finishing in 2010

to see if the effects of using the laptop had changed the student's writing style, study habits, and

attitudes toward learning. Zheng, War Schauen and Farkas organized the students in three

categories: those without laptop, those who partially used the program, and those who fully used

the program and made comparisons of their writing style performance. One finding from the

study insinuated that at-risk learners: hispanics, low income families, and english speaking
DIGITAL WRITING AND DIVERSITY
3

learners performed significantly well on the overall writing test in both districts with the use of

the laptop program.

Analysis

Zheng, Warschauer and Farkas began their research with very defined questions they

wanted answered. “What is the effect of one-to-one laptop programs on student writing

outcomes? 2. How does the effect vary among students in different demographic groups? 3.

What is the effect of one-to-one laptop programs on student writing processes?” (273). They

answered these questions by using surveys, interviews, tests and paper scores, and observation of

the students that were participating in the research.

The outcomes of their research was organized into data tables that broke down each

demographic that the three researchers decided to focus on. The groups were broken down into

five categories for each chart, some divisions had subdivisions. These groups are ELL (ESL),

students that are learning english or it is their second language. Ethnicity, this is divided into

subdivisions of “Hispanics” and “others” with the base group being white, as both districts had a

high hispanic population. Free or reduced price lunches, this section was created to analyze

financial situations on student learning. Gifted students, to analyze learning capabilities of

average students and those deemed “gifted”, meaning they have a high degree of potential

mental ability. And the last chart is the individualized education program (IEP) for students with

disabilities that receive extra lessons, whether at home in school or in a medical setting.

Throughout the course of the study each class was followed through a three year span

during school. In 3rd grade they had no laptop program, during 4th grade partial laptop

programs were provided and in 5th grade a full laptop program was introduced to create a
DIGITAL WRITING AND DIVERSITY
4

diagnosis of how well the students performed with and without the program being only partially

on laptops before moving on to study a fully laptop centered lesson plan.

The final findings of the research were not as definite as Zheng, Warschauer and Farkas

had hoped that the outcome would be, there was very limited improvement in the base groups

and it could be written off as the class having statistically better year rather than it being an effect

of the laptop learning program. Although the base groups had disappointing outcomes the main

focus of the research, the at-risk learners did show improvement, though it was limited. Students

from lower financial settings, the free-lunch recipients, proved that they benefitted from being

provided with a personal laptop through the research. Having their own laptop to use provided

them with more available time to access their learning materials outside of the classroom rather

than having to wait to share a family computer. Along with the free-lunch students Hispanic

students also benefitted from the full-laptop program.

Other articles

“The Effects of Integrating Mobile Devices With Teaching and Learning on Students'

Learning Performance: A Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis” by Yao-Ting Sung, Kuo-En

Chang and Tzu-Chien Liu written in 2016, just three years after “Digital Writing and Diversity”.

This paper is a more widespread version of “Digital Writing and Diversity: The Effects of

School Laptop Programs on Literacy Processes and Outcomes”. Sung, Chang and Liu

incorporated research from many other papers other than Zheng, Warschauer and Farkas’s to

condense them into a cohesive whole that covered all topics and discussions around using

laptops and media in the classroom setting. 110 articles published from the year 1993 to 2013

were condensed into qualitative data. The results of the data were more conclusive than “Digital

Writing and Diversity” because they were able to cover more time and other topics that were
DIGITAL WRITING AND DIVERSITY
5

limited in “Digital Writing and Diversity.” The conclusion that Sung, Chang and Liu reach is

that using laptops in the classroom yielded positive results for all students. Compared to desktops

laptops were still a better alternative for incorporating the programs that the digital format can

offer. The final conclusion was that better designs could be created to better exploit the

possibilities offered by digital devices. Sung, Chang and Liu left off by urging the creation of

programs that incorporate mobile devices into the classroom for both students and teaches as the

use had produced such favorable results.

Another article that uses the research that was conducted in “Digital Writing and

Diversity is Balancing the One-To-One Equation: Equity and Access in Three Laptop

Programs”, it is by the three original authors, Zheng, Warschauer, and Farkas with two additional

contributors, Melissa Niiya and Shelia Cotten, titled “Balancing the One-To-One Equation:

Equity and Access in Three Laptop Programs”. The paper was composed just a year after the

original because it was just a continuation by the same researchers in order to further their ideas

and the results impact in the field. This paper broadens the area that is covered in “Digital

Writing and Diversity” to also encompass school districts in Alabama. The outcomes of the

English language learners or English as a second language (ELL/ESL) were consistent

throughout all of the districts. The ELL students benefitted more than the non-ELL students and

used the provided laptops for educational purposes more often than the non-ELL students. The

largest failing of the research was in the lowest SES (socioeconomic-status)districts, the results

were affected by lack of training for teachers and interest in the surveys, as well as sustainability

of the program. The only conclusive outcome was that lower SES and ELL students benefitted

from the program. But there were still problems with the program that urges for more research to
DIGITAL WRITING AND DIVERSITY
6

find the most effective way to implement these programs in order to benefit all students in all

districts.

Conclusion

There are several projections we can conclude about this study on digital writing and

diversity. There was no information provided in this study on the relationship of the researchers

to the faculty or students. Evidence on whether this was a blind study or that the students knew

that their academic performance was being collected was not postulated. Within twelve studies

and meta analysis examined since 1990 on the effects of technology usage on student writing,

word processing and computer enrichment, a mixture of positive feedback on the student's ability

to better their understanding in word processing in writing and introduce writing prompts

enhancing the ability for the demographic to improve ordinary word processing was discovered

(Kulik, 2003). Word processing and writing prompts provide a generally positive outcome for

students within this study of digital media. There was a mix of positive and negative outcomes

in the area of computer enrichment. Digital tools (including social media, automated writing

evaluation and blogs) have proven high usage outside of school within the study. Within the five

groups that were analyzed it was conclusive in the first study by Zheng, Warschauer and Farkas

that the three year differential between acclimation to laptop use provided a different impact

upon learners. There is hardly any evidence that provides a difference between learners at risk

and learners that are not at risk (Shapley et al., 2008). The students classed into the “Free or

Reduced Lunch Price” background and the group classed “Hispanic” both transpired a positive

benefit in this first study. During the second study by Zheng, Warschauer, Farkas, Niiya, and

Cotton postulated that “English as Second Language” students benefited in the first and second

study. The improper training and maintenance of the second study did not provide completely
DIGITAL WRITING AND DIVERSITY
7

full results due to the deficiency in providing proper instruction for the teachers to follow the

rules of this study. Further research needs to be acquired to determine if the introduction of the

netbook in the classroom can efficiently provide a positive feedback on students studies.

References

Kulik, J. A. (2003). Effects of using instructional technology in elementary and secondary

schools: What controlled evaluation studies say. Arlington, VA: SRI International.

Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2008). Evaluation of the Texas

Technology Immersion Pilot: Outcomes for the third year (2006-07). Austin, TX: Texas

Center for Educational Research.


DIGITAL WRITING AND DIVERSITY
8

Sung, Y., Chang, K., & Liu, T. (2015, November 23). The effects of integrating mobile devices

with teaching and learning on students' learning performance: A meta-analysis and

research synthesis. Retrieved October 27, 2017, from

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131515300804

Warschauer, M., Zheng, B., Niiya, M., Cotten, S., & Farkas, G. (2014, February 10). Balancing

the One-To-One Equation: Equity and Access in Three Laptop Programs. Retrieved

October 27, 2017, from

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10665684.2014.866871?scroll=top&needA

ccess=true

Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., & Farkas, G. (2013, July 09). Digital Writing and Diversity: The

Effects of School Laptop Programs on Literacy Processes and Outcomes. Retrieved

October 27, 2017, from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/EC.48.3.a

Potrebbero piacerti anche