Review of Literature
In order to support the justifications for this study, a review of literature has been conducted regarding the areas of emergent literacy development as well as the introduction of iPads as a teaching and learning tool in classrooms.
Emergent Literacy Development
Carroll (1985) describes the complex process children go through to read words with automaticity in order to build an impression of a meaningful message in our mind. He states that,
Beginning readers sometimes use mere shape cues in trying to
recognize words, but they will be overwhelmed with confusion if
they depend solely on such cues apart from the recognition of the
letters themselves. In the mature reader the process of rapid word
recognition seems to depend upon his ability to integrate the
information provided by the separate letters composing the word,
some letters being more critical as cues than others.
(Carroll, 1985, p. 2)
Reading is comprised of the development of many skills that are not all learned at once. It takes a considerable amount of time to learn and practice each component. At any stage in development, different children find particular ways of learning easier. With so many different interests, aptitudes, levels, and abilities, some ways of attaining reading skills, and the order in which the components are learned and mastered differ among individuals. Carroll (1985) explains that children can learn a number of skills simultaneously and reach mastery of them at different periods in their development. With children who are having difficulty learning to read, teachers must then provide instruction based upon the characteristics of individual students, and what different skills that need to be emphasized in instruction at different periods. Carroll developed eight specific components of reading skills. With significant practice of these components, skills merge together in the adult reading process. “The ‘great debate’ of how reading should be taught is really a debate about the order in which the child should be started on the road toward learning each of the skills” (Carroll, 1985, p. 7). The question remains of which skills should be introduced and mastered first. Most approaches interlace the belief that a child can attain rapid sight word recognition at the same time as learning letter-sound correspondences. Carroll believes there is a good amount known about reading behavior, but several questions about the process remain.
Linking Carroll’s (1985) suggestion that for a child who is having difficulty learning to read, it may be necessary to determine exactly which skills are causing most difficulty, Speece, Mills, Ritchey, and Hillman’s research (2003) examined the validity of a subset of fluency measures (letter names and nonsense words) as indicators of early reading skill development. According to LaBerge and Samuels’ (1974) model of automaticity, reading becomes fluent as a result of the development of fluency of reading subskills (e.g., naming letters). Assessing the fluency of reading subskills could be a well-suited predictor for later reading success. The participants in Speece, Mills, Ritchey, and Hillman’s (2003) study were 40 half-day kindergarten students from five different classrooms in an elementary school in a suburban school district in the mid-Atlantic States. Students who returned permission slips were categorized into three groups, having high, average, and low literacy skills. Letter-name and Letter Sound identification were a focus of the kindergarten literacy curriculum. In April and June, students were assessed across four sessions using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised, the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (the Blending and Elision subtests), the Texas Primary Reading Inventory (Letter Sound Identification measure), a letter name fluency task, letter sound fluency task, the Woodcock Johnson – Revised (Letter Word Identification and Word Attack subtest), and an oral reading fluency measure. Students were assessed in March of first grade using a smaller set of reading measures. Correlation and regression analyses were conducted using raw scores from these assessment results. The authors were interested in whether the kindergarten measures could accurately identify poor readers in first grade. The small sample size of this study limited the results, and replication was suggested. It yielded evidence to support the validity of fluency measures. The results of the letter naming fluency (LNF) and nonsense word fluency (NWF) measures identified 87 of the poor readers in first grade. The Letter Word Identification on the Woodcock Johnson – Revised was the most accurate, identifying 90.6% of the first-grade students who did not exhibit reading problems on an Oral Reading Fluency measure. The LNF and NWF measures displayed good to strong technical characteristics with high alternate-form reliability and predicative validity. The analysis in this study suggests that NWF, and to a lesser extent, LNF, are valid measures for students in the spring of kindergarten to predict early reading and poor reader status in first grade.
Carroll (1985) was concerned with which exact skills cause the most difficulty for reading success. Speece, Mills, Ritchey, & Hillman (2003) were concerned with children who do not receive early intervention for reading problems and continue to have reading difficulties over time. “Waiting to identify students who will experience reading disabilities is a costly mistake that contributes to the persistence of reading problems” (Speece, Mills, Ritchey, & Hillman, 2003, p. 223). Eligibility for special education services often does not begin until after several years of reading difficulties because of the process of the formal identification of a disability. John and Allington (1991) also believe “this is problematic because providing intervention services after years of reading failure does little to remediate students’ reading problems” (as cited in Speece, Mills, Ritchey, & Hillman, 2003, p. 223).
Kristen Ritchey (2008) believes that learning to read in kindergarten and first grade is a tremendous accomplishment, and beginning reading success or failure sets the stage for future academic and occupational success. “Failure to acquire basic pre-literacy skills, such as letter identification, knowledge of letter sounds, and phonological awareness, is a potential indicator of future reading disabilities” (Jenkins & O’Conner, 2002, or Scarborough, 1998, as cited in Richey, 2008, p. 487). Ritchey believes that appropriate intervention provided to students, who are identified early, will reduce the number of children who struggle with reading. The research conducted by Ritchey compares letter sound fluency and nonsense word fluency as valid and reliable assessments. In this study, Ritchey assessed 91 full-day kindergarten students from two elementary schools in a district in a mid-Atlantic state. Ninety percent of the kindergarten students could be assessed again in the spring of first grade. The letter sound fluency and nonsense word fluency measures were significantly correlated and appeared to demonstrate similar predictive relationships with reading outcomes. The author used both modified and established benchmarks as criteria for identifying at risk students. Both benchmarks did in fact identify similar at-risk students. Ongoing and additional assessments should be utilized to accurately name all students because neither LSF nor NWF demonstrated absolute classification.
Past research has provided evidence of oral language development; cognitive and linguistic support in the early years; socioeconomic advantages; genetic-based explanations; home, community, and school language and literacy practices; and experiences in early years related to skills foundational to literacy and language development. “Research and theory have led us from a view of learning to read as largely maturational to one that is some interactive combination of innate abilities and experiences (Paratore, Cassano, & Schickedanz, 2011, p. 108). Skilled reading is comprised of motivation, engagement, comprehension skills, and primarily dependent on decoding abilities. “Storch and Whitehurst (2002) analyzed the potential of code-related and oral language abilities, acquired by the end of preschool, to predict children’s reading achievement in elementary school” as cited in (Paratore, Cassano, & Schickedanz, 2011, p. 111). Letter name knowledge, phonological awareness, and name writing are all code-related skills that predicted decoding skills in beginning readers.
“Code-related skills and oral language skills were highly related in the preschool years (48% variance), and somewhat related in kindergarten (10% variance). Additionally, while oral vocabulary did not account for any unique variance in reading levels until third grade, it had an indirect effect on decoding skill in the early grades through its effect on phonological awareness” as cited in (Paratore, Cassano, & Schickedanz, 2011, p. 111).
These researchers also found that lack of peer relationships, aggressiveness, antisocial behavior, and teacher-child conflict decrease learning opportunities and a child’s participation during collaborative activities. “When asked how many of their kindergarteners did not have the social skills to engage “productively” in classroom activities, close to half of the teachers said that more than half of the children lacked these skills” (Paratore, Cassano, & Schickedanz, 2011, p. 114). “In sum, the development of oral language, code-related skills, and social behavior (i.e., behavior style and self-regulation) in the early years has lasting effects on children’s long-term academic achievement” (Paratore, Cassano, & Schickedanz, 2011, p. 114). Focus on language, literacy, and social skills intervention in the early years will reduce later achievement gaps as proven through research linking social skills at school entry and later achievement and parenting skill and social skill development.
Parents can be the first to provide early intervention by engaging children in their environment and making them aware of the purpose of print around them. According to Paratore, Cassano, and Schickedanz (2011), print awareness, phonological awareness, and alphabet knowledge are three areas of early literacy development that provide important foundations for code-related skills. “Researchers have described levels of print awareness, distinguishing between context dependent ‘reading’ and reading words using letter and sound skills”. They stated “synthesis of evidence leads to a conclusion that, at least in part, low levels of literacy achievement may be explained by inadequate attention in the early years to the full array of abilities that are required for success in the later years” (Paratore, Cassano, & Schickedanz, 2011, p. 123). Teachers and parents are responsible for developing code-related, oral language, vocabulary, and language knowledge in young children. This can be done through using language rich with rare and sophisticated words to build conceptual knowledge in young children. How teachers and parents share books, as well as the types of books they read help develop children’s phonological awareness and an understanding of how print works. These practices correspond with successful literacy skills in later years.
Paratore, Cassano, and Schickedanz’s (2011) research findings are supported by the curricular topics studied by National Reading Panel (NRP) (2000): alphabetic (phonemic awareness and phonics), fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. It is recommended by NRP (2000) that phonics must be integrated with instruction in phonemic awareness, fluency, and comprehension. Comprehensive programs that integrate reading and language arts and provide tutoring to increase intensity are more effective than programs that isolate these elements. According to recent, basic research on reading, the alphabetic system must be mastered in order to grasp the meaning of what is read (in English), and that mastery of the alphabetic system requires access to phoneme-level units. Researchers disagree on the level of mapping of phonological units and orthographic units during the acquisition process. Beginning readers who have more phonemic awareness and struggle with reading, benefit from grapheme-phoneme instruction over spelling-rime instruction. In beginning reading instruction, the sequence of words in the curricula matters, especially for students whose learning opportunities are limited to school. Phonological awareness and rapid letter naming predict reading comprehension in 2nd grade, but oral language skills account for an additional 13.8% variance. From Paratore, Cassano, and Schickedanz’s (2011) research, it has been concluded that first and second graders’ code-related skills strongly predicted reading comprehension. Third and fourth graders’ reading accuracy and comprehension were separable, and prior and current reading accuracy as well as oral language skills predicted comprehension. Oral and written language skills appear to be so interrelated with reading skills that they form a single construct, raising the possibility that they deserve equal instructional attention.
The previously discussed classroom-based studies and interventions in this literature review, as well as many others, have had an effect on school level reform. It has been found that the home and community have an impact on classroom literacy through their influence on children’s entry skills. Researchers also have determined that there are common characteristics that consistently provide students with an effective learning environment in effective schools, including: strong leadership; high expectations for student achievement; emphasis on academics; safe and orderly environment; a dedicated block of time (about 90-120 minutes) devoted to literacy instruction; frequent use of assessment to evaluate student progress; in the classroom, use of small, homogeneous literacy, skill-based groups; and successful classroom management from a teacher. Classrooms high in instructional support as well as social/emotional support are systematically associated with stronger student literacy and social outcomes, especially for children who have difficulty acquiring the skills presented in kindergarten. When climate and motivation are held constant, the amount and type of literacy instruction children receive in the classroom is consistently and systematically associated with their literacy skill growth. Foorman and Connor (2011) found that children who received intervention in addition to enhanced classroom instruction made greater progress than students who only received enhanced classroom instruction. Foorman and Connor (2011) also investigated teacher-managed instruction vs. child-managed instruction. Response to Intervention (RTI) was also examined in this study. The authors found that simply improving classroom instruction is not enough to bring struggling students to grade level performance in reading. RTI models provide a systematic school or district-wide method to help children who are struggling with reading before they experience academic failure with a joint aim of prevention and early identification of reading difficulties. Districts have funds (IDEA) to provide intervention to struggling readers before they fail to meet grade-level achievement standards.
Young Students Using iPad Technology
Del Siegle (2013) provides a rationale for young students to use iPad technology. He describes the popularity of tablet devices used by children and some useful apps for the iPad. Tablet devices are more economically priced compared to other traditional mobile devices such as laptops. Applications on tablet devices are also of a low cost between $5-$10, and many are free. Students find the touch screen straightforward and instinctual to use, and it is accessible for the youngest of children to learn with ease. The design and size of iPads make them more convenient for students to transport than laptop computers. Siegle lists numerous useful apps in the categories of General Productivity Apps, Specific Productivity Apps, Information-Gathering Apps, and Games and Drill and Practice. Siegle believes “the iPad is a powerful tool that will help gifted and talented students expand their understanding of the world and unleash their creative potential” (2013, p. 150).
As with Siegle (2013), Paula Saine (2012) believes that due to the advancement of digital technologies in society, iPods, iPads, and SMART Boards have made their way into classrooms and are transforming literacy instruction and learning. Researchers question why more classrooms over the last three decades changed their curriculum and instruction to adopt the available digital technologies. Saine’s article (2012) shares how some teachers have incorporated these technologies into their instructional activities. She interviewed four teachers from diverse classroom settings; one Nigerian classroom teacher; and three American teachers [elementary, middle, and high school]. The teachers were asked to tell how they made the most of digital technologies and how these technologies, have transformed their teaching and student learning in literacy. Each teacher provided a description of his/her lesson and the technology used. Pretest and posttest results showed improvements in student performance after using technological tools to meet learning objectives. Students improved their writing. English language learners showed improvements in speaking English as well as in their writing ability. The digital process of creating animated stories helped students to practice sequencing story events and identifying the key elements to a story. The teachers reflected that using digital technology attracts students’ attention, makes instructional activities more appealing and exciting for students, provides links to real-world purpose for assignments, supports visual learners, and enhances creative thinking.
Huang, Clark, & Wedel (2013) were three other teachers who investigated the effectiveness of the iPad in helping struggling preschool readers to improve alphabet recognition and letter sound correspondence skills. Two preschoolers, who were diagnosed as struggling readers with Attention Deficit Disorder, participated in tutoring sessions over the course of the semester. The students were given both pre and posttests, using the Basic Reading Inventory (Johns, 2008), observational notes, and interviews to assess their alphabet and letter sound recognition skills. Both students were able to identify 10 upper case and 10 lower case alphabet letters and 4 sounds on pretest assessments. Students practiced all alphabet letters and sounds during the first semester of the academic year.
The teachers first used the Matching Letter game app as a first step to teach students to match upper and lower case letters. Teachers engaged with students while they used this app. They occasionally asked students to state another word that started with the same letter. The teachers also used flashcards to assess letter identification and reinforce the students’ letter and sound associations. The students then began using other apps to reinforce letter recognition and letter-sound connection. Students played ABC Go Go, a game that is full of creative sounds and environmental print and pictures. For the students who had not fully developed the connections between alphabet letters and sounds, the teachers found this app to be effective in reinforcing letter names. Instruction to use this app was scaffolded from working with a tutor, a partner, to independent use.
Another app used to help students develop phonemic awareness and some sight word recognition was Alphabet Learn. This app shows three letters at a time with a representative picture, then a short sentence including words that begin with that letter. The teachers also recommend this app to develop alphabetical skills in English language learners.
The fourth app these teachers used during iPad tutoring sessions was Alphabet Tracing, an app effective in teaching students how to correctly form letters when writing. The app has animated characters to teach students how to write each letter properly. It also provided pictures and labels of real life objects that start with the letter being traced.
After using these apps during weekly tutoring sessions, students were able to recognize all 26 letters and 24 letter sounds on posttests at the end of the semester. The teachers observed that these students demonstrated longer attention spans while engaged with the iPad. Students also were able to learn independently while being encouraged with positive reinforcement from the applications. It also was discovered that “the development of technology skills supported children’s early literacy development through natural movements and use of fingers to tap, swipe, drag, pinch, and stretch icons or texts. “ iPads not only serve as a teaching tool to facilitate instruction and learning, but also have a motivating power” (Huang, Clark, & Wedel, 2013, p. 26).
Teaching and Learning with iPads
Many researchers, including Hutchison, Beschorner, & Crawford (2012) have noted that iPads and similar tablets have been relatively unexplored as tools for literacy learning. So to enhance students’ learning opportunities, Hutchison, Beschorner, & Crawford (2012) used iPads to teach new literacy skills and practice print-based literacy goals. The teacher in their study also wanted to enhance students’ learning opportunities with iPads and provide students with an opportunity to also learn some of the new literacy skills associated with 21st-century technologies. The authors of this project wondered whether or not it was possible for mobile devices such as the iPad to be useful tools in literacy classrooms. In this study, 23 4th-grade students in a classroom, with a leading technology-using elementary teacher, used a tablet device every day for three weeks. iPad applications were selected based upon learning goals. The results of this study concluded that this teacher did in fact meet her print-based literacy goals while simultaneously introducing new technological literacy skills. Using iPads provided students with visual images to go along with text to help students better understand what they read. Students read more carefully than normal to revise their images in the app Doodle Buddy while they read. Students reported that they could visualize a lot better, and that the iPad helped with comprehension because they were able to pick out main ideas as they read and put them in order in an app called Popplet. Students were able to also digitally communicate with other readers in the class by writing on a virtual sticky note on pages in a book on the iPad for future readers to reference. In conclusion, the researchers recommended that first teachers become familiar with the literacy and technology goals for their school and district and discuss with school leadership how iPads could facilitate these goals and pedagogical practices. Then they can begin to design classroom literacy activities in the areas of comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, and so forth that will utilize the iPad’s unique features. Also, students should be allowed time to explore and experiment with the iPad with teachers, showing them key features and letting them teach each other how to use the tool.
Getting and Swainey (2012) “set out to determine if using iPads would help increase reading achievement with the two most below-grade level reading groups during the 2010-11 academic year at Hilltop Elementary School in Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota, USA” (p. 24). One of their main goals was to prepare young learners with a set of new technological literacy skills. This research began with the assessment of students’ sight-word recognition, fluency, comprehension, vocabulary, letter naming fluency, letter-sound fluency, nonsense word fluency, and phonemic awareness through informal assessments and AIMSweb. Based on “response to intervention” (RTI) levels, students were placed in homogenous groupings based on their abilities and needs. Data from this year was compared to the previous two years. Although there were some exceptions, the data confirmed increased average gains and/or higher end-year scores for students with routine iPad use. The teachers conducting this research project concluded that it was much easier than expected to teach and manage first-grade students using iPads. The iPads were introduced to the students as a learning tool, and it was discussed that this was a privilege. Students who chose not to immediately comply with the proper use and behavior for using this learning tool had them taken away. The iPads became a highly motivating learning tool for students who had challenges with appropriate behavior in school. Due to the behavior changes they were observing, the researchers began to collect data for “time on task” (TOT) for one student in each group. To collect data, any time a student was off task, the stopwatch stopped. When the student regained focus, the stopwatch resumed. Time on task increased 15%-20% for students across four sessions. To collect data on other content-focused areas, students graphed their progress on a “stoplight” chart. The students would record quiz scores for vocabulary and comprehension. They had a goal to stay in the green zone. The researchers report that it was fascinating to watch the students willingly participate in dialogue to reflect on their scores. Among the researchers, there was a collaborative effort that contributed to the project’s success. By meeting twice a week, there was a continuous cycle of planning, implementation, reflection, and planning again. They planned staff training sessions to review the basics for using an iPad and offered the iPads to be checked out by staff to use with their own classrooms. To choose apps, the researchers reviewed each app they tried using Harry C. Walker’s App Rubric posted on Tony Vincent’s blog, Learning in Hand. After completing the rubric, they let the technology department know which apps would be most useful for their learners. From this project, not only did the 1st-grade students learn new technological literacies and improved reading skills, they also engaged in leadership opportunities. The students presented to the school board some of the apps they used as learning tools. They also participated in the district’s first ever Student-Led Technology Conference. At this public event, four 1stgraders led a session on iPad basics. Getting and Swainey reflected on what they learned from their action research project. They discovered “iSwifter”, a free app that allows access to some websites that can be entered through an app. They also recommended using headphones for the noisy apps. More than 20 changes per reading group were observed throughout the year. Students were able to instinctively help each other during iPad activities. There was a collaborative environment during the use of this new technological learning tool. They found that “iPads truly made a difference in sight word recognition, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary recognition and meaning” (Getting and Swainey, 2010, p. 27).
In a study conducted by McClanahan, Williams, & Kennedy (2012), a preservice teacher used an iPad as a mode of instruction during tutoring sessions with a fifth-grade boy diagnosed with ADHD. There were concerns that tutoring would be ineffective for the student, and that the self-paced, individualized format that the iPad offered would be most beneficial. The purpose of this study was to investigate if an iPad would help a student with ADHD become more metacognitive in his reading. This fifth-grade student was currently reading at a second-grade level. He attended a small, rural school in southeast Oklahoma. Based on his assessment results of an informal reading inventory (IRI) and an interest inventory, the preservice teacher developed an instructional plan of mini-lessons on a skill with which the student needed help. During these assessments, the preservice teacher observed an active child who rocked on his chair and could not sit still. Her plan would include activities to address word recognition strategies for decoding, recognition of compound words, and utilization context clues to decrease his miscues. To reduce comprehension issues, the preservice teacher focused on sequencing and remembering details, drawing inferences, and identifying cause and effect. Tutoring sessions were twice a week for 20 minutes. The first half of their tutoring sessions involved more traditional activities using sentence strips. The boy then would play a familiar game on the iPad. While playing on the iPad, the boy was observed to sit perfectly still for at least 10 minutes and appeared to be totally focused on the game. The authors report that comparisons of pre and post assessments showed that the student had gained one year’s growth (one grade level) in reading ability, within a six-week time period. It is believed that the iPad allowed the student to integrate sensory information more readily and effectively. “The optimal stimulation theory of ADHD suggests the possibility that the high levels of sensory stimulation using the iPad may have allowed the student to engage in the learning task in ways that typical classroom experiences do not” (McClanahan, Williams, & Kennedy, 2012, p. 26).
Aronin and Floyd (2013) conducted a study of preschool teachers using iPads with their students to introduce science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) concepts. In order for students to lead and learn from others while using the iPads in the classroom, the preschool teachers strategically grouped students. Based on the results from the National Center for Education Statistics (2009) and the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee (2012), “policy makers and educators are concerned with recent STEM test scores of U.S. students, who ranked 25th percentile in mathematics and 17th in science out of 30 countries on the 2007 Trends and International Mathematics and Science Study” (Aronin & Floyd, 2013, p. 34). According to Aronin and Floyd, it has never been a priority to enrich early learning environments with STEM concepts. Moomaw and Davis (2010) found a “direct correlation between the use of STEM curriculum with preschools and an increase in collaboration skills, vocabulary, and the ability to create and discuss scientific relationships” (Aronin & Floyd, 2013, p. 35). Aronin and Floyd explored STEM concepts taught to preschoolers through the use of iPad applications. In this study, iPads were chosen for several reasons. They provide access to a great abundance of educational and early childhood apps at no or little cost and due to the portability, allow for flexibility in the areas of teaching and learning. Aronin and Floyd (2013) were led by four principles when picking out apps for students in an integrated classroom to explore STEM concepts:
1. The student should be the source of the action to make the outcome more scientific.
2. The students should be able to see cause-and-effect relationships by changing the beginning action and seeing how it reflects the outcome.
3. The outcome of changing the variable must be observable to the preschooler.
4. The action and reaction must happen immediately for the child to see and make connections between the cause and effect.
After the apps were carefully selected, Aronin and Floyd (2013) recommended a model of gradual release while teaching young students to successfully use this new technology. Three or four students would work in heterogeneous groups in a teacher-led learning station. Students would be explicitly taught how to hold and handle the device, the appropriate level of pressure required for using it, how to tap, access apps, and navigate the activity within the app. The authors recommend teaching one app at a time related to the main STEM concept being taught so that students have multiple opportunities to practice each skill with repeated exposure. With a teacher remaining at the iPad station, she can facilitate social interactions, expand on the skills being taught, and collect data on student performance. Teachers had the opportunity to ask higher-level thinking questions to students as they were learning. Students may even ask for more information about the topic at the time, and the teacher can use the students’ inquiries to develop lesson plans to support the STEM concept being learned, using the app in more traditional classroom activities. The authors of this study also recommend that, as some students are working with a teacher at an iPad station, other students are using manipulatives in a more traditional classroom station to explore the same STEM concept. By allowing students to chose and explore apps of their choice, they were motivated, interested, as well as engaged in differentiated instruction. Several of the apps used in this article and available in the iTunes store were aligned with the Common Core State Standards for preschool and upper grades. Using iPads can provide a fun and innovative avenue to collect data on the students’ ability to meet the standards. Not only were students meeting the objectives of the Common Core State Standards, they also developed additional skills such as increased determination and resolve, motivation to learn, and refinement of poor fine motor skills. One challenge the researchers observed was the difficulty for students with underdeveloped fine motor skills to apply the appropriate pressure to manipulate the iPad. Using a stylus may accommodate students with this difficulty. Other accommodations recommended were to put a ruler over the edge of the iPad to support the arm of a student who is having trouble applying pressure, placing a tennis ball at the top of a stylus for students with fist grasps, and placing a slant board or binder to tilt the iPad screen for improved visibility. The authors of this article believe,
The researched benefits of utilizing an iPad in preschool settings are at the infancy stage of exploration, as is the examination of introducing STEM concepts in this environment. Therefore, a merging of these two worlds is quite timely and important as more and more students become familiar with using technology and teachers gain greater access to it at the same time that educators and researchers continue to find ways to improve STEM instruction throughout all education levels. (Aronin & Floyd, 2013, p. 39)
Northrop and Kileen (2013) support Aronin and Floyd’s (2013) statements on how the gradual release of responsibility model will ensure learning in the classroom with iPads in a careful and deliberate way. iPads can be used as a tool for teachers and students to meet Common Core State Standards. There has been little research conducted on the use of new technological touch devices for learning, but previous research on new technologies can be used to help guide the future use in classrooms. Previous research suggests,
That for technology to be effective, it needs to be situated in the zone of proximal development of a student (Vygotsky, 1978) and allow the student to work with material at his or her instructional or independent level. We caution that just because a student may be technologically capable of using the app doesn’t necessarily ensure that he or she understands the literacy content in the app. (Northrop & Killeen, 2013, p. 532)
Based upon this research, Northrop and Kileen recommend that a teacher guide and scaffold a student’s instruction by first explaining and modeling, then providing guided practice, and finally releasing instruction to student-centered independent use of the iPad. A sample phonics lesson is provided in this article as an example of a framework of integrating iPads into classroom instruction. The researchers used and liked the app ABC Pocket Phonics because it allowed students to hear and manipulate letter sounds into words. They recommend that apps should not be substitutes for directly teaching a concept, and that explicit instruction is first used to teach the literacy concept. Northrop and Kileen “suggest teaching letter-name phonics concepts by using explicit, direct teaching and progressing through a systematic sequence of phonics that includes initial and final consonants, medial short vowels, mixed short vowels, consonant blends and digraphs, and preconsonantal nasals before moving onto long vowel patterns” (Northrop & Killeen, 2013, p. 533). They suggest word sorts as a successful activity for students to learn letter sounds and phonics features through comparing and contrasting in a manipulative way. The iPad can then be introduced as a tool to practice the skills the students learned in the word study instruction through using apps. How to use the app and the literacy concept within the app should be modeled using a think-aloud process. Guided practice can be used to ensure that students are using the app appropriately and understanding the literacy concept being practiced. Creating a list of guided questions ahead of time will allow the teacher to quickly assess the success of the student meeting the lesson objectives while using the iPad as a learning tool. Finally, once students show they are using the app appropriately to access the literacy content, they are ready for independent use. In conclusion, these researchers “recommend using the gradual release of responsibility framework (Duke & Pearson, 2002; Pearson & Gallagher, 1983), in which the teacher explains, models, guides, and allows for independent practice to integrate apps into your classroom practice and to ensure that students are working at a developmentally appropriate level” (Northrop & Killeen, 2013, p. 538).
Pacino and Noftle (2011) are two other researchers who sought to explore digital technologies impacting the role of literacy in education. They believe that our classrooms are the primary vehicles for literacy development, and students should be provided a balance of literacy types to promote that development. The authors believe
As educators who prepare citizens for a global, digital age, we must find new ways of teaching in a world of digital, multimedia literacy. Critical thinking skills must be implemented in an effort to examine and assess various media environments in terms of the reliability and validity of information, as well as the ethical implications of a digital world. (Pacino & Noftle, 2011, p. 478)
Pacino and Noftle’s (2011) article reviews the debate of the definition of literacy for the 21st-century global, digital societies. They acknowledge a debate between those that advocate traditional reading methods, and those who see great potential in multiple, multimodal literacies. Digital technologies have multiple uses for students in classrooms today. Reading instruction can be supplemented with access digital texts. Reading texts in a digital form can motivate students as well as improve their reading fluency. Reading success can be influenced by the students’ ability to manipulate the texts while reading with features of note-taking, changing font size, text-to-speech features, and the use of a dictionary to define unknown vocabulary. Reutzel and Cooter (2003) believe that “when improving the accuracy, rate, and prosodic features of fluency, it is important to provide students with engaging instructional methods and strategies on a daily basis” (as cited in Thoermer & Williams, 2012, p. 442). To support the development of students’ reading fluency, Thoermer and Williams (2012) suggest motivating activities such as using digital texts for scripts during Reader’s Theatre, and a variety of ways to use “StoryLine Online”. They believe, “incorporating fluency lessons using digital texts, such as listening to read-alouds and performing Reader’s Theatre, can strengthen students’ accuracy, automaticity, and prosody skills” (Thoermer & Williams, 2012, p. 445).
In their article, Eric Walters and Michael Baum (2011) provide points and counterpoints as to whether or not the iPad will revolutionize education. Walters believes that tablets are truly a new platform for classroom computing. Instructors at Marymount School of New York, found success as they changed teaching and learning through using apps such as Writer’s Studio, Sketchbook Pro, and Doodle Buddy. Over the summer, 25 teachers at Marymount School received iPads and were challenged to redesign their curriculum with whatever apps they wanted. For less than $200, Walters created more innovative learning activities for his students using a tablet device. He believes the iPad allows for portability and a kinesthetic interaction that a laptop cannot provide. Walters (2011) believes “by providing our faculty with the tools and the opportunity to experiment, we have been able to develop and implement learning activities at the higher level ‘create’ of Bloom’s Taxonomy. And scaling new heights is really what revolutions are all about” (p.7). Michael Baum, on the other hand, believes teachers are really the ones who can revolutionize education, and he challenges tablet developers to make things easier and more effective for them. He does not argue the possibility that iPads can revolutionize education but describes more of the challenges for tablet developers to use all the unique capabilities of tablets to address all the complexities necessary to make the revolution happen.
In summary, this review of literature validates the justifications for an investigation into using iPads to develop kindergarten students’ basic literacy skills. Direct instruction and the practice of reading subskills in early childhood are vital to students’ future reading success. The iPad is suggested to be an invaluable tool to teachers and students in the process of differentiating instruction to meet the needs and interests of many students, all at the same time. Although the iPad as a learning tool for literacy has not yet been extensively researched, there are indications from the literature to support its use to successfully develop young students’ reading skills.
Emergent Literacy Development
Carroll (1985) describes the complex process children go through to read words with automaticity in order to build an impression of a meaningful message in our mind. He states that,
Beginning readers sometimes use mere shape cues in trying to
recognize words, but they will be overwhelmed with confusion if
they depend solely on such cues apart from the recognition of the
letters themselves. In the mature reader the process of rapid word
recognition seems to depend upon his ability to integrate the
information provided by the separate letters composing the word,
some letters being more critical as cues than others.
(Carroll, 1985, p. 2)
Reading is comprised of the development of many skills that are not all learned at once. It takes a considerable amount of time to learn and practice each component. At any stage in development, different children find particular ways of learning easier. With so many different interests, aptitudes, levels, and abilities, some ways of attaining reading skills, and the order in which the components are learned and mastered differ among individuals. Carroll (1985) explains that children can learn a number of skills simultaneously and reach mastery of them at different periods in their development. With children who are having difficulty learning to read, teachers must then provide instruction based upon the characteristics of individual students, and what different skills that need to be emphasized in instruction at different periods. Carroll developed eight specific components of reading skills. With significant practice of these components, skills merge together in the adult reading process. “The ‘great debate’ of how reading should be taught is really a debate about the order in which the child should be started on the road toward learning each of the skills” (Carroll, 1985, p. 7). The question remains of which skills should be introduced and mastered first. Most approaches interlace the belief that a child can attain rapid sight word recognition at the same time as learning letter-sound correspondences. Carroll believes there is a good amount known about reading behavior, but several questions about the process remain.
Linking Carroll’s (1985) suggestion that for a child who is having difficulty learning to read, it may be necessary to determine exactly which skills are causing most difficulty, Speece, Mills, Ritchey, and Hillman’s research (2003) examined the validity of a subset of fluency measures (letter names and nonsense words) as indicators of early reading skill development. According to LaBerge and Samuels’ (1974) model of automaticity, reading becomes fluent as a result of the development of fluency of reading subskills (e.g., naming letters). Assessing the fluency of reading subskills could be a well-suited predictor for later reading success. The participants in Speece, Mills, Ritchey, and Hillman’s (2003) study were 40 half-day kindergarten students from five different classrooms in an elementary school in a suburban school district in the mid-Atlantic States. Students who returned permission slips were categorized into three groups, having high, average, and low literacy skills. Letter-name and Letter Sound identification were a focus of the kindergarten literacy curriculum. In April and June, students were assessed across four sessions using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised, the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (the Blending and Elision subtests), the Texas Primary Reading Inventory (Letter Sound Identification measure), a letter name fluency task, letter sound fluency task, the Woodcock Johnson – Revised (Letter Word Identification and Word Attack subtest), and an oral reading fluency measure. Students were assessed in March of first grade using a smaller set of reading measures. Correlation and regression analyses were conducted using raw scores from these assessment results. The authors were interested in whether the kindergarten measures could accurately identify poor readers in first grade. The small sample size of this study limited the results, and replication was suggested. It yielded evidence to support the validity of fluency measures. The results of the letter naming fluency (LNF) and nonsense word fluency (NWF) measures identified 87 of the poor readers in first grade. The Letter Word Identification on the Woodcock Johnson – Revised was the most accurate, identifying 90.6% of the first-grade students who did not exhibit reading problems on an Oral Reading Fluency measure. The LNF and NWF measures displayed good to strong technical characteristics with high alternate-form reliability and predicative validity. The analysis in this study suggests that NWF, and to a lesser extent, LNF, are valid measures for students in the spring of kindergarten to predict early reading and poor reader status in first grade.
Carroll (1985) was concerned with which exact skills cause the most difficulty for reading success. Speece, Mills, Ritchey, & Hillman (2003) were concerned with children who do not receive early intervention for reading problems and continue to have reading difficulties over time. “Waiting to identify students who will experience reading disabilities is a costly mistake that contributes to the persistence of reading problems” (Speece, Mills, Ritchey, & Hillman, 2003, p. 223). Eligibility for special education services often does not begin until after several years of reading difficulties because of the process of the formal identification of a disability. John and Allington (1991) also believe “this is problematic because providing intervention services after years of reading failure does little to remediate students’ reading problems” (as cited in Speece, Mills, Ritchey, & Hillman, 2003, p. 223).
Kristen Ritchey (2008) believes that learning to read in kindergarten and first grade is a tremendous accomplishment, and beginning reading success or failure sets the stage for future academic and occupational success. “Failure to acquire basic pre-literacy skills, such as letter identification, knowledge of letter sounds, and phonological awareness, is a potential indicator of future reading disabilities” (Jenkins & O’Conner, 2002, or Scarborough, 1998, as cited in Richey, 2008, p. 487). Ritchey believes that appropriate intervention provided to students, who are identified early, will reduce the number of children who struggle with reading. The research conducted by Ritchey compares letter sound fluency and nonsense word fluency as valid and reliable assessments. In this study, Ritchey assessed 91 full-day kindergarten students from two elementary schools in a district in a mid-Atlantic state. Ninety percent of the kindergarten students could be assessed again in the spring of first grade. The letter sound fluency and nonsense word fluency measures were significantly correlated and appeared to demonstrate similar predictive relationships with reading outcomes. The author used both modified and established benchmarks as criteria for identifying at risk students. Both benchmarks did in fact identify similar at-risk students. Ongoing and additional assessments should be utilized to accurately name all students because neither LSF nor NWF demonstrated absolute classification.
Past research has provided evidence of oral language development; cognitive and linguistic support in the early years; socioeconomic advantages; genetic-based explanations; home, community, and school language and literacy practices; and experiences in early years related to skills foundational to literacy and language development. “Research and theory have led us from a view of learning to read as largely maturational to one that is some interactive combination of innate abilities and experiences (Paratore, Cassano, & Schickedanz, 2011, p. 108). Skilled reading is comprised of motivation, engagement, comprehension skills, and primarily dependent on decoding abilities. “Storch and Whitehurst (2002) analyzed the potential of code-related and oral language abilities, acquired by the end of preschool, to predict children’s reading achievement in elementary school” as cited in (Paratore, Cassano, & Schickedanz, 2011, p. 111). Letter name knowledge, phonological awareness, and name writing are all code-related skills that predicted decoding skills in beginning readers.
“Code-related skills and oral language skills were highly related in the preschool years (48% variance), and somewhat related in kindergarten (10% variance). Additionally, while oral vocabulary did not account for any unique variance in reading levels until third grade, it had an indirect effect on decoding skill in the early grades through its effect on phonological awareness” as cited in (Paratore, Cassano, & Schickedanz, 2011, p. 111).
These researchers also found that lack of peer relationships, aggressiveness, antisocial behavior, and teacher-child conflict decrease learning opportunities and a child’s participation during collaborative activities. “When asked how many of their kindergarteners did not have the social skills to engage “productively” in classroom activities, close to half of the teachers said that more than half of the children lacked these skills” (Paratore, Cassano, & Schickedanz, 2011, p. 114). “In sum, the development of oral language, code-related skills, and social behavior (i.e., behavior style and self-regulation) in the early years has lasting effects on children’s long-term academic achievement” (Paratore, Cassano, & Schickedanz, 2011, p. 114). Focus on language, literacy, and social skills intervention in the early years will reduce later achievement gaps as proven through research linking social skills at school entry and later achievement and parenting skill and social skill development.
Parents can be the first to provide early intervention by engaging children in their environment and making them aware of the purpose of print around them. According to Paratore, Cassano, and Schickedanz (2011), print awareness, phonological awareness, and alphabet knowledge are three areas of early literacy development that provide important foundations for code-related skills. “Researchers have described levels of print awareness, distinguishing between context dependent ‘reading’ and reading words using letter and sound skills”. They stated “synthesis of evidence leads to a conclusion that, at least in part, low levels of literacy achievement may be explained by inadequate attention in the early years to the full array of abilities that are required for success in the later years” (Paratore, Cassano, & Schickedanz, 2011, p. 123). Teachers and parents are responsible for developing code-related, oral language, vocabulary, and language knowledge in young children. This can be done through using language rich with rare and sophisticated words to build conceptual knowledge in young children. How teachers and parents share books, as well as the types of books they read help develop children’s phonological awareness and an understanding of how print works. These practices correspond with successful literacy skills in later years.
Paratore, Cassano, and Schickedanz’s (2011) research findings are supported by the curricular topics studied by National Reading Panel (NRP) (2000): alphabetic (phonemic awareness and phonics), fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. It is recommended by NRP (2000) that phonics must be integrated with instruction in phonemic awareness, fluency, and comprehension. Comprehensive programs that integrate reading and language arts and provide tutoring to increase intensity are more effective than programs that isolate these elements. According to recent, basic research on reading, the alphabetic system must be mastered in order to grasp the meaning of what is read (in English), and that mastery of the alphabetic system requires access to phoneme-level units. Researchers disagree on the level of mapping of phonological units and orthographic units during the acquisition process. Beginning readers who have more phonemic awareness and struggle with reading, benefit from grapheme-phoneme instruction over spelling-rime instruction. In beginning reading instruction, the sequence of words in the curricula matters, especially for students whose learning opportunities are limited to school. Phonological awareness and rapid letter naming predict reading comprehension in 2nd grade, but oral language skills account for an additional 13.8% variance. From Paratore, Cassano, and Schickedanz’s (2011) research, it has been concluded that first and second graders’ code-related skills strongly predicted reading comprehension. Third and fourth graders’ reading accuracy and comprehension were separable, and prior and current reading accuracy as well as oral language skills predicted comprehension. Oral and written language skills appear to be so interrelated with reading skills that they form a single construct, raising the possibility that they deserve equal instructional attention.
The previously discussed classroom-based studies and interventions in this literature review, as well as many others, have had an effect on school level reform. It has been found that the home and community have an impact on classroom literacy through their influence on children’s entry skills. Researchers also have determined that there are common characteristics that consistently provide students with an effective learning environment in effective schools, including: strong leadership; high expectations for student achievement; emphasis on academics; safe and orderly environment; a dedicated block of time (about 90-120 minutes) devoted to literacy instruction; frequent use of assessment to evaluate student progress; in the classroom, use of small, homogeneous literacy, skill-based groups; and successful classroom management from a teacher. Classrooms high in instructional support as well as social/emotional support are systematically associated with stronger student literacy and social outcomes, especially for children who have difficulty acquiring the skills presented in kindergarten. When climate and motivation are held constant, the amount and type of literacy instruction children receive in the classroom is consistently and systematically associated with their literacy skill growth. Foorman and Connor (2011) found that children who received intervention in addition to enhanced classroom instruction made greater progress than students who only received enhanced classroom instruction. Foorman and Connor (2011) also investigated teacher-managed instruction vs. child-managed instruction. Response to Intervention (RTI) was also examined in this study. The authors found that simply improving classroom instruction is not enough to bring struggling students to grade level performance in reading. RTI models provide a systematic school or district-wide method to help children who are struggling with reading before they experience academic failure with a joint aim of prevention and early identification of reading difficulties. Districts have funds (IDEA) to provide intervention to struggling readers before they fail to meet grade-level achievement standards.
Young Students Using iPad Technology
Del Siegle (2013) provides a rationale for young students to use iPad technology. He describes the popularity of tablet devices used by children and some useful apps for the iPad. Tablet devices are more economically priced compared to other traditional mobile devices such as laptops. Applications on tablet devices are also of a low cost between $5-$10, and many are free. Students find the touch screen straightforward and instinctual to use, and it is accessible for the youngest of children to learn with ease. The design and size of iPads make them more convenient for students to transport than laptop computers. Siegle lists numerous useful apps in the categories of General Productivity Apps, Specific Productivity Apps, Information-Gathering Apps, and Games and Drill and Practice. Siegle believes “the iPad is a powerful tool that will help gifted and talented students expand their understanding of the world and unleash their creative potential” (2013, p. 150).
As with Siegle (2013), Paula Saine (2012) believes that due to the advancement of digital technologies in society, iPods, iPads, and SMART Boards have made their way into classrooms and are transforming literacy instruction and learning. Researchers question why more classrooms over the last three decades changed their curriculum and instruction to adopt the available digital technologies. Saine’s article (2012) shares how some teachers have incorporated these technologies into their instructional activities. She interviewed four teachers from diverse classroom settings; one Nigerian classroom teacher; and three American teachers [elementary, middle, and high school]. The teachers were asked to tell how they made the most of digital technologies and how these technologies, have transformed their teaching and student learning in literacy. Each teacher provided a description of his/her lesson and the technology used. Pretest and posttest results showed improvements in student performance after using technological tools to meet learning objectives. Students improved their writing. English language learners showed improvements in speaking English as well as in their writing ability. The digital process of creating animated stories helped students to practice sequencing story events and identifying the key elements to a story. The teachers reflected that using digital technology attracts students’ attention, makes instructional activities more appealing and exciting for students, provides links to real-world purpose for assignments, supports visual learners, and enhances creative thinking.
Huang, Clark, & Wedel (2013) were three other teachers who investigated the effectiveness of the iPad in helping struggling preschool readers to improve alphabet recognition and letter sound correspondence skills. Two preschoolers, who were diagnosed as struggling readers with Attention Deficit Disorder, participated in tutoring sessions over the course of the semester. The students were given both pre and posttests, using the Basic Reading Inventory (Johns, 2008), observational notes, and interviews to assess their alphabet and letter sound recognition skills. Both students were able to identify 10 upper case and 10 lower case alphabet letters and 4 sounds on pretest assessments. Students practiced all alphabet letters and sounds during the first semester of the academic year.
The teachers first used the Matching Letter game app as a first step to teach students to match upper and lower case letters. Teachers engaged with students while they used this app. They occasionally asked students to state another word that started with the same letter. The teachers also used flashcards to assess letter identification and reinforce the students’ letter and sound associations. The students then began using other apps to reinforce letter recognition and letter-sound connection. Students played ABC Go Go, a game that is full of creative sounds and environmental print and pictures. For the students who had not fully developed the connections between alphabet letters and sounds, the teachers found this app to be effective in reinforcing letter names. Instruction to use this app was scaffolded from working with a tutor, a partner, to independent use.
Another app used to help students develop phonemic awareness and some sight word recognition was Alphabet Learn. This app shows three letters at a time with a representative picture, then a short sentence including words that begin with that letter. The teachers also recommend this app to develop alphabetical skills in English language learners.
The fourth app these teachers used during iPad tutoring sessions was Alphabet Tracing, an app effective in teaching students how to correctly form letters when writing. The app has animated characters to teach students how to write each letter properly. It also provided pictures and labels of real life objects that start with the letter being traced.
After using these apps during weekly tutoring sessions, students were able to recognize all 26 letters and 24 letter sounds on posttests at the end of the semester. The teachers observed that these students demonstrated longer attention spans while engaged with the iPad. Students also were able to learn independently while being encouraged with positive reinforcement from the applications. It also was discovered that “the development of technology skills supported children’s early literacy development through natural movements and use of fingers to tap, swipe, drag, pinch, and stretch icons or texts. “ iPads not only serve as a teaching tool to facilitate instruction and learning, but also have a motivating power” (Huang, Clark, & Wedel, 2013, p. 26).
Teaching and Learning with iPads
Many researchers, including Hutchison, Beschorner, & Crawford (2012) have noted that iPads and similar tablets have been relatively unexplored as tools for literacy learning. So to enhance students’ learning opportunities, Hutchison, Beschorner, & Crawford (2012) used iPads to teach new literacy skills and practice print-based literacy goals. The teacher in their study also wanted to enhance students’ learning opportunities with iPads and provide students with an opportunity to also learn some of the new literacy skills associated with 21st-century technologies. The authors of this project wondered whether or not it was possible for mobile devices such as the iPad to be useful tools in literacy classrooms. In this study, 23 4th-grade students in a classroom, with a leading technology-using elementary teacher, used a tablet device every day for three weeks. iPad applications were selected based upon learning goals. The results of this study concluded that this teacher did in fact meet her print-based literacy goals while simultaneously introducing new technological literacy skills. Using iPads provided students with visual images to go along with text to help students better understand what they read. Students read more carefully than normal to revise their images in the app Doodle Buddy while they read. Students reported that they could visualize a lot better, and that the iPad helped with comprehension because they were able to pick out main ideas as they read and put them in order in an app called Popplet. Students were able to also digitally communicate with other readers in the class by writing on a virtual sticky note on pages in a book on the iPad for future readers to reference. In conclusion, the researchers recommended that first teachers become familiar with the literacy and technology goals for their school and district and discuss with school leadership how iPads could facilitate these goals and pedagogical practices. Then they can begin to design classroom literacy activities in the areas of comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, and so forth that will utilize the iPad’s unique features. Also, students should be allowed time to explore and experiment with the iPad with teachers, showing them key features and letting them teach each other how to use the tool.
Getting and Swainey (2012) “set out to determine if using iPads would help increase reading achievement with the two most below-grade level reading groups during the 2010-11 academic year at Hilltop Elementary School in Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota, USA” (p. 24). One of their main goals was to prepare young learners with a set of new technological literacy skills. This research began with the assessment of students’ sight-word recognition, fluency, comprehension, vocabulary, letter naming fluency, letter-sound fluency, nonsense word fluency, and phonemic awareness through informal assessments and AIMSweb. Based on “response to intervention” (RTI) levels, students were placed in homogenous groupings based on their abilities and needs. Data from this year was compared to the previous two years. Although there were some exceptions, the data confirmed increased average gains and/or higher end-year scores for students with routine iPad use. The teachers conducting this research project concluded that it was much easier than expected to teach and manage first-grade students using iPads. The iPads were introduced to the students as a learning tool, and it was discussed that this was a privilege. Students who chose not to immediately comply with the proper use and behavior for using this learning tool had them taken away. The iPads became a highly motivating learning tool for students who had challenges with appropriate behavior in school. Due to the behavior changes they were observing, the researchers began to collect data for “time on task” (TOT) for one student in each group. To collect data, any time a student was off task, the stopwatch stopped. When the student regained focus, the stopwatch resumed. Time on task increased 15%-20% for students across four sessions. To collect data on other content-focused areas, students graphed their progress on a “stoplight” chart. The students would record quiz scores for vocabulary and comprehension. They had a goal to stay in the green zone. The researchers report that it was fascinating to watch the students willingly participate in dialogue to reflect on their scores. Among the researchers, there was a collaborative effort that contributed to the project’s success. By meeting twice a week, there was a continuous cycle of planning, implementation, reflection, and planning again. They planned staff training sessions to review the basics for using an iPad and offered the iPads to be checked out by staff to use with their own classrooms. To choose apps, the researchers reviewed each app they tried using Harry C. Walker’s App Rubric posted on Tony Vincent’s blog, Learning in Hand. After completing the rubric, they let the technology department know which apps would be most useful for their learners. From this project, not only did the 1st-grade students learn new technological literacies and improved reading skills, they also engaged in leadership opportunities. The students presented to the school board some of the apps they used as learning tools. They also participated in the district’s first ever Student-Led Technology Conference. At this public event, four 1stgraders led a session on iPad basics. Getting and Swainey reflected on what they learned from their action research project. They discovered “iSwifter”, a free app that allows access to some websites that can be entered through an app. They also recommended using headphones for the noisy apps. More than 20 changes per reading group were observed throughout the year. Students were able to instinctively help each other during iPad activities. There was a collaborative environment during the use of this new technological learning tool. They found that “iPads truly made a difference in sight word recognition, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary recognition and meaning” (Getting and Swainey, 2010, p. 27).
In a study conducted by McClanahan, Williams, & Kennedy (2012), a preservice teacher used an iPad as a mode of instruction during tutoring sessions with a fifth-grade boy diagnosed with ADHD. There were concerns that tutoring would be ineffective for the student, and that the self-paced, individualized format that the iPad offered would be most beneficial. The purpose of this study was to investigate if an iPad would help a student with ADHD become more metacognitive in his reading. This fifth-grade student was currently reading at a second-grade level. He attended a small, rural school in southeast Oklahoma. Based on his assessment results of an informal reading inventory (IRI) and an interest inventory, the preservice teacher developed an instructional plan of mini-lessons on a skill with which the student needed help. During these assessments, the preservice teacher observed an active child who rocked on his chair and could not sit still. Her plan would include activities to address word recognition strategies for decoding, recognition of compound words, and utilization context clues to decrease his miscues. To reduce comprehension issues, the preservice teacher focused on sequencing and remembering details, drawing inferences, and identifying cause and effect. Tutoring sessions were twice a week for 20 minutes. The first half of their tutoring sessions involved more traditional activities using sentence strips. The boy then would play a familiar game on the iPad. While playing on the iPad, the boy was observed to sit perfectly still for at least 10 minutes and appeared to be totally focused on the game. The authors report that comparisons of pre and post assessments showed that the student had gained one year’s growth (one grade level) in reading ability, within a six-week time period. It is believed that the iPad allowed the student to integrate sensory information more readily and effectively. “The optimal stimulation theory of ADHD suggests the possibility that the high levels of sensory stimulation using the iPad may have allowed the student to engage in the learning task in ways that typical classroom experiences do not” (McClanahan, Williams, & Kennedy, 2012, p. 26).
Aronin and Floyd (2013) conducted a study of preschool teachers using iPads with their students to introduce science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) concepts. In order for students to lead and learn from others while using the iPads in the classroom, the preschool teachers strategically grouped students. Based on the results from the National Center for Education Statistics (2009) and the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee (2012), “policy makers and educators are concerned with recent STEM test scores of U.S. students, who ranked 25th percentile in mathematics and 17th in science out of 30 countries on the 2007 Trends and International Mathematics and Science Study” (Aronin & Floyd, 2013, p. 34). According to Aronin and Floyd, it has never been a priority to enrich early learning environments with STEM concepts. Moomaw and Davis (2010) found a “direct correlation between the use of STEM curriculum with preschools and an increase in collaboration skills, vocabulary, and the ability to create and discuss scientific relationships” (Aronin & Floyd, 2013, p. 35). Aronin and Floyd explored STEM concepts taught to preschoolers through the use of iPad applications. In this study, iPads were chosen for several reasons. They provide access to a great abundance of educational and early childhood apps at no or little cost and due to the portability, allow for flexibility in the areas of teaching and learning. Aronin and Floyd (2013) were led by four principles when picking out apps for students in an integrated classroom to explore STEM concepts:
1. The student should be the source of the action to make the outcome more scientific.
2. The students should be able to see cause-and-effect relationships by changing the beginning action and seeing how it reflects the outcome.
3. The outcome of changing the variable must be observable to the preschooler.
4. The action and reaction must happen immediately for the child to see and make connections between the cause and effect.
After the apps were carefully selected, Aronin and Floyd (2013) recommended a model of gradual release while teaching young students to successfully use this new technology. Three or four students would work in heterogeneous groups in a teacher-led learning station. Students would be explicitly taught how to hold and handle the device, the appropriate level of pressure required for using it, how to tap, access apps, and navigate the activity within the app. The authors recommend teaching one app at a time related to the main STEM concept being taught so that students have multiple opportunities to practice each skill with repeated exposure. With a teacher remaining at the iPad station, she can facilitate social interactions, expand on the skills being taught, and collect data on student performance. Teachers had the opportunity to ask higher-level thinking questions to students as they were learning. Students may even ask for more information about the topic at the time, and the teacher can use the students’ inquiries to develop lesson plans to support the STEM concept being learned, using the app in more traditional classroom activities. The authors of this study also recommend that, as some students are working with a teacher at an iPad station, other students are using manipulatives in a more traditional classroom station to explore the same STEM concept. By allowing students to chose and explore apps of their choice, they were motivated, interested, as well as engaged in differentiated instruction. Several of the apps used in this article and available in the iTunes store were aligned with the Common Core State Standards for preschool and upper grades. Using iPads can provide a fun and innovative avenue to collect data on the students’ ability to meet the standards. Not only were students meeting the objectives of the Common Core State Standards, they also developed additional skills such as increased determination and resolve, motivation to learn, and refinement of poor fine motor skills. One challenge the researchers observed was the difficulty for students with underdeveloped fine motor skills to apply the appropriate pressure to manipulate the iPad. Using a stylus may accommodate students with this difficulty. Other accommodations recommended were to put a ruler over the edge of the iPad to support the arm of a student who is having trouble applying pressure, placing a tennis ball at the top of a stylus for students with fist grasps, and placing a slant board or binder to tilt the iPad screen for improved visibility. The authors of this article believe,
The researched benefits of utilizing an iPad in preschool settings are at the infancy stage of exploration, as is the examination of introducing STEM concepts in this environment. Therefore, a merging of these two worlds is quite timely and important as more and more students become familiar with using technology and teachers gain greater access to it at the same time that educators and researchers continue to find ways to improve STEM instruction throughout all education levels. (Aronin & Floyd, 2013, p. 39)
Northrop and Kileen (2013) support Aronin and Floyd’s (2013) statements on how the gradual release of responsibility model will ensure learning in the classroom with iPads in a careful and deliberate way. iPads can be used as a tool for teachers and students to meet Common Core State Standards. There has been little research conducted on the use of new technological touch devices for learning, but previous research on new technologies can be used to help guide the future use in classrooms. Previous research suggests,
That for technology to be effective, it needs to be situated in the zone of proximal development of a student (Vygotsky, 1978) and allow the student to work with material at his or her instructional or independent level. We caution that just because a student may be technologically capable of using the app doesn’t necessarily ensure that he or she understands the literacy content in the app. (Northrop & Killeen, 2013, p. 532)
Based upon this research, Northrop and Kileen recommend that a teacher guide and scaffold a student’s instruction by first explaining and modeling, then providing guided practice, and finally releasing instruction to student-centered independent use of the iPad. A sample phonics lesson is provided in this article as an example of a framework of integrating iPads into classroom instruction. The researchers used and liked the app ABC Pocket Phonics because it allowed students to hear and manipulate letter sounds into words. They recommend that apps should not be substitutes for directly teaching a concept, and that explicit instruction is first used to teach the literacy concept. Northrop and Kileen “suggest teaching letter-name phonics concepts by using explicit, direct teaching and progressing through a systematic sequence of phonics that includes initial and final consonants, medial short vowels, mixed short vowels, consonant blends and digraphs, and preconsonantal nasals before moving onto long vowel patterns” (Northrop & Killeen, 2013, p. 533). They suggest word sorts as a successful activity for students to learn letter sounds and phonics features through comparing and contrasting in a manipulative way. The iPad can then be introduced as a tool to practice the skills the students learned in the word study instruction through using apps. How to use the app and the literacy concept within the app should be modeled using a think-aloud process. Guided practice can be used to ensure that students are using the app appropriately and understanding the literacy concept being practiced. Creating a list of guided questions ahead of time will allow the teacher to quickly assess the success of the student meeting the lesson objectives while using the iPad as a learning tool. Finally, once students show they are using the app appropriately to access the literacy content, they are ready for independent use. In conclusion, these researchers “recommend using the gradual release of responsibility framework (Duke & Pearson, 2002; Pearson & Gallagher, 1983), in which the teacher explains, models, guides, and allows for independent practice to integrate apps into your classroom practice and to ensure that students are working at a developmentally appropriate level” (Northrop & Killeen, 2013, p. 538).
Pacino and Noftle (2011) are two other researchers who sought to explore digital technologies impacting the role of literacy in education. They believe that our classrooms are the primary vehicles for literacy development, and students should be provided a balance of literacy types to promote that development. The authors believe
As educators who prepare citizens for a global, digital age, we must find new ways of teaching in a world of digital, multimedia literacy. Critical thinking skills must be implemented in an effort to examine and assess various media environments in terms of the reliability and validity of information, as well as the ethical implications of a digital world. (Pacino & Noftle, 2011, p. 478)
Pacino and Noftle’s (2011) article reviews the debate of the definition of literacy for the 21st-century global, digital societies. They acknowledge a debate between those that advocate traditional reading methods, and those who see great potential in multiple, multimodal literacies. Digital technologies have multiple uses for students in classrooms today. Reading instruction can be supplemented with access digital texts. Reading texts in a digital form can motivate students as well as improve their reading fluency. Reading success can be influenced by the students’ ability to manipulate the texts while reading with features of note-taking, changing font size, text-to-speech features, and the use of a dictionary to define unknown vocabulary. Reutzel and Cooter (2003) believe that “when improving the accuracy, rate, and prosodic features of fluency, it is important to provide students with engaging instructional methods and strategies on a daily basis” (as cited in Thoermer & Williams, 2012, p. 442). To support the development of students’ reading fluency, Thoermer and Williams (2012) suggest motivating activities such as using digital texts for scripts during Reader’s Theatre, and a variety of ways to use “StoryLine Online”. They believe, “incorporating fluency lessons using digital texts, such as listening to read-alouds and performing Reader’s Theatre, can strengthen students’ accuracy, automaticity, and prosody skills” (Thoermer & Williams, 2012, p. 445).
In their article, Eric Walters and Michael Baum (2011) provide points and counterpoints as to whether or not the iPad will revolutionize education. Walters believes that tablets are truly a new platform for classroom computing. Instructors at Marymount School of New York, found success as they changed teaching and learning through using apps such as Writer’s Studio, Sketchbook Pro, and Doodle Buddy. Over the summer, 25 teachers at Marymount School received iPads and were challenged to redesign their curriculum with whatever apps they wanted. For less than $200, Walters created more innovative learning activities for his students using a tablet device. He believes the iPad allows for portability and a kinesthetic interaction that a laptop cannot provide. Walters (2011) believes “by providing our faculty with the tools and the opportunity to experiment, we have been able to develop and implement learning activities at the higher level ‘create’ of Bloom’s Taxonomy. And scaling new heights is really what revolutions are all about” (p.7). Michael Baum, on the other hand, believes teachers are really the ones who can revolutionize education, and he challenges tablet developers to make things easier and more effective for them. He does not argue the possibility that iPads can revolutionize education but describes more of the challenges for tablet developers to use all the unique capabilities of tablets to address all the complexities necessary to make the revolution happen.
In summary, this review of literature validates the justifications for an investigation into using iPads to develop kindergarten students’ basic literacy skills. Direct instruction and the practice of reading subskills in early childhood are vital to students’ future reading success. The iPad is suggested to be an invaluable tool to teachers and students in the process of differentiating instruction to meet the needs and interests of many students, all at the same time. Although the iPad as a learning tool for literacy has not yet been extensively researched, there are indications from the literature to support its use to successfully develop young students’ reading skills.