Teachers’ Use of Technology in a Reading Clinic

Ernest Balajthy
Kristin Reuber
Corrine Robinson

Introduction

Why should teachers use computers with struggling readers? What rewards and challenges will they experience when they do so? The wide variety of applications available -- from phonological awareness software to World Wide Web activities -- offers teachers the ability to meet individual student needs at any developmental level (McKenna, Reinking, Labbo, & Kieffer, 1999; Spear-Swerling & Sternberg, 1996). According to a recent poll, 78 percent of teachers report that they have seen evidence of achievement gains due to computer use, while 95 percent believe that the achievement of low-performing students can be enhanced by computers (Kamp, 1999).

From the early days of microcomputers in the 1980s, it has been apparent that computing technology offers a tremendous variety of potential applications for the reading and literacy classroom. Balajthy (1986) presents a graphic organizer displaying the varied possibilities grouped in two major (though often overlapping) categories: student based and teacher based. Teacher-based activities might include assessment and diagnosis, utilities for grade management, software for planning and creation of instruction, and use of documentation. Student-based activities include games, interactive software providing instructional simulations, information retrieval, direct instruction, and solo-mode learning for learning programming or problem-solving strategies.

Those early applications remain the centerpieces of computer use in the classroom today, though the “bells and whistles” in hardware and software are strikingly improved (Case & Truscott, 1999). Today’s teachers and students benefit not only from advances in graphic and sound quality and in applications’ use of multimedia elements, but also from greater sophistication in the structure of software. Management systems to record student progress, detailed feedback on the quality of student work, and flexibility to meet the needs of different students with a single software package are all much more possible today than they were 15 or 20 years ago.

In addition, the broadening of focus in today’s classrooms from stand-alone microcomputers to Internet technologies has offered new possibilities for helping children with reading and literacy difficulties (Balajthy, 2000; Karchmer, 2000). For example, children can develop their communication abilities through a wide variety of e-mail activities (Tao & Reinking, 2000). Online collaborative writing activities can be carried out for many purposes (Fey, 1997). Creative and involving exploratory activities using the vast resources of the Internet can help teachers and students enrich learning across almost every component of the curriculum (Leu & Leu, 2000).

In terms of actual statistically based research data, there is clear evidence that writing activities that involve word processing can produce superior results to traditional writing activities (Bangert-Drowns, 1993). Kamil and Lane (1998) concluded, however, that “the jury is still out when it comes to reading” (p. 331). In a survey reported in The Handbook of Reading Research: Volume III, Kamil, Intrator, and Kim (2000) concluded that research on technology and reading is a “tapestry under construction” (p. 783). A U.S. National Institute for Childhood Health and Human Development survey of research also noted that “it is difficult to conclude much” on the basis of the existing literature (National Reading Panel, 2000, p. 6-7, online document). A plethora of “no significant difference” results in past research suggests that, while positive results in improving reading through use of computers are certainly readily obtainable, those results are also obtainable using a variety of more traditional instructional methods.

Of course, that positive results are possible with traditional instructional methods should not suggest that we stop using computers in the classroom. All methods of teaching reading have advantages and disadvantages, and teachers can capitalize on the particular advantages of different approaches. For example, it is widely agreed that the computer has positive motivational influences (Ross, Hogaboam-Gray, & Hannay, 1999, online abstract; Wright, 1998). Roth and Beck (1987) found that their computer-based word-recognition programs contributed to improved motivation for struggling students. Instead of less motivating teacher-directed instruction in decoding skills or workbook practice, the game-like format allowed for engagement and set up a challenging environment. Likewise, students have positive attitudes toward word processing (Cochran-Smith, 1991).

Both McCormick’s (1994) and Worthy’s (1998) case studies of nonreaders and reluctant readers postulated that motivation is instrumental to reading achievement. The results suggest that, especially with students who have experienced recurring reading failure, intervention should be structured to be highly motivating and novel. The computer is one means of providing such novel motivation.

Another reason for choosing computer-based interventions with less skilled readers is that independent computer instruction allows for more of the necessary time on task than do traditional methods. Roth and Beck (1987), for example, saw positive effects at the word and subword level after 14 hours of computer-based practice over a 12-week period. Jones, Torgesen, and Sexton (1987) found substantial increases in both speed and accuracy of decoding after 10 weeks of daily 15-minute sessions of computer-based instruction. These researchers also found that improvement in decoding individual words led to improvement in reading connected text. After 8 weeks of instruction, Torgesen, Waters, Cohen, and Torgesen (1988) found that significant improvements in accuracy and speed of word identification were made using their software with 17 learning-disabled children in first through third grades.

A third reason for using computer-based interventions in the classroom has to do with the corrective feedback offered in many computer programs. Improvements in technology have resulted in availability of programs that offer highly intelligible and natural-sounding voice feedback to the software user. Van Daal and van der Leij (1992) found that such speech feedback effectively aided learning-disabled students in confirming the accuracy of their decoding attempts. It was also helpful for sound blending practice. In addition, Wise and Olson (1994) assert that computers have the ability to respond to a student’s individual interests and instructional needs, while at the same time providing help anonymously and neutrally. They found that training with computerized speech feedback for spelling led to benefits in decoding skills.

Also, Wise (1992) used corrective feedback in a study with a voice synthesis system in which whole words, syllabic units, subsyllabic units, and single grapheme-phoneme units were employed in word learning. The voice synthesizer pronounced the words or word segments while the matching text elements were highlighted on the monitor. Wise found that poor readers made about twice the gains in word-recognition and decoding skills as those in control groups who received regular classroom or traditional remedial reading instruction.

A fourth research-based reason for using computers with struggling readers has to do with the nature of electronic text (as opposed to traditional paper-based text) and with the benefits that computer presentation of text has to offer (McKenna, Reinking, Labbo, & Kieffer, 1999). Horney and Anderson-Inman (1999) showed that children can be taught to use the scaffolding offered by electronic text, such as computerized speech, online glossaries, graphics, and note-taking capabilities, in order to achieve success in school tasks. The availability of computer technology to help struggling readers accomplish goals provides opportunities for classroom success in content area studies despite these students’ reading difficulties (Bruce & Hogan, 1998).

Finally, Leu and Kinzer (2000, online document) have argued that, in spite of limited evidence for the superiority of computer-based instruction over traditional instruction, computers must be used in literacy education. Technology is leading society to redefine its very concept of what literacy means as networked information and communication technologies proliferate in classrooms, homes, and workplaces.

Back to menu

Design and Methodology

The purpose of the study reported here was to investigate factors involved in the process of planning and implementing computer-based instruction, as carried out by graduate-level clinicians in a university summer reading clinic. Thirty-seven graduate students at the end of their master’s degree program in reading and literacy education took a required clinical course. All but nine had employment experiences in teaching, mostly as elementary classroom or special education teachers, with years of experience ranging from 1 to 4. The clinicians were divided into two sections (morning and afternoon) and each was assigned a child, aged between 7 and 12 years, for whom it was the clinician’s responsibility to plan and provide instruction in literacy for 90 minutes per day, 4 days a week, over a 5-week period. They were supervised by a professor (Ernest Balajthy, the lead researcher and first author of this article), who also led discussions during the 1-hour period in which the clinicians met each day as a group.

As part of their responsibilities, clinicians were to examine existing information on the children’s personal and educational backgrounds, carry out a detailed assessment, and finally write a case study. They also wrote daily lesson plans. A course requirement was that each clinician plan a balanced curriculum, making use of holistic activities to develop reading and writing skills. While the clinicians were given a great deal of freedom to choose their own instructional strategies, the focus of most previous courses in the graduate program had been on helping children acquire literacy through meaningful, rich, literacy experiences. Collaboration was encouraged by the requirement that small groups of teacher-student pairs choose a high-interest unit topic around which reading and writing tasks could be carried out.

Clinicians were required to make some use of computers during their instructional time, though they were left to choose how and how often to use them. Their course grades were not affected by the amount of computer use. None of the clinicians had previously taken a graduate course in instructional technology, and their graduate coursework involved fewer than 5 hours of hands-on experience with computers. This included a 2-hour computer software evaluation session as part of the Methods and Materials course, and a 1-hour introduction to use of computers for research purposes.

Despite the lack of graduate training, all 37 clinicians were able to use their own computers or school computers for simple word processing, Internet searches, and running software installed on hard drives or CD-ROMs. All indicated that they had previous experience in using computers in instructional situations -- in their student teaching, in their own classrooms, or at home with their own children. However, most needed support in order to carry out relatively low-level tasks, such as adjusting computer volume, installing software, and connecting to different printers. Such support was readily available to clinicians from peer helpers, the professor, or lab aides. Some of this lack of expertise was a result of unfamiliarity with the platform (Macintosh), but most was due to limited knowledge about computer hardware and operating systems. Once a program was up and running, however, there were few problems.

On the day prior to the opening of the clinic, the clinicians were introduced to the School of Education Computer Lab and to the software available for use with the children. They were given a 2-hour supervised time block in which to try out the software and familiarize themselves with the lab’s operation. The session included a brief introduction to the available software and some guidelines for use of the networked lab hardware. Clinicians could also sign out software materials for use during the evenings on personal or college computers.

The lab consisted of 24 Power Macintosh computers, all of which were loaded with versions of ClarisWorks, KidPix, and Student Writing Center software and were wired for Internet access. The lab was equipped with a laser printer, and a color printer and scanner were available across the hall. In addition, two Apple IIGS computers and four older monochrome Macintosh computers were available in the Reading and Literacy Clinic rooms. (Figure 1 provides images from the computer lab and clinic rooms.) During part of each clinic session, a lab monitor was available to help with use of the computers and software.

A wide variety of reading-related software was available. Clinicians could also use their own personal software or borrow software from a collection at the college library.

The children ranged in age from 7 to 12, and in grade level from just finished Grade 1 to just finished Grade 7 (see Table 1). They had been accepted to the clinic on the basis of needs indicated in their applications, which had been completed by parents and teachers. Almost all had severe difficulties in acquiring literacy and were well below their peers in reading achievement (see Table 2).

Back to menu

Collection and Analysis of Data

Data were collected in three ways. First, the professor-researcher spent half of each daily 90-minute period at the computer lab and maintained a journal of observations. Records in the journal were planned to focus on six aspects of the clinic’s computer use:

1. Sense of purpose on the part of the clinicians
2. Match between objectives in traditional instruction and those in the computer-based instruction
3. Children’s responsiveness to instruction
4. Clinicians’ familiarity with hardware operation
5. Clinicians’ familiarity with software operation
6. Children’s learning progress

Observations typically were carried out in two ways. First, the researcher was available in the clinic and lab to monitor and support the use of hardware and software. Clinicians would seek help from the researcher on some particular aspect of operation. Second, the researcher spent more prolonged periods sitting with individual clinicians and their students, observing the teaching and learning process over the course of the lesson. Almost all such lessons were part of extended series that lasted several days, so the researcher was able to observe progress.

The researcher also examined clinicians’ lesson plans for use of computers. Each clinician was required to submit a daily lesson plan, including objectives and details of planned instructional methods and materials. The researcher maintained a journal which focused on two aspects of planning for computer use: quality of computer objectives, and match between objectives in the traditional instructional component of the day and those in the computer-based component.

Observational information from the researcher’s journals and from evaluation of lesson plans was categorized according to the six major focuses of the study, then studied and discussed by the research team. This team included the researcher-professor (first author of this article), as well as two graduate students, both of whom were elementary school teachers carrying out the research as part of their master’s degree programs in reading and literacy education (and who are the coauthors of this article).

At the end of the summer clinic, the clinicians filled out forms that asked them to identify each piece of software used and to write a brief purpose, description, and evaluation statement about it. Results obtained from this were tabulated according to title and type of software (drill and practice, application, electronic book, etc.). The number of software titles used by each clinician was also compiled.

Back to menu

Results

In general, clinicians and their students were enthusiastic about their use of computers for instruction. The focus of this study, however, was on the specifics of computer use. As we looked closely at some of these specifics, it became apparent that classroom use of technology presents many implementation challenges.

Table 4 presents a complete list of software used, along with publication data, while Figure 2 shows distribution of use of the various categories of software.

Many of the clinicians made far more use of the computers than was minimally required for the course. For example, 18 used four or more computer programs. Actual time spent on the programs varied, from about 30 minutes for an electronic book or an Internet session to 3 or 4 hours over a 2-week period on a series of word-processing projects or a complex simulation curriculum such as Africa Trail. Drill-and-practice sessions tended to be short -- about 15 or 20 minutes. No clinician established a regular drill-and-practice regimen over a period of more than several days.

Clinicians’ purposes for using computers. Observation indicated that the clinicians appeared to be less intent on carrying out activities that they thought would result in concrete achievement gains when using computers. In nontechnology teaching situations, clinicians spent the majority of their time in two ways. First, they involved children in meaning-oriented reading and writing activities that provided time on task: journaling, researching and writing reports on topics of high value to individual students, and reading high-interest children’s picture books or novels. Second, they targeted direct instruction to reading and writing skills identified as needs through ongoing diagnosis; word identification (especially sight-word development, synthetic phonics instruction, word families, and structural analysis -- through both drill-and-practice activities and language experience) and fluency development (as in choral reading and echo reading) were two common instructional components.

From observation of classroom time and from examination of lesson plans, it was apparent that computer time was less targeted than nontechnology teaching time. Clinicians often had no written objectives for the time they devoted to the computer. They were not able to explain their purpose in using the software, other than by vague statements such as “for sight word recognition” or “for phonics instruction.” With traditional instructional time, the clinicians could specifically identify the sight words (e.g., those taken from a picture book or novel being read) and the specific phonics skills to be learned (e.g., the short e).

This lack of specificity appeared to have three causes. First, much of the software use was not well planned. Clinicians would explore the Internet with their students for information on a particular sport, for example, but they had not previously explored and chosen effective Web sites on their own. Clinicians would choose a particular program for word-recognition development at the child’s approximate reading level, but they had not previously examined the software closely enough to identify the specific skills being addressed or to ascertain where those skills fit into the tutorial curriculum.

Second, much computer use was aimed at providing experience in using literacy on the computer rather than at the achievement of specific objectives. For example, one clinician who used KidPix for a combined drawing and language experience activity, wrote that she used it “for relaxation and fun.” Journaling using word processing could have been done just as well on paper; word searches and Hangman games could have been done on paper, as well. Use of the computer appeared to be occurring more for general enrichment of the clinical experience than for targeting areas of literacy need.

Third, some of the computer use was designed simply to motivate. As those familiar with clinical situations will know, motivation in a university clinic setting is not usually much of a problem. The children are highly motivated simply by the rare opportunity to have the undivided attention of a caring adult. The clinician further motivates by designing activities that will appeal to the child, such as choosing books that are on topics of great interest to the child or creating appealing drill-and-practice games (such as “sight word baseball” or “vocabulary football”). The major motivational issue facing most clinicians has more to do with encouraging a long-lasting love of reading and writing that will go beyond the clinical situation.

Yet, there are always children who lack motivation even in the clinical setting. This is where clinicians in this study often tried to use computers to encourage and interest their students. Their focus was less in trying to make gains in achievement and more in simply trying to establish a positive overall attitude on the part of the children. In some cases, use of the computer lab was offered directly as a reward for cooperative hard work in more objective-oriented, traditional instruction.

The clinicians’ view of the purpose in using computers is apparently shared generally among teachers. In his survey of teachers carried out for Education Week, Hoff (1999, online document) reported that nearly one-third of respondents used software in the classroom primarily because it is “interesting and motivational for students,” rather than for “mastering skills and knowledge.” Of teachers who used Web sites for instruction, only 14 percent reported that their primary purpose was to develop skills and knowledge, while 34 percent said they were most concerned about giving students “some variety or a break from normal classroom activity.”

Drill-and-practice word-recognition instruction. The largest category of software use (46 of the 104 choices) was for word-recognition instruction using drill-and-practice software. The clinic had three major word-recognition series available: two older series from MECC designed for the Apple II computer (Phonics Prime Time and Words at Work), and the newer Reader Rabbit series from The Learning Company. The latter was by far the more popular (26 uses as compared to 3 for the older MECC series). The Pacman-like Word Munchers program was used by eight clinicians. The extensive use of word-level programs was influenced by the make up of the student population, as almost all children were functioning at the preprimer, primer, or first-grade reading level (see Table 2).

As mentioned above, observation by the researcher indicated that clinicians commonly had not examined software sufficiently to identify relevant target skills. For example, clinicians would frequently simply sit with their student to explore the use of Reader Rabbit for the first time, figuring out how to load the program and deciphering the directions as they went along. After observing this, clinicians were advised by the clinic director that more preparation was necessary, but with all the demands on their time, it was apparent that this advice was not always heeded. Also, many clinicians felt so confident in their computer ability that they did not see the need to study the program’s operation prior to using it with the children.

However, by the end of the clinic sessions when the clinicians filled out questionnaires on their computer use, they had become familiar enough with the software that they were able to describe their use of it with reference to quite specific skills: for example, medial short vowels and consonant blends with Reader Rabbit II, sight words and word families with Reader Rabbit I. While the high motivational power of these programs was often mentioned, only a few clinicians specifically stated that they thought the students’ knowledge had increased as a result of their use (for example, with vowel sounds using Reader Rabbit I or with blends and diphthongs using Phonics Prime Time).

Word processing. Word processing was used, often extensively, by 23 of the 37 clinicians. Several older monochrome Macintosh computers with dot matrix printers were readily available near the clinic tutorial stations, and clinicians would frequently spend time at them with the children, typing journals, practicing spelling, or writing stories. Clinicians also made use of the computers after the clinic sessions, to type and print out language experience stories or a story a child had written by hand.

A surprising finding was that Student Writing Center, a word processing-like program for creating classroom newspapers, was not used at all by the clinicians. It was readily available, since it had been installed on the hard drive of each lab computer. The program is frequently used by local schools, as it is often supplied free of charge with hardware purchases, so many of the clinicians were already knowledgeable about it. ClarisWorks, a standard word-processing program for Macintosh, was used extensively.

Clinicians noted that the children learned to use the word-processing program readily, though typing was inevitably quite slow. (One child convinced her mother that she should buy a keyboarding tutorial program for their home computer.) Some clinicians noted that use of the word processor worked well in motivating the children to write. One, who was trying to encourage writing through use of invented spelling, also suggested that her student “was slightly more willing to take risks with words and their spelling on the computer than when he physically wrote words on paper.”

With respect to the problem of keyboarding speed, one clinician made use of the slow pace of hunt-and-peck typing to guide her student in thinking through letter-sound relationships. Another clinician suggested that word processing “alleviated the frustration of letter formation in writing” for her second grader. Still another, whose student wrote daily pen pal letters to another child in the clinic, liked the legibility of word-processed letters. The benefit of word processing over handwriting for these children was mentioned by several clinicians.

Another clinician used ClarisWorks to have his student type the sight-word lists she was studying. He suggested that the very act of typing was a valuable part of the sight-word learning experience, and that the child enjoyed the task. Two clinicians used the spelling checker to correct spelling, though one found that misspellings were so serious that the checker could not suggest correct alternatives, which was frustrating for the child.

Electronic books. Another surprising finding was the limited use of electronic books by the clinicians. These books are widely available: Balajthy (1996) reported that some 265 electronic books for children were available in 1995 and that, up until that year, that number had been growing by 33 percent annually. Observations during the clinicians’ initial introduction to the computer lab and the software collection had suggested enthusiasm about the entertaining electronic books that were available.

In the end, however, only nine uses of electronic books were noted. Some clinicians complained that too much off-task behavior resulted from use of the books, with children pursuing point-and-click game activities that took away from learning time. Clinicians gave rather vague objectives for reading the e-books Arthur’s Teacher Trouble (“for enjoyment and interaction with a story”) and Ruff’s Bone (“to have fun with reading”). E-book use played no central part in the instructional plans for the children.

Electronic books are often criticized by educators as “edutainment” -- giving more emphasis to the entertainment components than the educational. One clinician concurred in her assessment of the use of the Aladdin and Lion King: “Students LOVED these; literacy activities are ‘tucked in’...but not designed to be a ‘teaching’ tool; more for a fun ‘computer literacy’ experience.”

Yet the final questionnaires indicated a good deal of enthusiasm on the part of those who chose to use the electronic books. For example, one clinician wrote that Just Grandma and Me was “highly entertaining with appropriate language ability” for his student, who was a fifth grader reading at a low third-grade level.

Internet use. Still another unexpected finding was that only 12 clinicians made use of Internet access. Clinicians’ repeated comments confirmed that use of the Internet in this clinical setting was discouraged by hardware difficulties. The recently installed computers did not have adequate memory, and the browser would occasionally fail to function properly. This was a particular problem when the clinician did not quit all other programs open on the computer. (Some clinicians were confused by the fact that more than one program could be running at a time and did not regularly shut down programs they had finished using; these often remained running when the next clinician came to use the computer.)

Another problem mentioned by clinicians had to do with the children’s inability to read Internet material, a persistent challenge for children with reading difficulties (Balajthy, 1997). Most children were reading at levels far below those needed for success with typical Internet material, even material designed specifically for children. One clinician noted that children need help both in recognizing what information to read (i.e., selecting relevant material -- one child was noticeably confused by the ubiquitous advertisements and by other sidebars on the screen) and in the actual reading task. Clinicians working with older children were more likely to use the Internet.

In general, however, clinicians who did use the Internet were enthusiastic about it. “When working, it’s great!” one wrote on her questionnaire. The major use of the Internet was in researching high-interest topics such as sports, foreign countries, and sharks. Quite a number of children also visited Disney.com for activities and readings related to Disney films and television shows. It is clear that the possibilities for creative use of the Internet in reading and writing experiences is increasingly recognized by teachers (Karchmer, 2000).

One-on-one instruction with the computer. In using the Pacman-like Word Munchers with Dan, a third grader, the clinician noted that she had modified the way the program was designed to be used, telling Dan “which words to munch. Otherwise this program would have been too difficult for him. (He had to think of the [target] word, say the words with the same sounds, eat them, while trying to get away from the monster.)” The clinician identified her objective as teaching word identification based on auditory perception, rather than the game’s actual objective of medial vowel drill and practice.

This modification of the original software objective, carried out in a situation in which the tutor was working one on one with a child at the computer, was typical of computer use in the clinic. The researcher observed no occasion in which a tutor sent a child to work independently on a computer. In fact, tutor input during computer use was substantial. Clinicians guided the children in software use, explaining the directions. But, more important, the clinicians actively modified the software tasks and objectives to meet the individual needs and abilities of the children. These modifications appear to be an important factor in classroom computer use. Higgins and Hess (1998, online abstract), for example, found that teacher modifications in the use of electronic books were necessary to enhance vocabulary learning.

Hardware. Three important observations were made related to the issue of hardware. First, all clinicians and children in this study strongly preferred the late-model Power Macintosh computers over the older Apple IIGS and monochrome Macintosh models. The Reading and Literacy Clinic had a wide selection of software for the Apple IIGS computers, and both those models and monochrome Macintosh computers were readily available in the clinic. In the end, it was apparent that they were simply taking up space, and almost all of them will be removed in the near future.

Second, hardware problems actively discouraged use of computers to an extent that may be surprising to experienced computer users, who are accustomed to frustrations. This was apparent with the Internet access difficulties described above. Other hardware-related difficulties arose, which the clinic director attempted to address. For example, a networking program forced clinicians to save their word-processing files to floppy disks, as computer shutdown would automatically erase anything saved on the hard drive. It became apparent that clinicians either could not remember to save on floppies or were confused about the procedure. To solve the problem, the networking program was disabled to allow saving to hard drives. One of the dot matrix printers was balky, so the director posted a detailed note next to it, explaining how problems could be avoided. After repeated frustrations, the printer was replaced. On occasion, clinicians would work with their students using word processing, not noticing that the particular computer they had chosen had no printer. Saving documents to floppy disk to load on a computer with a printer was a challenge to some of the clinicians. Eventually, the word-processing software was deleted from the hard drives of computers without printers.

Third, ready availability of hardware and software was a critical factor. In addition to the software in the clinic, over 100 software programs were available in the college library. Except for one instance, none of these programs was used. The clinicians also had access to a scanner and a color printer, at a site across from the computer lab and on a separate network. The scanner was never used and the color printer was used only once.

Children’s motivation to use computers. Clinicians almost unanimously noted the high motivation children had to use computers. Danny, for example, was a second-grade child who had initially been reluctant to attend the clinic. He would cry and hold on to his mother when she tried to drop him off. His clinician was concerned that he would drop out. Computer use, and a patient, caring clinician, helped turn the corner. He would ask to use the computer every day.

On the other hand, it was clear that motivation was quite idiosyncratic, a factor also noted in earlier research (e.g., Case & Truscott, 1999). A program that would be enthusiastically received by one student would not work as well with another student. Danny loved the Reader Rabbit series, for example, but Travis was quickly bored by it; on the other hand, Travis’s clinician noted that a simple, public-domain version of Hangman that lacked sound, color, and sophisticated graphics “Worked great! Was an excellent motivator.” In general, it was noted both in the clinicians’ questionnaires and in observations by the researcher that the drill-and-practice programs were motivating for relatively brief periods (usually 10 to 15 minutes per session).

Back to menu

Conclusions and Implications

The scope of this study, concerned with a single cohort of graduate clinicians, effectively limits the offering of broad generalizations based on its findings. However, the conclusions below correspond both with prior research and with reasonable expectations based on the study’s context.

Positive implications for literacy clinics. Results suggest that use of technology offers a variety of potential benefits for clinical instruction in reading and literacy. Such a finding will take no one by surprise, as such benefits have long been touted by advocates of technology use (see, e.g., Balajthy, 1986; Reinking, 1987; Strickland, Feeley, & Wepner, 1987) and continue to be recognized (Kamil, Intrator, & Kim, 2000; Leu, 2000; Wepner, Valmont, & Thurlow, 2000).

Yet despite all such advocacy, the reading field has shown little interest in use of technology. Some have suggested that this lack of interest stems from either insecurity about computer use or from an anti-technological bias on the part of teachers and researchers. The report of the U.S. National Reading Panel (2000) suggests that

Many reading researchers did not and do not consider technology to be a mainstream topic. That is, many believe that reading instruction can be delivered only by a human. Others believe that technology must be considered in the overall context of reading instruction; they believe that other problems in reading instruction should be attended to before issues of technology. (p. 6-3)

The reluctance on the part of the leaders of the reading field to investigate, use, and advocate the use of technology thus may stem from technophobia or from a simple lack of awareness. Findings such as those in the present study can be used to improve attitudes and sharpen awareness. These clinicians demonstrated an eagerness to use technology above and beyond the minimum course requirements. The children in this study, all of whom were experiencing severe difficulties in acquiring literacy, responded positively to what the National Reading Panel (2000) review of research called “the motivational advantage [of computer technology] over conventional instruction” (p. 6-8).

Implications to be drawn from the present study, then, include a strong advocacy for use of computer technology to make reading and literacy instruction fit better into the technology-rich lives of children. While no indications were found that the use of technology yielded measurably superior achievement over use of conventional methods, there were clear indications of benefit to overall response to instruction. One caveat, however, would be the suggestion that teachers be aware that student response to software is idiosyncratic. Some students will respond well to some programs and poorly to others, while other students will have opposite responses. Teachers need to be aware of the diversity among the student population and be prepared to make individualized instructional decisions.

Potential inappropriate use of technology. In the face of these positive findings, the present study also indicates that teachers who recognize the positive potential of technology may unknowingly limit its benefits by inappropriate use. Clinicians in this study did not carry out the planning necessary to make optimum use of their technology-based instruction. Time using computers was oriented more to exploration and play than to achievement of concrete objectives. Little time was spent examining software, so the software choices were oddly random and without purpose, and the instructional time sometimes dealt with inappropriate activities in terms of skill objectives and levels of difficulty. While clinicians attempted to target their conventional instruction directly to students’ needs, their technology-based instruction was much less targeted. (Despite this problem, however, the one-to-one nature of the clinical tutorial experience allowed clinicians to intervene so that the computer-based experience would be successful.)

Such lack of focus presents serious concerns today, when teachers, parents, and students are investing significant financial and time resources into educational technology. In the midst of the general enthusiasm for computer-based instruction among teachers, local and state-level administrators, political leaders, and the general public, there has long been an undercurrent of concern and criticism about its cost-benefit ratio (Balajthy, 1988; Healy, 2000; Oppenheimer, 1997, online document).

The need for teacher support. The present study does not so much indicate that poorly planned instruction has no benefits as suggest that efforts should be made to enable teachers to use computers more effectively (Woodward & Rieth, 1997). Additionally, the study suggests specific directions in which such efforts might be made.

Of primary import is the finding mentioned above that clinicians did not target their technology-based instruction directly to the needs of the students. Teachers and administrators should be aware that computers are viewed by some more for play or motivation, or as magical tools that automatically yield achievement results. Once educators are alert to the principle that technology-based instruction should be targeted to individual student needs as directly as conventional instruction, they will be on guard against these views. It is to be hoped that administrators will provide the resources necessary to plan and implement such targeted instruction.

Another key finding related to teacher support is the use of hardware and software. Most teachers today are far more technologically literate than they were 5 or 10 years ago, but their knowledge may be limited to the hardware they use at home on a daily basis, or to a very few pieces of software with which they are familiar. Complications due to unfamiliar hardware, software, and networking procedures in this study would have presented insurmountable obstacles had not resource personnel (including more knowledgeable peers) been available.

The clinicians in the study used only those technologies that were readily available on site. They did not travel to offsite software collections or use special hardware located in different locations. Clinicians quickly learned to avoid hardware and software that was flawed or malfunctioning.

Practical suggestions in terms of providing support for teachers include the following:

1. Provide the time necessary to review and choose software. It takes a significant amount of time to examine a new piece of software, understand its operation and educational purpose, and plan for its use with children.
   
   
2. Support teacher teams in creating grade-level lists of school software that address key skills, directly matching software with related components of the classroom curriculum at that grade level.
   
   
3. Fund the personnel necessary so that teachers who use technology in their classrooms will be able to call for aid that is readily available.
   
   
4. Maintain hardware in excellent condition, so that complications are minimized and teachers and students are not discouraged from using it.
   
   
5. Supply sufficient hardware and software so that teachers and students have it at hand for planned and unplanned use.
   
   
6. Educate teachers in methods of using technology in a variety of ways that target individual student and class needs. Kamil and Intrator (1998) divided such methods into “old” methods that simply function to replace traditional approaches (such as using computer-based drill programs that are the equivalent of workbook pages, a method used heavily by the clinicians in this study) and “new” methods (such as use of hypertext on the Internet).

Back to menu

References

Balajthy, E. (1986). Microcomputers in reading and language arts. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Back

Balajthy, E. (1988). Computers and instruction: Implications of the rising tide of criticism for reading education. Reading Research and Instruction, 28, 49-59.
Back

Balajthy, E. (1996). Commercial literacy software trends for 1996. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 13, 87-93.
Back

Balajthy, E. (1997). Impact of the Internet. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 13, 293-300.
Back

Balajthy, E. (2000). Is instructional technology worth my professional time, resources, and efforts? In S. Wepner, W. Valmont, & R. Thurlow (Eds.), Linking literacy and technology: A guide for K-8 classrooms (pp. 203-217). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Back

Bangert-Drowns, R. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 69-93.
Back

Bruce, B.C., & Hogan, M.P. (1998). The disappearance of technology: Toward an ecological model of literacy. In D. Reinking, M.C. McKenna, L.D. Labbo, & R.D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformation in a post-typographic world (pp. 269-281). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [Note: This book is reviewed elsewhere in this journal.]
Back

Case, C., & Truscott, D.M. (1999). The lure of bells and whistles: Choosing the best software to support reading instruction. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 293-296.
Back

Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Word processing and writing in elementary classrooms: A critical review of related literature. Review of Educational Research, 61, 107-155.
Back

Fey, M. (1997). Sharing writing through computer networking. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 13, 323-388.
Back

Healy, J. N. (2000). Endangered minds. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Back

Higgins, N., & Hess, L. (1998). Using electronic books to promote vocabulary development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 418687) Abstract available: www.edrs.com/Webstore/Detail.CFM?Ednumber=ED418687
Back

Hoff, D.J. (1999, September). Digital content and the curriculum. Technology counts ’99: Building the digital curriculum (Education Week Online Special Reports, retrieved October 1, 1999, from the World Wide Web). Available: www.edweek.org/sreports/tc99/articles/curr.htm
Back

Horney, M., & Anderson-Inman, L. (1999). Supported text in electronic reading environments. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 127-168.
Back

Jones, K., Torgesen, J.K., & Sexton, M. (1987). Using computer guided practice to increase the decoding fluency in learning disabled children: A study using the Hint and Hunt I program. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 122-128.
Back

Kamil, M.L., & Intrator, S. (1998). Quantitative trends in publication of research on technology and reading, writing, and literacy. In T. Shanahan & F. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), Forty-seventh yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 383-396). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
Back

Kamil, M.L., Intrator, S.M., & Kim, H.S. (2000). The effects of other technologies on literacy and literacy learning. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume III (pp. 771-790). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Back

Kamil, M.L., & Lane, D.M. (1998). Researching the relation between technology and literacy: An agenda for the 21st century. In D. Reinking, M.C. McKenna, L.D. Labbo, & R.D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformation in a post-typographic world (pp. 323-341). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [Note: This book is reviewed elsewhere in this journal.]
Back

Kamp, S. (1999). 1999 Education market report, K-12. Washington, DC: Software and Information Industry Association.
Back

Karchmer, R.A. (2000). Understanding teachers’ perspectives of Internet use in the classroom: Implications for teacher education and staff development. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 16, 81-85.
Back

Leu, D.J. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education in an information age. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Volume III (pp. 743-770). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Back

Leu, D.J., & Kinzer, C.K. (2000). The convergence of literacy instruction with networked technologies for information and communication. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 108-127. Available: www.catchword.com/ira/00340553/v35n1/contp1-1.htm
Back

Leu, D.J., & Leu, D.D. (2000). Teaching with the Internet: Lessons from the classroom. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Back

McCormick, S. (1994). A nonreader becomes a reader: A case study of literacy acquisition by a severely disabled reader. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 156-176.
Back

McKenna, M., Reinking, D., Labbo, L., & Kieffer, R. (1999). The electronic transformation of literacy and its implications for the struggling reader. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 111-126.
Back

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Available: www.nationalreadingpanel.org/Publications/publications.htm
Back

Oppenheimer, T. (1997). The computer delusion. Atlantic Monthly, 280, 45-62. Available: www.theatlantic.com/issues/97jul/computer.htm
Back

Reinking, D. (Ed.). (1987). Reading and computers: Issues for theory and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Back

Ross, J.A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Hannay, L. (1999, April). Collateral benefits of interactive literacy program for grade 1/2 students and their teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 429 587) Abstract available: www.edrs.com/Webstore/Detail.CFM?Ednumber=ED429587
Back

Roth, S., & Beck, I. (1987). Theoretical and instructional implications of the assessment of two microcomputer word recognition programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 197-218.
Back

Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R.J. (1996). Off track: When poor readers become “learning disabled.” Boulder, CO: Westview.
Back

Strickland, D.S., Feeley, J.T., & Wepner, S.B. (1987). Using computers in the teaching of reading. New York: Teachers College Press.
Back

Tao, L., & Reinking, D. (2000). Email and literacy education. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 16, 169-174.
Back

Torgesen, J.K., Waters, M.D., Cohen, A.L., & Torgesen, J.L. (1988). Improving sight-word recognition skills in LD children: An evaluation of three computer program variations. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 125-132.
Back

van Daal, V., & van der Leij, A. (1992). Computer-based reading and spelling practice for children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 186-195.
Back

Wepner, S.B., Valmont, W.J., & Thurlow, R. (Eds.). (2000). Linking literacy and technology: A guide for K-8 classrooms. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Sample chapter available: bookstore.reading.org/cgi-bin/OnlineBookstore.storefront/EN/Product/258-553
Back

Wise, B. (1992). Whole words and decoding for short-term learning: Comparisons on a “talking-computer” system. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 147-167.
Back

Wise, B., & Olson, R. (1994). Computer speech and the remediation of reading and spelling problems. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12, 207-220.
Back

Woodward, J., & Rieth, H. (1997). A historical review of technology research in special education. Review of Educational Research, 67, 503-536.
Back

Worthy, J. (1998). “On every page someone gets killed!” Book conversations you don’t hear in school. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41, 508-517.
Back

Wright, D.J. (1998). Choosing to read; overcoming reading apathy. Teaching and Change, 5, 225-231.
Back

Back to menu

Software Cited

Africa trail. (1997). St. Paul, MN: MECC.

Aladdin storybook [electronic book]. (1995). Burbank, CA: Disney Interactive.

Arthur’s teacher trouble [electronic book]. (1992). Novato, CA: Brøderbund.

Bailey’s book house [electronic book]. (1993). Redmond, WA: Edmark.

ClarisWorks. (1994). Santa Clara, CA: Claris.

Grolier’s encyclopedia [electronic book]. (1997). Danbury, CT: Grolier Interactive.

Hangman plus. (1990). Manchester, NH: Ken Winograd.

Harry and the haunted house [electronic book]. (1995). Novato, CA: Brøderbund Software.

Jack Prelutsky poems [electronic book]. (1996). Novato, CA: Brøderbund Software.

Just grandma and me [electronic book]. (1992). Novato, CA: Brøderbund Software.

KidPix. (1996). Novato, CA: Brøderbund Software.

Lion king storybook [electronic book]. (1995). Burbank, CA: Disney Interactive.

Microsoft works. (1992). Redmond, CA: Microsoft.

Netscape navigator. (1997). Mountain View, CA: Netscape Communication.

Phonics prime Time. (1986). St. Paul, MN: MECC.

Print shop. (1997). Novato, CA: Brøderbund Software.

Reader rabbit I. (1995). Fremont, CA: Learning Company.

Reader rabbit II. (1995.) Fremont, CA: Learning Company.

Reader rabbit III. (1995). Fremont, CA: Learning Company.

Reading maze. (1991). Scotts Valley, CA: Great Wave Software.

Ruff’s Bone [electronic book]. (1994). Novato, CA: Brøderbund.

Student writing center. (1995). Fremont, CA: Learning Company.

Word munchers. (1997). Fremont, CA: Learning Company.

Words at work. (1986). St. Paul, MN: MECC.

Word search. (1987). Anchorage, AK: Bobby Diggins.

Back to menu

About the Authors

Ernest Balajthy is an associate professor and director of the Reading/Literacy Center at the State University of New York at Geneseo (School of Education, Geneseo, NY 14454, USA). He is the author of two books (published by Prentice Hall) on the use of computers for reading and literacy instruction. He can be contacted by e-mail at Balajthy@geneseo.edu.

Kristin Reuber is a graduate of the SUNY-Geneseo master’s program in reading education. She is a classroom teacher at the Louisa Wright Elementary School (914 Grand Stone Court, Lebanon, OH, USA).

Corrine Robinson is also a graduate of the SUNY-Geneseo master’s program in reading education. She is a reading specialist at Livonia Intermediate School (2 School Road, Livonia, NY 14487, USA). Contact her by e-mail at rintin43@aol.com.

Back to top

To print this article, point and click your mouse anywhere on the article’s text; then use your browser’s print command.

Citation: Balajthy, E., Reuber, K., & Robinson, C. (2001, October). Teachers’ use of technology in a reading clinic. Reading Online, 5(3). Available: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=balajthy/index.html

Reading Online, www.readingonline.org
Posted October 2001
© 2001 International Reading Association, Inc.   ISSN 1096-1232