A Constructivist Stretch: Preservice Teachers Meet Preteens in a Technology-Based Literacy Project

John F. Bauer
Rebecca S. Anderson

Abstract This article describes a study conducted within a constructivist framework to examine preservice teachers’ development and implementation of a collaborative, technology-based literacy project with 11- and 12-year-old learners. Using technology as a tool, teams of preservice teachers learned how to set goals, perform tasks, and produce a viable end product in a given period. Findings were mixed: the preservice teachers learned the value of Internet technology, e-mail, and hypermedia applications, but problems related to assignments and group work were noted. The study has implications for field projects in teacher education that involve tutoring, technology, and literacy.

Related Postings from the Archives Cybermentoring by Paula Boxie and Gerald Maring School-University Partnerships Through Online Pattern Books by Gerald Maring, Paula Boxie, and Beau Wiseman Teachers’ Use of Technology in a Reading Clinic by Ernest Balajthy, Kristin Reuber, and Corrine Robinson

Computer literacy stands beside the three Rs as a fundamental skill (Ornstein, 1999, p. 266).

It had all started with some “What if...?” questions months before the semester began: What would happen if undergraduate college students enrolled in a literacy methods course were given responsibility for designing a literacy project? What if these preservice teachers implemented the project collaboratively with children in a classroom setting? What would they want to learn, research, and write about? What if use of technology were made a specific requirement? What would the children and preservice teachers learn from the experience? Would such a component of a teacher-education course be successful?

There was theoretical support for the endeavor (see, e.g., Grace, 1999), but scant evidence that it had ever been tried before. So we synthesized our “What if...?” questions and forged ahead with the overall purpose of exploring how computer technology can be used as an important tool to enhance the teaching and learning of literacy.

Back to menu

Theoretical Perspectives

Educators, politicians, and the general public have strongly embraced computer technology as a powerful instructional tool (Jonassen, 1995; Morrison, Lowther, & DeMeulle, 1999; Wetzel, 1998; Woolley, 1998). As a result, a growing number of literacy teachers are striving -- and, indeed, are often pressured -- to integrate computer technology into classroom activities and collaborative projects (Anderson & Speck, 2001; Bruce, 1997, online PDF document; Iannone, 1998, online document; Kinzer, 1997; Leu & Leu 1997; Maring, 1997; Mike, 1996; Reinking, 1997, online document; Ryder & Graves, 1996/1997).

Related to this movement is a changing perception of the goals of education and what it means to be educated. Traditionally, teachers have lectured and students have worked individually, memorizing information for the purpose of performing well on tests. More recently, however, conceptions of learning grounded in a social-constructivist paradigm position teachers as facilitators and students as actively engaged, working collaboratively on multidisciplinary projects and regulating their own learning for the purpose of understanding subject matter (Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Fosnot, 1996; Vygotsky, 1978). Although computer technology can support instruction based on either approach, the growing literature on technology integration in classrooms is aligned with social-constructivism and views learning as a process of dialogue and negotiation of meaning from shared social experiences (Brown, 1997; Conyers, Kappel, & Rooney, 1999; Wolffe, 1997).

Windschitl (1998) cautions that the vast majority of published work on technology integration in classrooms consists of anecdotal descriptions that tend to be intuitive analyses of what works logistically -- and what doesn’t. He claims, “If our goal is to maximize the possibilities for student learning with technology, this will require a critical examination of the intersection of the affordances of information technology, pedagogy, and learning” (p. 28). Similarly, Mergendoller (1996) states, “While technological tools can spur pedagogical changes, the utility of such changes must be measured ultimately by their impact on student learning” (p. 45).

This article is intended to contribute to the professional literature about computer technology and its influence on teaching and learning. The study it describes examined a collaborative project that involved preservice teachers in development and implementation of a technology-based literacy project in a sixth-grade classroom, with learners aged 11 to 12 years. Questions guiding the study included

• How do sixth graders respond to their involvement in a technology-based literacy project?
• What are the reactions of preservice teachers to a university course requirement that they teach literacy to sixth graders using technology?
• What are the issues and concerns associated with attempts to use computer technology in a literacy project at the sixth-grade level in a constructivist setting?

Back to menu

Methods

According to Windschitl (1998), qualitative approaches to classroom research are appropriate because they employ a variety of methods that can help clarify phenomena, add valuable contextual information, emphasize discovery (rather than verification), and describe what is happening to study participants. In particular, case studies are well suited to in-depth examination of educational practice (Merriam, 1998; Patton, 1990; Windschitl, 1998). The study described here was qualitative in nature and employed a case study methodology. It took the form of teacher research, which we, like many educators (e.g., Baumann, Shockley-Bisplinghoff, & Allen, 1997; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990; Lytle & Cochran-Smith, 1994; O’Dell, 1987; Olson, 1990), value as a form of systematic, intentional inquiry about classroom dynamics.

Quantitative methods were used in conjunction with qualitative to triangulate findings and strengthen the study (Patton, 1990). Data from student responses on questionnaires administered before and after the project were analyzed using Likert-like scales to measure attitudes toward computers and computer competence. This procedure accounts, in part, for the percentage figures that we report in our findings.

Study setting and context. Researchers were a literacy professor (second author of this article) and graduate student (first author) at the University of Memphis, a large urban university in the southern United States. Locations of the study included the sixth-grade classroom at Campus Elementary School, various classrooms at the university, and the university’s computer laboratory. Campus Elementary School is located adjacent to the university and has approximately 370 students in kindergarten to Grade 6 (50% Caucasian, 46% African American, 4% other races and ethnic backgrounds), with a staff of 20 teachers. The sixth-grade classroom is equipped with three computers (Macintosh platform), one printer, and one computer with a large monitor and built-in videocassette player.

We team taught a one-semester, required undergraduate methods class called “Literacy in the Middle Grades” to 30 preservice teachers. In the first meeting of the class, the preservice teachers learned they were to tutor the 24 students in the sixth-grade class at Campus Elementary School. The preservice teachers were divided into teams of three or four, and each team was assigned to three sixth graders. Our class then met for 13 subsequent weeks. The tutoring sessions were scheduled for the first hour of the 3-hour college class; the remaining 2 hours of our weekly sessions were used as a discussion and presentation forum -- what we called the “After-Action Report.”

Our choice of a literacy objective was somewhat nontraditional. We felt we needed a hands-on end product each team could contribute as part of a whole-class effort. With input from the preservice teachers, we decided that each team would contribute a chapter to a book titled A Young Person’s Guide to the City of Memphis. (Sample pages from the book are available here.) It was to be compiled like a travel brochure and written by young people for those new to the Memphis area. During a brainstorming session, the college students selected such chapter topics as local entertainment, multicultural entertainment, geography, tourism, public facilities, sports and sporting events, famous personalities, and history. These were topics that could be easily researched using such resources as the Internet and local tourist information centers. In addition to writing a chapter for the book, each team would create and share with the class a hypermedia (PowerPoint or HyperStudio) presentation on its chapter at the end of the semester.

Tutoring sessions in the computer lab did not begin right away. Meetings in the regular classroom were held first, as a staging opportunity for teams to decide their courses of action and to work on traditional aspects of literacy instruction. Areas such as vocabulary development, reading and writing strategies, and study skills improvement were all integrated within the context of developing and writing the book chapter. The preservice teachers had prepared lesson plans designed to guide activities in the most productive manner. In creating their lesson plans, they were asked to consider the following questions:

1. What literacy skills will students develop from doing your specific topic in this unit? Why is it important that they learn these skills?
2. How are your lesson objectives going to achieve the goals noted above in point 1?
3. What regular class and computer activities will help you accomplish these objectives?
4. What literature and resources will you need to accomplish these objectives?
5. What technological strategies can you use to make this a creative unit?
6. How will you evaluate your students?

After initial brainstorming and planning sessions, the groups researched their chapter topics, which for the most part consisted of navigating Internet sites on the computers at the university computer lab. (The lab, which offers Windows-based PCs, was large enough to accommodate all the groups at the same time and was the setting for the presentations on the last night.) Further computer use entailed correspondence via e-mail between group members during the week and presentations at the end of the semester.

The more traditional aspect of the literacy instruction took the form of vocabulary development, reading and writing strategies, and study skills improvement, integrated within the context of developing and writing the book chapter.

Data sources and analysis. Data were collected in a variety of ways during the semester:

• A questionnaire focusing on students’ computer experiences and attitudes was administered to sixth-grade students and preservice teachers at the beginning and end of the project.
  
  
• Over the course of the 13-week period, sixth graders and preservice teachers were provided with three writing prompts that focused on their attitudes, skills, and knowledge regarding technology use in their literacy project.
  
  
• Two 1-hour focus group interviews were conducted after the project was completed. One involved six randomly selected sixth-grade students, and the second was conducted with six randomly selected preservice teachers. The interviews, which were audiotaped and transcribed, focused on students’ learning and assessment procedures used in the project.
  
  
• Informal interviews of participants took place during the course of the project.
  
  
• All sixth-grade student work completed during the project was collected and photocopied.
  
  
• Various journals formed another data source. Weekly journal entries were written by the two researchers and exchanged via e-mail; the sixth graders and preservice teachers also kept reflective journals. Together, these journal sources provided a record of what occurred during each class that was significant from the students’, researchers’, and preservice teachers’ perspectives.
  
  
• At the end of each class, the sixth-grade students and the preservice teachers wrote exit slips, anonymous messages to the researchers about what they learned during the class.

Data were analyzed at the completion of the study. We began by reading independently the responses to the writing prompts and the journals, exit slips, questionnaires, interviews, and student work to gain insights about computer integration. We then did a second reading and, using open coding, identified categories and themes for each data set (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Categories and themes were refined through ongoing conversations and by returning to the data set frequently for confirmation of the research questions. Triangulation of findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) was conducted by each of us individually; we also met regularly as a research team.

Back to menu

Limitations

As instructors of the class, we were directly involved in the project. We influenced it at every juncture: design, implementation, tutoring, counseling, data collection, and analysis. This served to compromise our neutrality and impartiality as researchers, which is a limitation of the study. Trustworthiness of data is tied directly to the trustworthiness of the evaluator who undertakes collection and analysis (Patton, 1990, p. 475). Instructors of college classes naturally want to see their classes succeed, as we did ours. We helped solve problems at every turn. In the section on issues and concerns, below, we attempt to ameliorate this bias by focusing on the negative side of the project.

A second limitation was that a number of variables could not be controlled. Foremost among these was the extent to which tutors influenced the writing and final products of the students with whom they worked. Did the students really do their own PowerPoint slides? We also had no control over absenteeism, which affected the numbers in the pre- and post-study questionnaires.

Back to menu

Findings

The levels of analysis used in our study produced three main themes related to the research questions:

1. The effects of computer tasks on student attitude toward literacy development
2. The effects of computer use on the teaching process of preservice teachers
3. The role and influence of assessment procedures and the constructivist setting

Effects of computer tasks on student attitude. A variety of literacy tasks included in the unit required the use of computer technology:

• Word processing to write, revise, and edit writing that was published in the class book
• The Internet to conduct research and access information
• E-mail to exchange rough drafts of writing and discuss topics of inquiry among classmates or, in one case, to exchange information with keypals in other countries
• PowerPoint presentations, webpages, or multimedia presentations as a culminating activity

Data from a writing prompt that asked “Did these computer practices help you learn?” and was administered to the sixth graders at the end of the project indicated that 79 percent of them had had a positive experience with technology; 36 percent mentioned the Internet or websites as reason for their positive responses, while almost as many said that they liked using HyperStudio and PowerPoint, and enjoyed working with graphics. One response to the question was “Yes! Because at first I didn’t really know stuff about making a webpage,” while another said, “Yes, because I learned how to do Claris Works and to get info quicker.” Of the 21 percent neutral or negative responses, all but one mentioned prior knowledge of technology as the reason they didn’t learn new computer techniques. As one student noted, “I didn’t think I needed help. I already knew how to do it.”

The sixth graders confirmed the positive nature of these findings during follow-up interviews. They reported learning more computer skills (e.g., cut and paste, save, and searching for information on the Internet). They also reported learning letter-writing skills when they needed to craft business letters to request information from local tourist bureaus. It was clear they had a good time with most of their sessions, as their words from the interview transcripts indicate:

• “It was exciting to get e-mail, and writing was more fun. It makes you feel like you are more in charge -- like proud of yourself.”
• “I was more interested in trying different things on the computer, like all the colors in the paint.”
• “I liked chat rooms.”
• “It was easy to use the maps.”

The preservice teachers also felt that the students had reacted positively to the technology tasks. During the interview, members of the focus group claimed that the computer tasks were “very effective” or “very motivational,” that “graphics were exciting for kids,” and that the students “became confident and could tell it just wasn’t for games, that it could be integrated into school lessons. They liked all the variety.”

The students also reported coming into contact with common computer problems. There were occasional printing problems, and searching the Internet was a “waste of time” when it did not yield useful information. Preservice teachers corroborated some difficulties, noting that “Some kids would start surfing around the Internet and get off the track” and “One time the lab was shut down.”

We see these results as evidence that the wide variety of technology tasks used in the course of researching, editing, publishing, and presenting the final book chapters had a positive effect on attitudes toward learning. Even the array of computer problems encountered we construed as essential to technology learning in a practical context. In sum, these findings suggest that

• The sixth graders were generally receptive to a new learning paradigm
• Teaching and learning literacy skills can take place in a largely computerized context
• Teachers and students can learn lifelong computer skills in conjunction with literacy skills
• The use of computers in writing projects adds a new dimension to the enjoyment of learning
• Students appear to have increased interest in writing when there is an audience for their work (e.g., keypals, book presentations)
• Research and writing tasks done at the computer take on relevancy for students

Effects of computer use on preservice teachers’ teaching process. Field experience with students in school settings is a requirement of our undergraduate literacy methods course. Under the general guidelines of the College of Education for this field work, preservice teachers would normally locate a teacher willing to negotiate their role in the classroom. Unlike a formal student-teaching situation, these roles can range from mere observation to actual instruction on a limited basis.

In the case of this study, by bringing the sixth graders to our college preservice teachers, we were, in effect, controlling their field experience and ensuring that they would be getting excellent exposure to actual teaching. “Actual teaching,” of course, meant working with lesson plans and doing student assessment. Our other control factor was the technology-based instruction component: We picked the school, the students, and the instructional medium, and we didn’t know whether this would clash with the preservice teachers’ expectations. This may account for some of the mixed results noted below.

Our data indicate that both positive and negative reactions surfaced as a result of technology integration in instruction. The preservice teachers had taken a 3-hour course in technology basics, but had had no formal training in terms of practical application of technology in the classroom. The context was new to most of them, which gave rise to predictable questions and concerns, which were noted in comments on writing prompts and in interviews. Their reservations can be grouped into several types:

• Unfamiliar ground -- “We were all pretty nervous. I was terrified at first.”
• Technical considerations -- “We’re using PCs [in the university computer lab], but don’t most of the schools have Macs?”
• Skill levels of the students -- “Keyboarding skills are very limited, thus taking up class time.”
• Time involved in finding good Internet resources -- “We needed more time on the computers to get information for our topics.”
• Concerns about word-processing spell- and grammar-checking tools -- “Won’t word processing get in the way of their learning grammar and spelling skills?”

However, almost 75 percent of preservice teacher responses suggest that teaching with technology was well worth the effort, as these comments indicate:

• “Our level of confidence grew -- gave us new insights into our teaching.”
• “We had better interactions with our students.”
• “The kids were able to figure things out for themselves.”
• “I think computers are an excellent way to teach literacy -- they get more reading and research on the net.”
• “I learned a lot about integrating technology into the curriculum by watching the presentations at the end and getting the handouts.”
• “I feel technology in the classroom is an excellent way to teach literacy.”
• “I wish we would have spent more time at the computer -- the kids were so excited about it.”
• “Editing the writing material -- spelling and grammar -- went very well.”
• “After a little nervousness, we had a lot of fun.”

Perhaps the most important data source that indicated how well the preservice teachers managed their instruction was our informal observation. During the weekly tutoring sessions, we moved in and out of groups as they went about their business. After each session, we would critique the instruction and compare notes. The contrast between the tutoring sessions that took place in regular class settings as a prelude to teaching in the lab and the teaching that took place in the lab itself was striking. Discipline problems virtually disappeared, and there was no evidence of boredom. Computer-based instruction enhanced classroom decorum by riveting students to the screen. If facial expressions of these students were an indication of teaching success, it is almost sad to say that what the teachers were able to do with computers made teaching and learning with books pale by comparison.

In sum, our findings about the preservice teachers’ use of computers in their instruction suggest that

• Some teachers will be nervous about the undertaking
• Computer compatibility issues are likely to cause concern
• Students need to be monitored while on the Internet
• Teacher confidence can grow
• The variety of technology applications can add a positive dimension to the teaching of literacy
• Computers make revision work easier and faster
• Internet research can add a new dimension to reading skill development and vocabulary building.

Assessment procedures. We found that the preservice teachers had a frustrating time assessing the computer work of their sixth-grade students. Formulating rubrics and grading procedures has always been a challenge for teachers, and we knew that the technology component would pose additional issues not covered in methods texts. In a larger sense, our purpose in charging the preservice teachers with this responsibility was simply to make them aware that, when they use computers in their future classrooms, there will be no simple solutions to this difficult task. We added to their dilemma by posing this question: When you help your student with a computer project, are you grading his work or your own?

Some of the preservice teachers simply graded motivation and participation, but discovered an accountability flaw in this approach: “I think we were too lenient. There was a problem with student responsibility.” Others encountered the usual frustrations of absenteeism and make-up work, and were unsure how attitudes and willingness to participate should be judged. In addition, they were generally not confident about grading student writing.

According to the data, the preservice teachers spent much of their time on lesson planning and delivery, and not much on assessment. Understandably, part of the reason was their desire to avoid being judgmental, which meant being put into an uncomfortable situation. “I don’t know how to tell him his work isn’t very good without hurting his feelings,” one of them said, “so I just gave him praise and encouragement.”

Interestingly, the sixth graders echoed the dissatisfaction with the manner of their evaluation. They reported that their teachers too often gave verbal praise -- such as “good job” -- without constructive feedback or a direct grading of their work. They also reported that incentives were used (e.g., gift certificates to fast-food restaurants) to encourage completion of tasks. It was often not clear to the students how their work was to be judged, causing some confusion in terms of expectations.

To be honest, we were not quite certain which approach would work best: giving the preservice teachers a great deal of latitude in designing their own methods of assessment, or providing rubrics and other material up front as they commenced their instruction. These undergraduates were in their final year, approaching their student-teaching internship. Which approach would do them the most good? Hindsight reveals that we gave them too much latitude. The difficulties that the preservice teachers had with assessment tasks for this technology-based project suggest that more guidance should have been included in preparatory sessions, and that a hard copy “how-to” rubric would have been a good idea as a standard handout (this is discussed in more detail below). This would have preempted the stress that most groups endured in the process of designing their own standards.

The constructivist setting. Exit slips, the anonymous comments turned in to us by the preservice teachers at the end of every class period, began to show some dissatisfaction with the way groups were functioning. At issue was who was or was not doing their fair share. One remark was excessively harsh: “No one in our group likes her. We want her out.” Another stated dissatisfaction on two fronts: “Sixth graders did not participate. Some college students gave no effort.” Despite the fact that the preservice teachers had had considerable experience working in class groups in earlier courses, we were prompted to present a rare lecture on group dynamics in a collaborative setting. We stressed the importance of individual accountability to the group and the damage that can occur when this does not happen (Hooper & Rieber, 1999). In an unanticipated development, we found that as groups moved from the classroom basics, where they planned their uses of technology, to the computer lab, where they put their plans into action, the internecine quibbling waned dramatically.

At the other end of the attitude scale was a handful of preservice teachers who became committed to the project early and maintained their enthusiasm until the final night. Their general profile included a pre-existing inclination to use technology in the classroom and an eagerness to teach. They enjoyed group work and had no problem with division of responsibilities. At the end-of-semester interview, one of them said that his group was the best he had worked with in his college career, while another reported, “I truly enjoyed working with my group. We all worked very hard and shared the work load.”

The balance of our preservice teacher class fell between the positive and negative poles. We were able to move this group toward the positive side by resolving some perceived ambiguities in the group work, particularly with the sixth graders. For example, when two groups wanted to research the same topic for their book chapter, we helped break the topic into two sections. This kind of hands-on, active orchestration of details extended to the computer lab, where we helped the preservice teachers become more comfortable as they engaged in unfamiliar tasks in a unfamiliar setting.

Other questions emerged from group work at the computer, ranging from how to teach an unfamiliar computer skill (learn it on your own time, then teach it), to “What if the student knows more about computers than you do?” (teach them skills of research, organization, and writing). By the end of the semester, however, most of the problems had been resolved as the college students became comfortable working as teachers and evolving into facilitators of learning for the sixth graders.

Some complaints about doing too much for the sixth graders in terms of writing the book and presenting the result persisted, as well as some comments about not having enough time with the students. But it was clear that the class as a whole saw success in meeting the challenge, as evidenced by these comments:

• “I didn’t believe at first that it was going to come together, but it did. It was good!”
• “The project was frustrating at first but turned out to be rewarding.”
• “It was extremely hard to get things together with the whole group. It did get better as the semester went on, though.”
• “Project presentations were very good for all groups.”

The groups moved into production modes at different times, but they all got there. Our close supervision and positive attitude may have contributed to the overall success. We monitored progress in the computer lab and advised the groups on Internet research and hypermedia presentations. By modeling flexibility, we helped the preservice teachers learn that flexibility works. Most important, though, was that through close contact among the groups, the sixth graders began to touch their college tutors in ways that only teachers can describe. After all the results were in, most of the toughest attitudes of the preservice teachers had been conquered by their students, as illustrated by this comment: “This was a great idea. It was nice to work so closely with particular students. Wish we had more time with our sixth graders.”

Back to menu

Discussion

The goal of this project was for both sets of students to learn how computer technology can be an indispensable tool for enhancing the teaching and learning of literacy: the preservice teachers learned how to use technology in future classes, and the sixth graders gained experience in using the technology to do research, read data, and write and present results. The constructivist design and multimedia components served the project well.

The hour that preservice teachers spent each week in the sixth-grade class was the critical period for the project. Could the preservice teachers get the students to work? Would they all get along? Would there be an even division of responsibilities? Would lesson plans be conscientiously prepared so that members knew where they were headed? Could sixth graders maintain a focus serious enough to be important, contributing members to their groups?

We observed the group dynamic closely and arrived at a qualified yes as an answer to each question, noting some of the difficulties mentioned previously. The undergraduates enjoyed working with the sixth graders immensely, appreciating the opportunity to gain good, hands-on field experience in the classroom. For the sixth graders, they saw the hour as a break from the norm, a chance to enter the new and lofty realm of the university setting, something they could be proud of in front of peers and family. In addition, they used their youthful enthusiasm to attack computer problems and were excited that their work was part of a published book.

The difficulties with preservice teacher assessment of student work at the computer prompted us to chisel out guidelines that could be sculpted into rubrics for similar classes in the future. The guidelines allow for flexibility while focusing on success with outcomes. They begin by stating the obvious purpose of the assignment: If the students are well directed by the preservice teachers, they will gain valuable exposure to reading, writing, and comprehension. The guidelines then take the form of questions preservice teachers can ask when considering the work and attitudes of their students:

• Does the student follow directions willingly?
• Understand the fundamentals of computer technology and its purpose for being used?
• Locate websites using search engines and links pertaining to the assignment?
• Stay focused on the assignment?
• Read and understand material?
• Decide what information is relevant to the topic?
• Organize data and type summaries of material?
• Locate applications independently and understand directions for their use?
• Take a leading role in deciding what information will go into a final copy?
• Present the end product ably in front of class?

The design and implementation of the entire enterprise stretched the limits of a constructivist approach by mixing preservice teachers with sixth-grade students. But we felt that our aim to revise the traditional notions of teaching reading and writing by adding a computer technology component was well served (El-Hindi, 1998, online document). What the sixth graders learned was clear: how to work as a team to set goals, perform tasks, and produce a viable end product in a given period of time, and the value of Internet technology as a tool for research and communication.

For the undergraduates, the project was, of course, a class assignment. Some were not flexible enough to succeed in a nontraditional setting such as this, and thus allowed stronger team members to take charge. What was clear was that they all learned that there are options available in teaching literacy, and that using technology in the process is one of these options. By interacting with electronic contexts in a new model, the preservice teachers were forced to rethink, at the very least, how literacy can be taught (Reinking, 1992, 1994, 1997).

As we look back on the class, we see certain important limitations to this particular model, but endless possibilities as well. From a logistical perspective, if the university and school had not been close together, organization would have posed some difficulties. However, as long as there is access to sufficient computers in the school setting, creative planners could undertake the project entirely in one location. Second, the classroom teacher must be thoroughly involved in and in favor of the project, since a hesitant cooperating teacher could dampen student enthusiasm for the project. Lastly, the ability to motivate both sets of students is needed from the onset, since their enthusiasm for and commitment to the project is critical to its success. Other factors that may affect outcomes are availability of labs and other work areas, student absenteeism, and philosophical orientation of the instructors.

In this study, the instructors embraced a constructivist perspective. Even though constructivism is not a theory about using technology, constructivist assumptions are guideposts for developing our vision for integrating technology into the literacy curriculum (Brown, 1997; Wolffe, 1997). If teachers are expected to integrate technology into the curriculum, a unit approach, similar to the one used in this project, provides one way to accomplish this. Traditional roles of teachers and students are not amenable to this kind of teaching and learning process. To be successful in their technology-based practice, instructors need to become familiar with the dynamics of small-group behavior and collaborative education while at the same time getting their students to assume greater responsibility for their own learning (Fosnot, 1996).

Finally, a literacy course that seeks to integrate technology into instruction calls for a special kind of structure. The computer has changed the dynamic of teaching only within the last decade, and traditional classroom expectations are still evolving. A new course experience, such as this was for our preservice teachers, calls for extra effort to minimize the kind of confusion that we experienced. There are a number of ways to accomplish this. First, teacher educators must spell out and discuss concrete expectations. Next, a draft of a unit that preservice teachers can modify and build upon should be provided; this allows more time to be spent implementing, rather than developing, the unit. Third, it must be anticipated that computer work will take more effort to plan and execute than does traditional instruction; the balance of other class assignments must therefore be adjusted. Fourth, it is unwise to assume that all undergraduates are computer savvy, so booklets and manuals should be available.

The whole experience of working with the class on this project broadened our outlook on educational possibilities. The flexible nature of the concept allowed for success within different parameters: the preservice teachers gained valuable field experience in computer-based instruction, while the sixth graders learned skills in literacy, technology, and group work. In addition, there was the unit design which resulted in students creating a tangible literacy product they could be proud of. Despite some rough going, what we learned from this study convinces us that we are on the right track for a strong entry into the digital century. Perhaps further research will bear this out. As Ornstein (1999) has asserted, “In a high-tech economy workers will need to be better educated...and to have better cognitive, communication, and cooperative team skills” (p. 266).

Back to menu

References

Anderson, R.S., & Speck, B.W. (2001). Using technology in K-8 literacy classrooms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.
Back

Baumann, J.F., Shockley-Bisplinghoff, B., & Allen, J. (1997). Methodology in teacher research: Three cases. In J. Flood, S.B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (pp. 121-143). White Plains, NY: Macmillan.
Back

Brooks, J.G., & Brooks, M.G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Back

Brown, D. (1997). Kids, computers, and constructivism. Journal of the Instructional Psychology, 23(3), 189-195.
Back

Bruce, B.C. (1997). Critical issues -- Literacy technologies: What stance should we take? Journal of Literacy Research, 29(2), 289-309. Available (PDF document): nrc.oakland.edu/jlr/archive/v29/article_29_2_5.pdf
Back

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide us. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2-11.
Back

Conyers, J.G., Kappel, T., & Rooney, J. (1999). How technology can transform a school. Educational Leadership, 82-85.
Back

El-Hindi, A. (1998). Beyond classroom boundaries: Constructivist teaching with the Internet. Reading Teacher, 51(8), 694-700. Available: www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=RT/constructivist.html
Back

Fosnot, C.W. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In C.W. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practices (pp. 8-33). New York: Instructors College Press.
Back

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Back

Grace, M. (1999). When students create curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49-52.
Back

Hooper, S., & Rieber, L.P. (1999). Teaching, instruction, and technology. In A.C. Ornstein & L.S. Behar-Horenstien (Eds.), Contemporary issues in curriculum (2nd ed., pp. 265-276). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Back

Iannone, P. (1998). Just beyond the horizon: Writing-centered literacy activities for traditional and electronic contexts. Reading Teacher, 51(5), 438-443. Available: www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=/electronic/RT/horizon.html
Back

Jonassen, D. (1995). Supporting communities of learners with technology: A vision for integrating technology with learning in schools. Educational Technology, 60-63.
Back

Kinzer, C. (1997). The challenge of change: Exploring literacy and learning in electronic environments. Language Arts, 74, 126-136.
Back

Leu, D.J., Jr., & Leu, D.D. (1997). Teaching with the Internet: Lessons from the classroom. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Back

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Back

Lytle, S.L., & Cochran-Smith, M. (1994). Teacher research in English. In A.C. Purves (Ed.), Encyclopedia of English studies and language arts (pp. 1153-1155). New York: Scholastic.
Back

Maring, G. (1997). Using the World Wide Web to build learning communities: Writing for genuine purposes. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41(3), 196-207.
Back

Mergendoller, J.R. (1996). Moving from technological possibility to richer student learning: Revitalized infrastructure and reconstructed pedagogy. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 43-46.
Back

Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Back

Mike, D.G. (1996). Internet in the schools: A literacy perspective. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40(1), 4-13.
Back

Morrison, G.R., Lowther, D.L., & DeMeulle, L. (1999). Integrating computer technology into the classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Back

O’Dell, L. (1987). Planning classroom research. In D. Goswami & P.R. Stillman (Eds.), Reclaiming the classroom: Teacher research as an agency for change (pp. 128-160). Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
Back

Olson, M.W. (1990). The teacher as researcher: A historical perspective. In M.W. Olson (Ed.), Opening the door to classroom research (pp. 1-20). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Back

Ornstein, A.C. (1999). Curriculum trends revisited. In A.C. Ornstein & L.S. Behar-Horenstien (Eds.), Contemporary issues in curriculum (2nd ed., pp. 265-276). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Back

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Back

Reinking, D. (1992). Differences between electronic and printed texts: An agenda for research. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1(1), 11-24.
Back

Reinking, D. (1994). Electronic literacy (Perspective in Reading Research, No. 4). Athens, GA, and College Park, MD: National Reading Research Center, University of Georgia and University of Maryland.
Back

Reinking, D. (1997, May). Me and my hypertext:) A multiple digression analysis of technology and literacy (sic). Reading Teacher, 50(8), 626-643. Available: www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=hypertext/index.html
Back

Ryder, R., & Graves, M. (1996/1997). Using the Internet to enhance students’ reading, writing, and information-gathering skills. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40(4), 244-254.
Back

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Back

Wetzel, K. (1998, March). Innovations in integrating technology. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29(2), 196-214.
Back

Windschitl, M. (1998). The WWW and classroom research: What path should we take? Educational Researcher, 27(1), 28-33.
Back

Wolffe, R. (1997). The constructivist connection: Linking theory, best practice, and technology. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 12(2), 25-28.
Back

Woolley, G. (1998). Connecting technology and learning. Educational Leadership, 62-65.
Back

About the Authors

John Bauer is a doctoral candidate and graduate assistant in the Department of Instruction and Curriculum Leadership at the University of Memphis, Tennessee, USA. Rebecca Anderson is an associate professor in the same department.

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: Bauer, J.F., & Anderson, R.S. (2001, December/January). A constructivist stretch: Preservice teachers meet preteens in a technology-based literacy project. Reading Online, 5(5). Available: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=bauer/index.html

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