Word Processor, Mathworld & Whiteboard
A ‘word processor’ is a software program which enables computer users to store, edit and create text, for example, the most commonly used word processor is Microsoft Word (Beal, 2015).
The majority of researches carried out have suggested that learners increasingly benefit from the use of word processors. Robert Bangert-Drowns (1993) had observed the effects of incorporating the usage of word processors amongst students, by placing them ‘in experimental and quasi-experimental groups’. All the student participants were given identical forms of written directions, out of which one group of students were allowed to use a word processor for the completion of the task. The results collected from this study indicated that a ‘small, positive effect’ was apparent amongst the group which used the word processor. Due to the results found in this research, Bangert-Drowns came to the conclusion that through the use of a word processor for written work, writers are affected with ‘positive motivation’. According to Bangert-Drowns’ study, although the use of a word processor had a positive impact on all the students who used it, it was found that the weaker writers benefitted the most (Passey, 2014, p.44).
A meta-analysis of investigations had been operated by Goldberg, Russel and Cook (2003), who carried out research on the use of word processors as a writing tool. The statistics collected from this research also supported Bangert-Drowns’ findings that word processors had a positive impact on the writing of students. The results found indicated that those students who used word processors ‘wrote more’, were increasingly ‘motivated’ to complete given tasks and the quality of these students’ written work were much greater, in comparison to those who did not use word processors (Passey, 2014, p.45).
According to the Metiri Group (2006), the positive effects arising as a result of using word processors, were due to the fact that students were able to write when needed, as well as redraft and edit paragraphs to improve their writing. The use of word processors also alerted students to any grammatical mistakes, which they could then amend, such as, spelling mistakes and formatting issues in regards to sentence structures (Passey, 2014, p.45).
On the other hand, the findings collected by Kurth (1987), indicated that there were no quantitative or qualitative evidence found for improved writing, as a result of using word processors. Kurth has argued that teachers’ support and instructions had a greater impact on students’ writing than word processors. However, Kurth has also stated that, although the use of a word processor did not make a significant difference to the students’ writing, utilising a spell-check alongside a word processor, lowered the amount of spelling mistakes in their writing (Passey, 2014, p.44).
Through the incorporation of digital technology, within the process of writing in an academic setting, students are also given the opportunity to engage in the preparation of writing and creation of publicised work for ‘real audiences’. This has been considered as being a ‘motivating’ and ‘interesting’ experience for students, as students regard such projects to be full of purpose and gives them additional writing practice (Gura, 2011, p.7).
A well-controlled, large-scale study, consisting of 1,600 plus students and 95 teachers, was carried out by Roschelle et al (2010). The research aimed to investigate whether middle school students showed any development in their grasp of ‘rate and proportionality’ in relation to algebra. Teachers were allowed to choose whether they wanted to use the conventional method or SimCalc Mathworld. It was found that the students who used the SimCalc Mathworld showed significant improvement in their knowledge of rate and proportionality, to a greater extent, in comparison to the students who were taught using their usual curriculum (Zongkai, 2014, p.7).
Marzano and Haystead (2010) conducted a research on the use of interactive white boards by students of various ages. They found that the inclusion of an interactive white board in each classroom can help in increasing student achievement, by an average of 17 percent. This study also indicated that in order for the use of interactive whiteboards to have the most positive impact on student achievement, it would prove useful if the teacher had long-term experience of teaching (more than ten years) and has been familiar with this technology for more than two years. They stressed on the importance of teachers’ confidence in using the technology, stating that it needed to be high, in order to have the greatest effect on students. They argued that teachers, who used it 75 to 85 percent of the time within lessons, witnessed the most improvement amongst their students. However, it was also found that if it was used any more than that, it had the opposite effect and there was a decline in student achievement (Zongkai, 2014, p.8).
Computer Technology
According to Schacter (1989), many studies have shown that ‘achievement, motivation and engagement’ were much more prevalent in students who were taught using digital technology (Willoughby and Wood, 2008, p.131).
In a meta-analysis conducted by Waxman, Lin and Michko, it was found that there was a slight improvement evident in students’ work, as a result of the use of technology (Willoughby and Wood, 2008, p.131).
Another study carried out, which suggested that technology use has a positive impact on student achievement, was by Sivin-Kachala and Bialo. According to their research findings, developments in students’ academic achievements were found in various learning sectors, such as, in mathematics, language arts, second language acquisition as well as social studies (Willoughby and Wood, 2008, p.131).
Statistics have shown that technology use in classrooms have positive impacts on students, for example, it was found that in traditional schools, only 32 percent of students enjoyed learning, whilst in technology-based schools, it amounted to almost 50 percent. Also, it was stated by 74 percent of teachers that they believed technology helps increase ‘student engagement’ within classrooms (Johnston, 2014).
On the other hand, it has also been reported recently by some researchers that technology does not have positive effects on students’ achievements. An international study, from the OECD, has stated that heavy investments made into technology input in educational sectors ‘does not improve pupils’ performance’. According to the education director of OECD, Andreas Schleicher, it is more probable for regular use of computers to be connected with poorer results and argues that society is too reliant on technology, as he states that it has created ‘too many false hopes’ (Coughlan, 2015).
According to Schleicher, technology does not have a significant impact on students, as the most accomplished school organisations, such as in Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea and Shanghai, have shown reluctance towards using technology in their classrooms and use the internet in schools the least. On the other hand, it was found that out of seven states with the greatest level of internet use in academic environments, three (New Zealand, Australia and Sweden) experienced substantial ‘declines in reading performance’, whilst the results of a further three (Norway, Spain and Denmark) had ‘stagnated’ (Coughlan, 2015).
Schleicher also discovered that regular computer users attained the poorest results. His findings indicated that moderate users of computers (up to twice a week) achieved better results than those students who rarely used computers for academic purposes. Therefore, it could be argued that technology use in classrooms can have a positive impact on students, if used within limitation (Coughlan, 2015).
Text Abbreviations
The term ‘cyber slang’ denotes the use of shortcuts, substitute words or symbols to express views in an electronic text (Jason, 2011).
Although some linguists and education theorists have discovered evidence that digital technology is beneficial for students, some have argued that it has had a negative impact on educational achievement, particularly on literacy development, due to the use of ‘cyber slang’, which has been suspected of ‘damaging students’ writing acumen’ (Jason, 2011).
According to Shravan Goli, the President of Dictionary.com, it is understandable for students to use cyber slang in ‘social conversations’. However, in relation to majority professions, students require an ‘appropriate level of ‘reading and writing skills’. He further comments that it worries him that literacy levels are at a downfall in America. Goli notes that technological devices are not having a positive effect on student achievement and is actually ‘making it worse’ (Jason, 2011).
Recent records have suggested that ‘text-based…abbreviations’ have begun to take presence within ‘formal’ written works of students. According to Goli’s view, the use of cyber slang is a rarity and thus, although such slang presents a problem, it is one which can be resolved (Jason, 2011).
Drouin (2011) has defined ‘textism’ as a shortened word, which incorporates the use of contractions such as ‘cuz’ in place of ‘because’, homophones for example ‘gr8’ instead of ‘great’ and deletion (Guzzetti and Lesley, 2015, p.509). It has been argued that like social networking sites, mobile phone use in classrooms have also contributed to the deterioration of literacy skills.
Dixon and Kaminska (2007) have revealed that children being exposed to incorrect spellings does not have a negative effect on their future correct spellings of those words. On the other hand, adults have been found to be greatly affected by the exposure to incorrect spellings. According to Katz and Frost (2001), when adults encountered misspellings which had identical phonemes as the original word, but with altered orthography, such as ‘fone’ for ‘phone’, they were likely to regard the incorrect spellings as correct. This indicates that the literacy skills of adult students, who use textisms, would be affected in a more negative manner compared to children (Georgakopoulou and Spilioti, 2015, p.182).
On the other hand, other research findings have suggested that the use of textisms does not have a negative impact on students’ writing. Studies including formal text samples have presented limited evidence to suggest, that participants are incapable or reluctant to ‘avoid textism…in formal situations’. Grace et al (2013b) reviewed over three hundred university test papers, in order to look for ‘intrusions of textese’, but found that textisms were prevalent at only ‘1 percent per 4500 words’. Although the lack of textisms does not suggest that textisms do not have an impact on literacy skills, it does reveal that students have an understanding that in formal writings, text speak is not an appropriate choice (Rosen et al, 2015, p.226).
A longitudinal study was carried out by Wood et al (2011b), to enquire whether both texting and literacy abilities had an impacted on each other. It was found that the connection was ‘unidirectional’, meaning that spelling progress was effected positively by the students’ texting abilities, whilst the use of text speak was not impacted by the ability to use correct spellings. It was also found that students who used textisms more had superior speaking skills and spelling abilities. Plester, Wood and Bell (2008) support this view and argue that children who engaged at a greater scale with textism usage, were better readers, had good vocabulary range and phonological awareness (Georgakopoulou and Spilioti, 2015, p183).
A ‘word processor’ is a software program which enables computer users to store, edit and create text, for example, the most commonly used word processor is Microsoft Word (Beal, 2015).
The majority of researches carried out have suggested that learners increasingly benefit from the use of word processors. Robert Bangert-Drowns (1993) had observed the effects of incorporating the usage of word processors amongst students, by placing them ‘in experimental and quasi-experimental groups’. All the student participants were given identical forms of written directions, out of which one group of students were allowed to use a word processor for the completion of the task. The results collected from this study indicated that a ‘small, positive effect’ was apparent amongst the group which used the word processor. Due to the results found in this research, Bangert-Drowns came to the conclusion that through the use of a word processor for written work, writers are affected with ‘positive motivation’. According to Bangert-Drowns’ study, although the use of a word processor had a positive impact on all the students who used it, it was found that the weaker writers benefitted the most (Passey, 2014, p.44).
A meta-analysis of investigations had been operated by Goldberg, Russel and Cook (2003), who carried out research on the use of word processors as a writing tool. The statistics collected from this research also supported Bangert-Drowns’ findings that word processors had a positive impact on the writing of students. The results found indicated that those students who used word processors ‘wrote more’, were increasingly ‘motivated’ to complete given tasks and the quality of these students’ written work were much greater, in comparison to those who did not use word processors (Passey, 2014, p.45).
According to the Metiri Group (2006), the positive effects arising as a result of using word processors, were due to the fact that students were able to write when needed, as well as redraft and edit paragraphs to improve their writing. The use of word processors also alerted students to any grammatical mistakes, which they could then amend, such as, spelling mistakes and formatting issues in regards to sentence structures (Passey, 2014, p.45).
On the other hand, the findings collected by Kurth (1987), indicated that there were no quantitative or qualitative evidence found for improved writing, as a result of using word processors. Kurth has argued that teachers’ support and instructions had a greater impact on students’ writing than word processors. However, Kurth has also stated that, although the use of a word processor did not make a significant difference to the students’ writing, utilising a spell-check alongside a word processor, lowered the amount of spelling mistakes in their writing (Passey, 2014, p.44).
Through the incorporation of digital technology, within the process of writing in an academic setting, students are also given the opportunity to engage in the preparation of writing and creation of publicised work for ‘real audiences’. This has been considered as being a ‘motivating’ and ‘interesting’ experience for students, as students regard such projects to be full of purpose and gives them additional writing practice (Gura, 2011, p.7).
A well-controlled, large-scale study, consisting of 1,600 plus students and 95 teachers, was carried out by Roschelle et al (2010). The research aimed to investigate whether middle school students showed any development in their grasp of ‘rate and proportionality’ in relation to algebra. Teachers were allowed to choose whether they wanted to use the conventional method or SimCalc Mathworld. It was found that the students who used the SimCalc Mathworld showed significant improvement in their knowledge of rate and proportionality, to a greater extent, in comparison to the students who were taught using their usual curriculum (Zongkai, 2014, p.7).
Marzano and Haystead (2010) conducted a research on the use of interactive white boards by students of various ages. They found that the inclusion of an interactive white board in each classroom can help in increasing student achievement, by an average of 17 percent. This study also indicated that in order for the use of interactive whiteboards to have the most positive impact on student achievement, it would prove useful if the teacher had long-term experience of teaching (more than ten years) and has been familiar with this technology for more than two years. They stressed on the importance of teachers’ confidence in using the technology, stating that it needed to be high, in order to have the greatest effect on students. They argued that teachers, who used it 75 to 85 percent of the time within lessons, witnessed the most improvement amongst their students. However, it was also found that if it was used any more than that, it had the opposite effect and there was a decline in student achievement (Zongkai, 2014, p.8).
Computer Technology
According to Schacter (1989), many studies have shown that ‘achievement, motivation and engagement’ were much more prevalent in students who were taught using digital technology (Willoughby and Wood, 2008, p.131).
In a meta-analysis conducted by Waxman, Lin and Michko, it was found that there was a slight improvement evident in students’ work, as a result of the use of technology (Willoughby and Wood, 2008, p.131).
Another study carried out, which suggested that technology use has a positive impact on student achievement, was by Sivin-Kachala and Bialo. According to their research findings, developments in students’ academic achievements were found in various learning sectors, such as, in mathematics, language arts, second language acquisition as well as social studies (Willoughby and Wood, 2008, p.131).
Statistics have shown that technology use in classrooms have positive impacts on students, for example, it was found that in traditional schools, only 32 percent of students enjoyed learning, whilst in technology-based schools, it amounted to almost 50 percent. Also, it was stated by 74 percent of teachers that they believed technology helps increase ‘student engagement’ within classrooms (Johnston, 2014).
On the other hand, it has also been reported recently by some researchers that technology does not have positive effects on students’ achievements. An international study, from the OECD, has stated that heavy investments made into technology input in educational sectors ‘does not improve pupils’ performance’. According to the education director of OECD, Andreas Schleicher, it is more probable for regular use of computers to be connected with poorer results and argues that society is too reliant on technology, as he states that it has created ‘too many false hopes’ (Coughlan, 2015).
According to Schleicher, technology does not have a significant impact on students, as the most accomplished school organisations, such as in Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea and Shanghai, have shown reluctance towards using technology in their classrooms and use the internet in schools the least. On the other hand, it was found that out of seven states with the greatest level of internet use in academic environments, three (New Zealand, Australia and Sweden) experienced substantial ‘declines in reading performance’, whilst the results of a further three (Norway, Spain and Denmark) had ‘stagnated’ (Coughlan, 2015).
Schleicher also discovered that regular computer users attained the poorest results. His findings indicated that moderate users of computers (up to twice a week) achieved better results than those students who rarely used computers for academic purposes. Therefore, it could be argued that technology use in classrooms can have a positive impact on students, if used within limitation (Coughlan, 2015).
Text Abbreviations
The term ‘cyber slang’ denotes the use of shortcuts, substitute words or symbols to express views in an electronic text (Jason, 2011).
Although some linguists and education theorists have discovered evidence that digital technology is beneficial for students, some have argued that it has had a negative impact on educational achievement, particularly on literacy development, due to the use of ‘cyber slang’, which has been suspected of ‘damaging students’ writing acumen’ (Jason, 2011).
According to Shravan Goli, the President of Dictionary.com, it is understandable for students to use cyber slang in ‘social conversations’. However, in relation to majority professions, students require an ‘appropriate level of ‘reading and writing skills’. He further comments that it worries him that literacy levels are at a downfall in America. Goli notes that technological devices are not having a positive effect on student achievement and is actually ‘making it worse’ (Jason, 2011).
Recent records have suggested that ‘text-based…abbreviations’ have begun to take presence within ‘formal’ written works of students. According to Goli’s view, the use of cyber slang is a rarity and thus, although such slang presents a problem, it is one which can be resolved (Jason, 2011).
Drouin (2011) has defined ‘textism’ as a shortened word, which incorporates the use of contractions such as ‘cuz’ in place of ‘because’, homophones for example ‘gr8’ instead of ‘great’ and deletion (Guzzetti and Lesley, 2015, p.509). It has been argued that like social networking sites, mobile phone use in classrooms have also contributed to the deterioration of literacy skills.
Dixon and Kaminska (2007) have revealed that children being exposed to incorrect spellings does not have a negative effect on their future correct spellings of those words. On the other hand, adults have been found to be greatly affected by the exposure to incorrect spellings. According to Katz and Frost (2001), when adults encountered misspellings which had identical phonemes as the original word, but with altered orthography, such as ‘fone’ for ‘phone’, they were likely to regard the incorrect spellings as correct. This indicates that the literacy skills of adult students, who use textisms, would be affected in a more negative manner compared to children (Georgakopoulou and Spilioti, 2015, p.182).
On the other hand, other research findings have suggested that the use of textisms does not have a negative impact on students’ writing. Studies including formal text samples have presented limited evidence to suggest, that participants are incapable or reluctant to ‘avoid textism…in formal situations’. Grace et al (2013b) reviewed over three hundred university test papers, in order to look for ‘intrusions of textese’, but found that textisms were prevalent at only ‘1 percent per 4500 words’. Although the lack of textisms does not suggest that textisms do not have an impact on literacy skills, it does reveal that students have an understanding that in formal writings, text speak is not an appropriate choice (Rosen et al, 2015, p.226).
A longitudinal study was carried out by Wood et al (2011b), to enquire whether both texting and literacy abilities had an impacted on each other. It was found that the connection was ‘unidirectional’, meaning that spelling progress was effected positively by the students’ texting abilities, whilst the use of text speak was not impacted by the ability to use correct spellings. It was also found that students who used textisms more had superior speaking skills and spelling abilities. Plester, Wood and Bell (2008) support this view and argue that children who engaged at a greater scale with textism usage, were better readers, had good vocabulary range and phonological awareness (Georgakopoulou and Spilioti, 2015, p183).