Paper Presented to BERA Annual Conference (UMIST 17Th September 2004)
Mary WildOxfordBrookesUniversity
Screen Or Page: Will The Use Of Computer Aided Instruction Improve Phonological Skills In Year 1 Classes?
Paper presented to BERA Annual Conference (UMIST 17th September 2004)
The paper reports the results of a randomised control trial that investigated the use of computer-aided instruction with Year 1 children. The focus was on the potential benefits of using computers for practising phonological awareness skills.
A total of six primary or first schools, all located in Oxfordshire but with differing pupil profiles, participated in the study. The total number of children involved in the study was 127. Each school was involved in the study for 10-12 weeks, over a single term, during the course of the academic year 2001- 2002.
The main strategy was experimental, adopting a randomised control trial design, in which Year 1 pupils were stratified according to gender and broad academic ability and then randomly allocated to one of three groups. Two of the groups were taught in pairs using the same phonological awareness programme; one group undertook practice exercises using a computer and the other group undertook practice exercises using a more traditional paper-based format. The third, control group, experienced a practical maths programme, with no explicit literacy or ICT components. Children in all three groups were pre and post-tested using a range of literacy and mathematical assessments and their relative rates of progress assessed.
Statistical analysis of the children’s attainments at pre and post-test indicated that there was a significant learning advantage accruing to children in the computer- based group as compared to the paper-based group and the control group. There were no significant learning differences between children in the paper–based and control groups. Analysis by gender indicated that the girls in the computer group made significantly more progress than the boys. Boys and girls made similar progress in the other two groups.
“Determining the actual, as opposed to the possible, impact of the new technology on literacy could be one of the most interesting research challenges in the twenty-first century”
(Hannon, 2000, p28).
The rationale for conducting this study was based on the continuing impetus within educational policy and curriculum guidance for more extensive use of ICT at all levels of education(Blair,1997; DES, 2000; DfES, 2003), juxtaposed with a particular paucity of research into educational ICT for the Early Years. There has been no shortage of contributions to the long-established debate about whether or not, or in what ways, ICT might be beneficial in children’s education. Strangely enough however, there has been comparatively little research that is directly linked to specific learning outcomes, and even less that has attempted to make explicit comparisons with other more traditional instructional media. BECTa (2001) for example, conducted a literature search into studies that concentrate on the use of ICT to support the teaching of specific aspects of English, Maths and Science at Key Stage 2 and found only 36 studies. The scarcity of such studies for the 0-8 year age range is even more acute (Lankshear and Knobel, 2003).
Furthermore, as Higgins (2003) has pointed out, although there is some evidence that ICT can aid the learning of pupils, “there is not a simple message in such evidence that ICT will make a difference simply by being used” (p5). He too, specifically highlights the need for more comparative research, in which the effectiveness of ICT can be judged against alternative approaches to teaching. In so doing he echoes the calls of policy makers (Blunkett, 2001) and fellow researchers. Reynolds (2001), for example, has suggested that whilst “ thus far the research into whether ICT has effects, the appropriate utilisation of IT, and “what works” ………is an area of more assertion than evidence.” Moreover, as Higgins and Moseley (2002) have pointed out, ” there was (and still is) virtually no evidence to justify the expenditure needed to replace paper and pencil by computer for daily reading and writing activities in primary schools”(p31).
Rather, much of the research to date may have been “overly optimistic” and has exhibited a preference for large-scale surveys or individual case studies of particular innovations in particular schools (Selwyn,1997). Specifically, in an extensive report prepared for the Teacher Training Agency, Moseley, Higgins, Newton, Tymms, Henderson and Stout (1999) point out that whilst a huge number of studies have been conducted into computer aided learning (or CAL), a “disappointingly small proportion of this is empirically based and an even smaller proportion looks at pupil improvement through identified gain, particularly for the primary age range” (Appendix 2 of the report.)
The present study sought to provide some such empirically based evidence in respect of the measurable impact of using ICT on the phonological skills of children within Key Stage 1, specifically Year 1 classes. It did so through the prism of tightly focused comparative research questions and the application of a rigorous methodology. In particular the following research questions were addressed:
- Will structured use of literacy software in the Year 1 classroom lead to improvements in children’s phonological awareness skills as measured by norm-referenced tests?
- Can any such benefits be attributed directly to the ICT programme or would the same results be obtained using a comparable programme based on a more traditional learning medium?
A further subsidiary question is also addressed in this paper :
- Does the computer medium elicit differential learning outcomes in children according to gender?
The rationale for the skills focus on phonological awareness, the selected methodological approach, and for the gender dimension is considered in separate sections beneath, as is some of the evidence to date of the effectiveness of ICT in comparison with more traditional learning media.
Why focus on phonological awareness?
Phonological awareness is a literacy skill that has assumed a growing importance within the school curriculum at Key Stage 1 over recent years, particularly since the Government introduced the National Literacy Strategy (DfEE, 1998). From the outset the NLS has been explicit in promoting the use of “systematic” phonics as a teaching method in school based literacy and continues to stress the importance of phonics in the curriculum (DES Standards Site, 2003, NLS, 2003).
Though such an overt emphasis on the teaching of phonics has not been uncontroversial and the “great debate” (Chall, 1967) over the best way in which to teach reading has a lengthy history, the belief that the learning of phonics has a valid place in the teaching of reading has received support from a number of meta-analyses of the available evidence (Adams, 199l; Snow, Burns and Griffin, 1998; Bus and van IJzendoom, 1999; Ehri, Nunes, Willows, Schuster, Yagoub-Zadah and Shannahan, 2001; Ehri, 2003).
Consequently, it would seem that phonological awareness would be a useful focus for a study into the comparative effectiveness of ICT as a teaching medium. As such, Underwood (1994) has previously suggested that ICT applications, even of the drill and practice orientation, may usefully have a role to play in learning situations where pupils are required to master highly structured learning goals. Relating this idea specifically to early literacy goals, Underwood (2000) has also suggested that software of the structured practice format might be especially useful in supporting the acquisition of basic literacy skills at the sub-word level and for phonics reinforcement.
Adopting a comparative methodology.
To demonstrate whether an ICT approach would be “ especially useful” compared to other classroom methods, demands research of a specifically comparative nature. It has been argued (Boruch, 1997) that in order to gauge the effectiveness of any new educational approach it is necessary to compare the “condition of the individuals who have received the new service against the condition they would have been in had they not received the new service.” Furthermore, for any such comparison to be fair the comparison groups should not differ systematically from one another in either sample composition or programme implementation other than the nature of the programme itself. Within this context, Randomised Control Trials (RCTs), which “Involve the random allocation of eligible individuals or entities to each of two or more treatment conditions” (Boruch, Synder and DeMoya, 1994) might represent a valid and useful investigative approach.
Such an approach to educational research is not without critics (Hammersley 1997; Edwards, 2000; Pirrie, 2001) who argue that there can be no such thing as a “science of education.” However, after bitter debate (Sylva, 2000), there has been an emerging recognition that rather than generically appropriate/inappropriate approaches, educational research must be informed by the research question that the research seeks to address (Pring 2000; Smeyers, 2001).
The chief benefit of adopting an RCT design is that the random allocation of participants to experimental or intervention groups mitigates against any systematic bias in group composition and thereby provides “strong evidence “ that any differences in so-called “outcomes” are causally related to the different interventions experienced by the participants in each group (Robson, 1993). This is of course strengthened in a design in which other potentially confounding variables are also controlled for. Additionally the adoption of an RCT design confers statistical advantages whereby the random allocation of participants to groups allows for the use of more robust statistical techniques ( Boruch 1997, ibid.).
What have previous studies shown about the comparative effectiveness of ICT?
There have been relatively few comparatively oriented studies to date that investigate the use of ICT to support literacy skills by focusing on learning outcomes rather than learning processes. Some of the more renowned studies (BECTa 2000; 2001) and the Impact studies (Watson, Cox and Johnson, 1993; Harrison, Comber, Fisher, Haw, Lewin, Lunzer, McFarlane, Mavers, Scrimshaw, Somekh and Watling, 2002) have been characterised by a school-level approach rather than considering the issue at the classroom level.
One relatively large study, which combined elements of case study methodology with attempts to quantity any learning advantages for children, was the TTA sponsored study referred to earlier (Moseley et al, 1999). In addition to the large-scale surveys, the project involved a development phase in which in which a sub-sample of 16 class teachers undertook specific ICT projects, related either to literacy or numeracy. These development projects were closely monitored and their impact on pupil attainment using standardised tests and criterion-referenced measures was assessed. Results from this final phase indicated significant gains in 14 out of 16 development classes. However, as the researchers involved freely admit throughout the report, the absence of control groups for the development projects mean that it is impossible to deduce a causal link between the ICT application and the progress in measured outcomes. The findings are at best only strongly indicative of such a link.
Underwood has conducted a series of studies into the specific potential of Integrated Learning Systems (Underwood, 2000). These studies focused on children at Key Stage 2 and secondary level and compared ILS to traditional classroom practices. Interestingly, she found that overall both groups made similar levels of progress, but at an individual school level differential performance was recorded. Similar findings emerged from an earlier evaluation of two types of ILS programme (NCET, 1996). This suggests that the dynamics within individual schools exerted a more powerful influence on the results than the use of the different teaching media.
Another study that specifically targeted children deemed to be at risk of learning disabilities was able to demonstrate benefits for 5-6 year old pupils of the ICT approach over more traditional instructional methods (Mioduser, Tur-Kaspa and Letner 2000). On the other hand, contrasting results were obtained in an intervention study conducted to compare the progress of children, identified as at risk of reading failure, using the RITA computer-based literacy support system, with those using a more traditional reading support programme (Nicholson, Fawcett and Nicholson, 2000). Children aged 6 and 8 in four schools formed the main sample groups and were matched by reading and chronological age to control groups from other schools who received only the standard classroom support for reading. Although the intervention groups made significant progress over the control groups there were no significant differences between the intervention groups. This suggests that it was additional help rather than the type of help that proved most beneficial.
Focusing on children who were not deemed to have potential reading difficulties, there have been studies suggesting that ICT may be beneficial for children who are in the early stages of learning to read. Davidson, Elcock, Noyes and Terrell (1991) undertook a small-scale comparative study involving just 20 children in total. Half of the children used a computer programme with digitised speech as part of their classroom reading scheme. The other 10 children followed the regular scheme. The experimental group significantly increased their scores on a standardised reading test compared to the control group. Though such a small sample means that the findings must be interpreted cautiously, a later, slightly larger, study involved 60 children aged 5-7 years olds and also appeared to show that computers could provide effective reading practice for young children (Davidson, Elcock and Noyes 1996). However the overall amount of practice each child received was not controlled and the study relied on teacher delivery, meaning results could be due to teacher style or preferences.
More recently, VanDaal and Reitsma (2000) report on a study involving kindergarten children (since this originated in the Netherlands this includes children who would be considered Key Stage 1 age in England and Wales). The programme in the study was of a drill and practice type programme to aid initial reading and spelling skills, called ”Leescircus”. Two classes were selected and, within these two sub-groups, were randomly allocated to either experimental or control groups. Comparisons of pre and post-test scores showed significant gains for the computer group on letter knowledge and on reading single words and non-words as opposed to the control group. Unfortunately the authors acknowledge that the implementation of the programme was not uniform, and there were large variations in the amount of time individual children spent on the computer.
Why include a gender dimension?
This final strand of the research was designed to probe the commonly held assumption that boys are more interested in, and responsive to, computer technology, and that such technology could therefore be utilised to address boys’ perceived underachievement in reading in comparison with girls (Millard, 1996, 1997; Noble, 2000). Interestingly, though there has been a great deal of research into the attitudes of boys and girls towards computers, it is if far from clear that it is uniformly the case that boys are more positively disposed towards computers (Yelland,1995; Fitzpatrick and Hardman, 2000). There has also been some evidence to suggest that in some respects girls are more positively disposed than boys to use computers educationally rather than for amusement, at least within the home environment (Furlong, Furlong, Facer and Sutherland, 2000; Murphy and Beggs, 2003).
However, Brosnan (1998) presents evidence that a more positive attitude towards computers amongst boys aged 6-11, does translate into higher levels of computer-related attainment, albeit in a relatively small study involving only 48 children in total. Similarly Passig and Levin (2000), working in three kindergarten classes (involving 90 children) found that different styles of computer interface were related to differing levels of child satisfaction and that this was related to gender. The famous “Honeybears” research (Littleton, Light, Joiner, Messer and Barnes, 1992). later extended by Joiner (1998) also suggests an interaction between gender and computer use.
Other research has considered the inter-gender dynamics of children using computers in classrooms and has provided evidence that in mixed-gender pairs boys tend to be more assertive, whereas in same gender pairs children are equally assertive (Underwood, G. 1994; Underwood, McCaffrey and Underwood 1990; Fitzpatrick and Hardman 2000). However Fitzpatrick and Hardman (2000), Underwood and Underwood, (1998) and Underwood, Underwood and Wood (2000) have suggested that differential patterns of interaction do not necessarily translate into differential task performance, though the Underwood et al study (2002), based around interactive storybooks, indicates that girl-girl pairings did demonstrate better performance as measured by subsequent and delayed (over several weeks) story recall.
The interaction between gender and learning medium is clearly a complex one, and is at least suggestive that gender might impinge on the effectiveness of using a computer–based instructional programme. For this reason the present study incorporated a gender dimension.