1 Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES AND ILLUSTRATIONS Page 1. An experiment conducted with an elementary school.......................................................1 2. Number of participants per group......................................................................................1

2 3. Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development...................................................................50 4. Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory of Learning................................................................60


The purpose of this dissertation is to provide a greater corpus of knowledge concerning the

3 complex relationship that exists between various levels of significance in reporting of assessment results. This dissertation entails a study comparing one delivery method of a reading assessment and its method of reporting results to that of an entirely different delivery method concerning a similar assessment instrument and its method of delivering results. Public elementary schools throughout the United States are mandated to report on the achievements of their student populations in reading, mathematics, and science. Federal, as well as State legislatures is directed to establish academic standards in order to demonstrate to taxpayers that student achievement is taking place. Principals of public schools are directed to bring into their schools, teaching methods and assessment models that can boost highest probability of their student body, being able to achieve higher levels on their reading assessments than they did the previous year. These new assessment modes need to be vetted out by the school’s teachers, so that supporting lessons may be developed. Additionally, teachers in this process of informing have to get the lessons content presented to the children, who in turn sit for a test (assessment). This test involves using an assessment instrument, which becomes the starting point for the reporting of achievement results to the Principal, hence creating inaccuracies in the chain of information flow. The problem is best represented when a reading comprehension lesson at the fifth grade level using books, paper, and pencils is tested, using a web delivered instrument. In city schools, there exists a web based reading comprehension assessment, called “I-Ready” that I will use as my instrument of interest. This dissertation will bring to the academic domain of elementary educational assessment, the empirical examination of the present informing gap that is present in information gathering and reporting today.

. post-test and a control group model of inquiry. The New York City’s Department of Education started offering the web-based method of assessment after verification that web based assessment method was 100% reliable in elementary day schools. Beforehand. book and paper based summative assessment are tested in this dissertation. The research design is a pre-test. Hypothesis testing will be reported on and discussed. New York City’s Department of Education (NYCDOE) had assessed the 5th Grade through offering a reading comprehension summative assessment. during the year 2000. Chapter 1: Introduction Assessments Critical analysis and reviews of the use at present of.4 Informing assessment systems along with analysis of teaching and assessment models along with current professional assumptions will also be analyzed.

In the dissertation. which this dissertation will be focusing on. and traditional assumptions are put into “play”. highly international. student population deals with having to learn in one way and respond to questions in a vastly different way. Information systems supporting the use and administration of a webbased reading comprehension summative assessment have been highlighted in this thesis. background information . are vital to understanding how results that schools are reporting today are indeed not as useful as they are purported to be (Black & William. models. They do not interact with reading comprehension questions often in a webbased environment. multilingual. the dissertation is being designed to investigate the significance of the systems. Indeed. 1998a). This research will enrich the related literature by providing some much-needed empirical evidence in how a remarkably diverse. The Assessment Gap Reporting valid and significant scores on reading assessments that might or might not be measuring what they are reported to be measuring represents the Gap. ‘Rigby Reads’ (a Web based Reading Comprehension Assessment) at the fifth Grade level in one public elementary day school under the governance of the NYCDOE is out main concentration. and traditional assumptions that are used today in reporting the results of a web-based assessment over that of a more traditional paper based test. Fifth Grade elementary students respond to reading comprehension questions unusually often in daily reading lessons. models.5 Arguably. The recognition of how and at what point the information providing systems.

6 on the classes taking the web-based test will be researched. Understanding the types of assessment that go into developing most school-based assessments especially assessments used to analyze children’s reading comprehension growth over time. when properly implemented it means boosting student learning. able to use the Web as its primary means of delivery (Black & William. their environment. 2006). This limits this literature review to authors whose work is as closely related to their primary research population. 1998a). to help determine the parameters of this part of the study. their tools. Most standardized tests are summative. High quality summative . Summative assessment is the attempt to summarize student learning at some point in time. Summative assessment. Formative assessment. "Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom Assessment" provided strong evidence on formative assessment. has been such a vastly researched topic. Its extensive literature review. showed that. it implies. classroom formative assessment. contextualized feedback useful for helping teacher and student during the learning process. In addition. their instruments (assessments) and means of delivery of said instrument. near the end of a course. They are not designed to provide the immediate. Furthermore. it highlighted that summative assessment such as standardized exams can have seriously harmful effects (Black & William. According to Black & William (1998a). The topic is too large to accomplish an exhaustive literature review for the parameters of this dissertation.

Indeed. and comparing students competitively causes low-achieving students to believe they cannot learn. it was because the [NYCDOE] realized they were not generating enough history on any one student and needed faster tracking of individual achievements that NYCDOE started pushing for more Web-based summative assessments to take place in 2000. According to Chappuis and Stiggins (2002). it was discovered that the classroom . This was enabled by the fact that most teachers were not trained in creating lesson plans to support the newer formative assessment method (Chambers. The research highlighted that high-quality formative assessment is relatively rare in classrooms and that most teachers do not know well how to engage in such assessment. teachers too needed time to be taught in the uses and applications of this more advanced delivery method of their subject’s content.7 information can shape how teachers organize their courses or what schools offer their students (Black. it turns out. most classroom testing encourages rote and superficial learning. Indeed. Web based delivery. like children. Actual assessment practices are often harmful: marking and grading are overemphasized while giving useful advice is underemphasized. Web based summative assessment. and they often emphasize quantity of work over high quality. According to Black and William (1998a). So presented. 1998). Teachers do not help each other become proficient assessors. 1997). offers some knowledge into the absence of the use of formative assessment up to and including 2005 in generating web-based assessments. replicate standardized tests in their own assessment practices and lack sufficient information about their students. Teachers.

the importance of content is primarily content delivery. and have them work together in an orchestrated fashion. Learning psychology To understand that the “medium is the message” (McLuhan). In being able to connect or Merge two different actions. Which then means to be an effective teacher. we need to provide intent in respect to being be best received by any one or more of these receptors. Touching. . is to understand that information to be comprehended needs first to be delivered. knowledge creation begins.end of term summative assessment. takes time and practice. which may be called upon at any moment that will provide an alternative possible solution to the problem at hand (Greenhow. For the purpose of this study. knowledge is the stored information.8 teacher had been using an online-and slightly modified version of a formative assessment as a rubric to populate his paper-based. a child in a classroom can only work with. An utterance. its delivery means. According to Fisher (2005). and today. Thus. Hearing and Tasting. the greater the ability that education message is received with the greatest clarity (Forman& Etchison. The more modalities can activate at the same time. 2008).Seeing. and learn with his or her own senses. Learning Theory (Activity Theory) Activity theory becomes the development of “ways” in which the student and teacher communicate. a typed word.1991). a texted word have embedded in it. a written word. the actual informing.

understanding the many psychological and physical aspects. Furthermore. observing skills. Not going to deep at this moment. and memorization [ what does what. or learning how to write out the Times Tables using a Word Processor in addition. According to Nardie (1996). conceptualizes actions as. first start moving. pedal operation. “The manual shifting a car from 1st to third gear” The point of which is to make something at rest (the car). nothing is done in isolation. . to happen]. variables. From driving faster and straighter. It takes the meshing of many aspects of a system. and assumptions made in acquiring the knowledge required to assess with any true sense of accuracy and the levels of reading comprehension that are reported on this web based assessments. shift operation. and environments that learning may take place in. be it in a car or a child’s mind to get out of it what you want. yet realizing that to make such a transition takes. models. As mentioned previously. when causing what. we can better promote and assess that which we provide to our students. This research then becomes more crucial in the domain of Information Studies for Academic Assessment and Curriculum Development. For within this research then a more pertinent question becomes evident. there are many systems. then increase its velocity in a given direction.9 Indeed.

The research questions proposed in this section will help define the “gap” as well as populate the gap with what is happening. There are true and actual benefits to be gained by the undertaking of this study. both formative and summative.10 Chapter Two: Research Questions Assessments Questions What is being tested? Does the exam delivery mode and reading training of fifth Grade elementary school students make a difference on the student’s performance on reading comprehension web-based tests? Are the results reported valid in reporting what they do? The literature review will illustrate that we still have yet to learn about how elementary assessment. Once the academic informing “system” of the elementary student has been understood. needs to be in better alignment in order for it to be more reliable and valid in what it reports. we . and how the gap can potentially be averted in the future.

2004)? Research Questions a) Are the skills needed to read text on paper equal to reading text on a computer screen? b) What are the primary reading skills that elementary school students need plus what is the primary reading skills needed to be able to read on-line (Web-based) in addition. what makes these skills significantly different? c) If reading skills are significantly different between the two methods. Fine motor. and reporting the results as if they are the same? . Which if true. and more general computer application knowledge. These systems follow a systematic system: Teaching method.student information retrievalstudent information recall. then should have the larger academic community asking. This is what is being reported as a student reading Comprehension achievement. Can children who use a computer for non-academic purposes (for amusement) able to use it just as well when being tested on topics for non-amusement (Barron.student interaction with assessment instrument interface . The results of this dissertation will demonstrate that the information gap between the student’s information retrieval and their information recall reporting is cause for significant analysis. why are we testing children as if they are not. These types of results might better be conceptualized as a combination of Reading Comprehension.11 will be better able to analyze each aspect and look for inner strengths and weaknesses at each state. Computer Literacy.and assessment reporting. The informing system when model represented it forms a systematic system.

grade 5. both internal and external towards the “system of information gathering and retrieval” that students in an elementary school. and while taking a web based assessment as well as paper-based assessment. would most likely encounter and act on.12 Research Question Analysis To facilitate discussion of the research questions and the methodological discussion that follows.) Student information retrieval (Learning. Reading assessments topics: The topics under information gathering during reading assessments are listed below: • • • • • Teaching Method (Ed. Theory) Student interaction with assessment (Human to Paper Action) {and/or} Student interaction with assessment web based interface (Human to Computer Interaction) • The assessment’s tally of positive or negative responses (Computer Science) . I have designed a research model shown in figure 1. Psychology) Student information recall (Ed. prior to. relevant topics will be presented in such a way as to offer support in the development of an actual student generated system for information gathering and retrieval during a “reading assessment” supporting the “Information reporting systems” that school based administrator’s use. This model represents the various entities. Within the literature review.

my standpoint will be that pedagogy defines the activities of educating or instructing. (Computer Science) • Administrators reporting results based on a single outcome of assessment (Ed. Have or being the essential or basic part.13 • The assessment’s program reporting results to teachers and to school administrators. then. Clearly. According to Hemard. Pierson and Burton (1992). and activities that impart knowledge and skill. the term Pedagogy refers to principals and methods of instruction or the profession of a teacher. This discussion is petite and very much to a pre-determined point.) Chapter 3: Literature review Informing System Pedagogy in support of the Informing System According to Webster’s Dictionary. defines elementary. It is within the elementary school education that . in this review. a lead discussion starts by a teacher-initiated topic in elementary classrooms. pedagogy can be defined as the activities of educating and act of imparting knowledge. In addition.

had not prepared them well for this story. or rather elementary level of insufficient skills in acquisition. in this subject. the struggles that so many students have in demonstrating their retention of knowledge was in its primary. places. Similar research was completed by Black. argued against this understanding. Arguably. There is no clear rationale to define and delimit it within broader theories of pedagogy. and William (2003). people.14 introductions takes place. Factors that could significantly add to or subtract from building a larger more comprehensive and usable English Vocabulary. It was found out that a significant number of subjects had not fully comprehended all the vocabulary used in the stories. Within this body of educational research. which the assessment stories were written added to confounding the results. Black and William (2003) presented that that there have been many definitions of formative assessment. things. i. senses. ideas. where the concepts of known confounding variables such as the ones in Ausubel (2000) were looked at even more closely. he supports that. It was learned after completing the research that many more variables were confounding the results. Such variables were single parent household. and actual language spoken at home.e. Ausubel (2000). concepts and relationships. a high development of future academic prospects is witnessed. In support of Black (2007). emotions. during this period. number of siblings. Thus their previous pedagogy. They stated that formative assessment might be a framework in which to unify similar forms of assessment such as cognitive acceleration and dynamic . Middle school students in this research were assessed after reading short stories. According to Ausubel (2000). the concept of formative assessment was once again brought to the top of discussion.

according to William and Thompson (2007). but it is also necessary to take account of the role that the learners themselves. Earlier work on formative assessment centered on five main types of activity. they provided more reference to formative assessment include: • Establishing where the learners are in their learning • Establishing where they are going • Establishing what needs to be done to get them there In traditionally settings. it was later studied that the effect of a new approach to . The teacher should be responsible for designing and implementing an effective learning environment. and developed with and by teachers in normal classroom work (William 2000. and their peers. 2003). Following this further. These were: • Sharing success criteria with learners • Classroom questioning • Comment-only marking • Peer. it is incumbent on each to do all they can to navigate the resulting effect.15 assessment.and self-assessment • Formative use of summative tests In addition. Black et al. the teacher has been regarded as responsible for each of these last three. the responsibility for learning rests both with the teacher as well as with the learner. The learner should then become responsible for learning within the environment. suggested by evidence of their potential effectiveness. play in them. Then it should be observable then.

formative assessment using summative as furthering the needed teachable topics. when summative assessments results were used to guide future classroom discussions. it’s on our American Flag. Class what color am I thinking about. William. In other words. This finding will be a recurring theme throughout this literature review.16 group-work on pupil-pupil and teacher-pupil interaction should be further analyzed. I’m thinking of a color. Rubie-Davies. this can be well interpreted in elementary school practice through a series of questions. teacher asks. (1997). (2003). was researched more. through classifying different approaches to and using . According to Foster. The combining of classroom work by William (2000). though inconclusive were to mold many future related studies in the area of formative assessment using summative assessment as motivation for topics of content for elementary pedagogy lessons. The results. John it’s also the color of your shirt. Though one will need to be re-evaluated into how multimodal pedagogy can find a new place within the inclusion of newer and even more interactive teaching tools that enter into the elementary classrooms. This is a term in educational psychology. According to Blatchford. and Thompson (2007) were completed. One primary lesson learned was that. describing how we think about thinking. via a method called Met cognition. (1996). In reference to Dufresne and Mastre. Here the subjects were once again elementary school and middle school children. It is in the sky. Greater level of withholding was recorded. i.e. finally. the multi-modal method of using more than one or two senses in a given lesson seemed to increase the level of acquisition. Black et al. Bassett & Chowne (2006). Baines.

as one of another question. Point in fact. not self. Comprehending this aspect of children’s educational needs. In a classroom. which presents in Fisher’s study the first obstacle to formal and primary education of many children. At this level. Foster highlighted that approaches to and philosophies of elementary school technology . He stipulates that understanding how children learn. more so. learner motivation. Following this further. a student motivation to learn may be increased. Presumably. it leaves me to discuss on foster key points in learning. can demonstrate that children think about things differently.17 different teaching philosophies in the elementary school technology education plan. educational technology lead to more learning or better learning. the concepts to be learned are teacher initiated. philosophies to support the active learning for any child will be discussed under literature review section that deals with the Psychology in Support of the Informing System. One needs to question whether. teaching children how to learn what others want them to learn becomes the secondary issue. Fisher does look at this question through the metaphorical observation of an educator. is it fundamental?” The act of learning seems to be from most non-academic standpoints. question about teaching children to learn outside the classroom is vastly different then teaching children to learn inside the classroom are asked. can be more stimulated then without. In using technology. Teaching children to learn. question like “Teaching children to learn. while interacting with classroom technology. the teacher should be able to show aggression the concept of learning.initiated. according to Fisher (2005).

The starkness of the classroom walls subtracted from the positive attitude of the teacher. chairs. This was a qualitative analysis of what middle school students perceived as important in their day. the greater concept of where learning takes place was brought to the forefront Goodyear (2000). rugs. While in 2005. Fisher. 1997). In his work “Environments for lifelong learning ergonomics. windows. lead to greater information retrieval of teacher-initiated topics (Foster. For the way children learn is more multimodal then to have a student simply observe from what they see on a computer screen.to-day interactions with their learning environment. while the light in the room seemed too low. which caused eyestrain on some of the children. Most steps in the process at the time thus lead to unpleasant interactions that lead indirectly to less engagement in each child’s motivation for learning. and then reapply them to both self-initiated as well as teacher initiated topics of learning (Fisher. 8 years later. It was this concept of pairing these concepts that lead to the discovery of research undertaken by Goodyear (2000). and teacher demeanor was all brought into play. Such aspects including keyboarding on the classroom computers caused pains in the kid’s hands and wrists. tables. temperature. According to the study it was discovered that such aspects of the learning process in classrooms altered the learning out comes. we should take the child’s experiences in as well as out of the classroom. discussed that in teaching children to learn. 2005). Learning Environment thus. . was not conducive to motivating the children’s learning process. We learned that how students feel in a non-physical sense was just as important as in the physical sense. architecture and educational design”. In this study.18 education.

New York Elementary Day School classroom provides a more current perspective on research direction in what has been a recurring issue in classrooms within the past ten years. and broadly related was teacher generated assessment. that student should be able to read and have a copy of the same book. 2010). I had to look also at closely related key phrases while completing my research searching. due to the ever-broadening capabilities of search engines like Google and Yahoo and Bing. Key phrases were used instead of key words. if a student is to be tested on a book content. students should be exposed to the same (Robelia and Hughes. what was returned as closely related in topics were the Formative assessment. More to Hughes ways (2005). a comprehensive exposure to a reading . in attempting to follow the main topic of Web-based assessment. and summative assessment as teaching tools to promote a more comprehensive way of having children cart off from a reading lesson. Summative Assessment. I will be replicating similar study conditions in a New York Elementary Day School classroom. according to Hemphill (2000). Furthermore. Application based assessment. According to Robelia and Hughes (2010) study ‘Learning Teaching. all having direct application to pedagogy within the classroom. and scholarship in a digital age’ used the concept of using formative assessment. According to their book.19 Next. This explains that. “… to promote a specific type of reading [formative. In using Web based assessment as my primary phrase. The primary focus for this study will be Web based assessment using both formative and summative assessment. Assessment has been labeled differently in many different research projects. summative].

timely manner. but rather in digital form such as a web page. 2010)? Educators still prefer the use of a book copy with children in a classroom. the technology is being used in classrooms. Arguably. Another notable argument about this technology as suggested by Davis & Roblyer (2005) is that. or test their students using paper-based tests. This is by either having each child write out an answer using complete sentences or rather filling in ovals in what may be called a multiple-choice test. according to Chappuis & Stiggins (2002). if a child is initially instructed to read a book by turning paper pages and writing down notes with a pencil. In addition. due to their ability to present information to students. should have us in the education field capture a thought. the same educators will assess. At this stage. 2010)?  If the literature read for the first time is not in paper form in a book. (2003). Hughes. how is the student expected to the react the same on an assessment (Hillman. in a more vivid. writing out a response to something read is a natural and logical process. according to Hamza & Alhaalabi. technology in the classroom has not been fully considered. .20 for students. What has been happening and currently happens so often in our classrooms is a steady influx of computer technology. 2000)?  What if the student must change the way in which initial information is retrieved (Henry. I will expound on some form of questions raised according to different authors:  What would happen if the book’s content were not paper based (Hemphill. Unfortunately. having each child respond to questions on what they have read. 1994.

using this classroom technology by school administrators. or assessment is given. Finally. We can observe the presence of the gap in . there is need for specific assignments and tests. individual student’s ability to process the contents of the book read.21 As noted in the current trends. concept and bring it somewhat current through the work of Harrison. Notably. Questions will be posed to the students to seek further comprehension of the content read. assigning a Chapter Book to a class to read over a period (fifth grade). Hay. as well as the students is that the “tried and true” process of going through the steps in a customary reading lesson. where one or two questions about the main idea of the story will be asked. though. parts of the book containing significant aspects of the story will be gone over in class. Pierson & Burton (1992). basic understandings have obviously been assumed. After careful analysis. Currently. daily or weekly. This leads to the question concerning how the process of teaching a reading lesson is changed. Unquestionably. Writing assignments to seek further understanding of the content read. Throughout the same period. According to Haas and Hayes (1986). the similarities and differences between the two. this can be described as “natural writing form” for that child. Difficult or new vocabulary words and their meanings will be analyzed and discussed. 1991). have now been significantly altered (Clay. in my answer to the process of teaching a reading lesson. a reading test. at the end of the primary reading period. will traditionally take place. parents. This commences by. the teaching process and the responding process have been changed. The length and structure of the test depends. and composition type answers will be expected to answer them. I will use the Haas & Hayes (1996).

Next. and control keys  Printing out correctly what was represented on the computer screen. yet so many educational professionals do neglect them (Kendall& Broihier. then re-printing out and handing in for a grade. let me present some skill sets that are necessary for a 5th grader to be able to complete by the end of his or her 5th grade year. wished to demonstrate. I will begin with sets that assist the child in computer based. the knowledge of dealing with either track-pad or mouse and knowledge about browser choice based upon computer’s . scroll bar.  Proof reading for formatting errors. as small and seemingly insignificant. They Include:  Application knowledge (What a specific computer application does)  Application use (Able to pick the correct computer application to complete a task)  Application operation (Able to control the aspects necessary to get the task completed)  Mouse to cursor movement comprehension  Keyboard knowledge. style. title bar and a window body provides a fifth grader the knowledge to read a web page. Firstly. letters.e. 1992). In addition. i. and publishing issues  Re-entering data to correct errors. function keys.To better grasp ‘applications’ Kendall and Brohier (1992). font. numerals.22 this reading lesson.reading assessments. spelling errors. window extender. web page knowledge can be attributed to. These sets are only the precursor to being able to complete a truly computerbased reading/writing curriculum at the 5th grade level. the knowledge of dealing with application window. The assumptions are too plentiful to neglect.

the student would need a set of skills in order to be able to interact between computer screen. In accordance to Ine. having the teacher guide each student to sites appropriate to the student and a corresponding reading level would seal interaction between student. the working together and simultaneously creates an Informing System. Next. Skill sets for this aspect of the process would be through Scanning and skimming lines of text. computer screens and teachers. possibly a touch screen. top to bottom. According to Maule (1998). System thinking is process of understanding how things influence one another within a whole. the Prior knowledge of vocabulary comprehension. someone. which is my key concentration in this literature review section (Russell. This type of reading lesson would also include hardware that the school would have made a decision on prior to having students enter the classroom where computers would be set up. Consequently. Finally.e.23 format. In addition. (PC) uses Explorer or other PC based format and Macintosh (MAC) Safari or similar browser would be chosen. The previous sets would also be needed to be comprehended prior having the student enter into a formal reading lesson that would take place on-line. word knowledge comprehension and basic grammar structure knowledge is vital. .from left to right. by placing more or less importance on different aspects of the entire process can provide teachers and students the ability to focus on the weaker aspects and reinforce the stronger. (2002). Informing is the introduction of facts about something. NB: In the overall run. 2002). and other students working cooperatively. as well as the teacher leading the lesson. i.

the act of becoming informed requires a skill set of its own.accomplished by either verbalizing the response or by creating a written response. which is part of act of learning. and message. this indicates that. Ability to comprehend directions to complete task adds to the skill set. the reader of this study would logically ask. Furthermore. information. about the individual learner. while discussion may lead to academic learning at classroom level.” presented through their research that the Inter-activity of the senses at different developmental phases lead to the best results in a learner’s ability to comprehend more. The set includes ability to comprehend language used to transmit data. The classroom teacher working with the student on these skill sets usually monitors this ability closely. This theory portrays on what a child can accumulate or know independently without assistance from others and . As stated by Allal & Ducrey (2000). It is through discussion. ability to navigate through text and graphics presented on a screen via. I will introduce the act of learning. that academic learning takes place. Able to acknowledge areas of weakness in comprehension of all previously listed skill sets ensure quick information analysis. transmission of data and directions provides for better information. Applebee (2003) offers a stance on classroom discussion and cooperation in developing higher order classroom instruction that supports student performance from middle to high school.24 somewhere to someone else. the ability to demonstrate comprehension of intended message. Lastly. Obviously. Next. Arguably. while researching under the canopy of Vygotsky (1978) “…Zone of Proximal Development [theory of learning]….

the concept of tell me. Assuredly. According to Nardi (1996) “Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction”. and computer science. we are presented with theory of educating a student. it demonstrates the importance of these disciplines in the instruction of content stemming from reading. 1991: DeGennaro.25 what he can achieve through encouragement and guidance from individuals with better knowledge (Vygotsky. and Allal & Ducrey (2000). to make an assessment of any system “sprockets and cogs” must be checked to see if appropriate “meshing” is taking place. He introduced the concept of driving a standard vehicle. which powers the back wheel and its gears. According to this research. 1978). Many aspects of . In being able to analyze how young students learn ways to do things in an academic setting. 1986). (1987).5 years on average (Bately. show me. learning. 2008). According to Becker. The wheel engages the chain. we need (as academic researchers) to better understand how the informing system is perceived by a child between the ages of 9. This offers support to the later findings of both Applebee (2003). Meshing is the simultaneous operation of gears (in our case) to create a network of activities that allows for smooth generation of energy at an increasing rate. [and] then let me try” is well presented in the development.5 and 10. To expound more a sprocket and or a Cog may best be described as being closely similar to the wheel with pedals attached to it on a bicycle. this helps more in defining informing system (Clay. It takes the “meshing” of many different steps in a system to make the car move forward smoothly. putting into practice is not. While the concept of making the car move forward is straight forward. to generate the energy.

First. one applies the fine motor manipulation. about all the steps it will take to be successful in getting the car with driver to move forward smoothly. this leads one to think that driving a car can be difficult to do.26 which are not directly connected (Nardi. the simultaneous operation moves the car forward. Admittedly. here the head-foot communication assist in alternation process with the press down of the brake pedal. the ignition through use of car keys. and brake with right foot. For the car to move forward it requires a driver. Third. Next. to learn is to understand how some things must work with other things i. the system is added energy through pressing down the pedal slowly. there is need for shifting the gear level from neutral to first gear by use of hand and in the process ensures fine motor articulation. is through getting into the driver seat where opening of front door is necessary. or a sprocket on a bicycle has to deal with a circle with teeth sticking out of it. At last. Next. .e. Next. and placing on steering wheel steadily but slowly and then adding pressure to gas pedal with right foot. ‘meshing’ in order to be done. I will Identify and analyze each of the parts that make up the Informing System. and demonstrate exactly what the researcher’s want you to remember about their work. After clutch balance. 1996). human to machine interaction is necessary at the very beginning. releasing clutch with left foot. Both of which are of course correct. Thus. one places the other foot down on clutch. I will offer a brief review according to Nardi (1996). and makes the bike move. which requires simultaneous activity applied from prior-knowledge. After gearshift. releasing gearshift knob with right hand. while at same time braking. Finally but importantly. This explains that.

2008). 2011). The purpose of discussing child psychology here is to enter into a current discussion pertaining to young students’ self-motivation. . Child Psychology too is a very well researched topic.27 Psychology in support of the Informing System Psychology. or teacher assigned purpose. most likely anticipates many possibilities for what a child may offer as the correct answer. fundamental working knowledge. To use a current analogy. in their direction for completing an on line (web-based) reading assessment. Collins and Duguid (1989). many young students are asked to answer questions about reading topics in school. In general. according to Brown. this is what may be considered a standard operating procedure (SOP). Yes. Why is this so? A vast amount of psychological analysis at the elementary level has been implemented to take on this issue. as an academic discipline as well as a profession has a tremendous knowledge base to be able to reference from. to repeat a year if his or her yearly assessment indicated that the child was not ready to move forward (New York City Department of Education. young children that go to an elementary school are aged between 4 years and 11 years old (Pre-Kindergarten to 5th Grade) in most cases. an elementary school student’s knowledge base can be compared to taking a hard drive out of its box and plugging it into a computer for the first time (Graham. Knowledge generated by immediate family members. The elementary school teacher asking the questions though. the child comes to school with basic. The age 11 has been added here because a child may be held back. Nobody denies that. In this case.

Example. and the knowledge needed to formulate an answer to the question (Barron. this is the situation where a child commences classes not having mastered the school’s primary language and being very young. and second. In the same way. 2003). 2004). In this situation. learning to Read. and other cases the extended family members may be possibly present in the enlightenment of youngsters (Allen & Wilson. first. this knowledge foundation is not what makes answering web based reading comprehension questions possible. On the contrary. Creating a working knowledge base in order to answer any question in school.28 Clearly. In elementary school. According to NYCDOE (2011). learning to read on line. to remain specific in this study’s main topic. then. where children enter into classrooms having little to no prior knowledge on topics that will be presented. . or the student’s teacher in the same language. siblings. Informing Systems must be put to use quickly. In a school system such as New York City. specifically an academically pointed question takes time and comprehension. it is easy to see that learning pertains to aiding a young student in a classroom setting. I will now focus my attentions to two separate topics. This is of both the content that directs the reason for the question. translation becomes necessary in cases where. Parents. informing the school’s population becomes a primary concern. incoming students and their parents do not necessarily communicate with the school’s administration. where open enrollment and multiple cultures are involved. In the light of the topic of child psychology. I will briefly discuss child psychology as it pertains to both Learning to read as well as learning to read on line.

out of the studied population of students ages 10 to 15. I will discuss the Students attitudes toward computer. This work analyzed how different methods of instruction. and behavioral treatments of students was accomplished. resulted in summative assessments scores increasing above a single standard deviation. this finding had me seeking for more information on how student’s attitudes affected their learning. and asking that child to interact with textual content either in a book or on a computer screen (Brown & Campione. The research concluded with one significant finding. that might or might not be fully comprehendible to him or her. 1996). As discussed earlier. being spoken to in a language. Following this further. we are then able to start comprehending the mounting issues many students in New York City face on a day-to-day basis. validation of a computer attitude scale for 16-19 education has been used . Now. The finding was that. we now come to the point of the child sitting in a classroom. it paves the way to analyzing the next aspect that goes into considering child psychology as it pertains to learning to read at the elementary level. studying the efficacy of psychological. no single teaching method used. defining the fact that communication clarity must be incorporated into the Informing System and that meshing this aspect with other variables within the act of informing. educational. that a student has started the learning process. According to Selwyn (1997). In the first place. in an actual classroom. which was not statistically supported in the study. According to Lipsey and Wilson (1993). let us now look at what tools he or she may choose to use to promote this ability to learn how to read. In being presented with this understanding.29 Following this further. produced different outcomes with different students.

Information Overload: Context and cause. This research provided me a platform. Furthermore. through Braukmann (1993). school classrooms were not all wired for the Internet (Bloomeyer. this model for understanding was a concept that came out of an earlier research project by Wideman and Owston (1993). Even with primary communication between teacher and student being a potential issue. In year 1993. as many elementary students as possible. 2008). Many schools would have their math departments. According to Wideman and Owston (1993). the actual content and context seemed at the start of this research to be a non-issue. where they researched Knowledge base construction as a pedagogical activity. an actual question pertaining to a student’s motivation to gain more information. a variable that would not require that much attention. Through further reading of the work of Allen and Wilson (2003). Besides that. what generates interest and focus of the student while using a computer.30 in modified forms to act a model for understanding. This research. analyzed the systematic learning process that seemed to be replicated repeatedly by young children in a school setting. 2002). what is it and what are the implications . Besides that. it was through the later 90’s that many more schools and school systems would watch the prices for computer technology drop to a level that made it more possible to have more computers in the schools (Woo. or a dedicated computer lab in which to rotate through. they had observed at procedures both students and teachers were using in classrooms during primary reading instruction lessons in elementary schools. Designing technology education activities for elementary students and Caidi (2001). lead me to many of my previous research.

another way. A student reads a sentence in a book because he was told to do so by his teacher. he will read it one-way. 2010). Nobody denies that. Most student concentrate on their line of work or study and neglect information that may be essential some time later. An analogy here might assist me in clarifying this concept. where they try to mesh and make it important to him or her (Bryant & Bryant. I have presented a literature review that has introduced research concerned with the pedagogy of young students as it pertains to the active “meshing” of their perceived method of becoming informed to that of relating their current interests in promoting a greater sense of self-motivation in wanting to read more. it is within the understanding of a student’s perception of content and context with seemingly unrelated topics. Unquestionably. it leads me to discuss about reading online. while if the sentence is a question. the sentence will have yet another version uttered. he will read it yet.31 for information seeking. 1998). If the sentence is an instruction. creating motivation in a young student to read more on an uninteresting topic has been an educational issue for decades (Case. question of Content and Context primary communication among student and teachers become important. The observing lens has now been brought into more focus on the actual educating process needed to get an intended concept of information across to a given student. or body of students whose age . Up to this point. In the light of neglect for decade about extensive reading. However. There by educators to try to find more ways to bring into classroom past discussions experiences the students have. if the sentence is about something of general interest to that boy.

(2007). Prior knowledge on a given topic provides for a point of reference. The key word here is Elementary. allows for the reviewing of knowledge introduced in elementary as well as middle school. what is the residue prior knowledge going to be? At this point. (2003) and James. Elementary school classroom teachers. as the title suggests. . or by writing out their recollections on paper. Hard and Soft concepts are introduced by using physical objects. In elementary level education. having concepts experienced not simply defined is the true concept of an elementary education. the concepts. and letter phonics are not known in Pre-kindergarten. According to Elliot. Fox & MacBeth. this understanding about how prior knowledge can affect the following year’s progression is an important concept to grasp. we must ask that student a question (Cooper. 2002). we as educators are seeking understanding. Following this further. Drummond. This rises out questions: o What prior knowledge is Elementary school working off? o What comes before Elementary School grades? o Should Pre-Kindergarteners new knowledge provide Kindergartners with some prior knowledge? o If alphabet letter knowledge. deal with elementary educational topics. in asking a young student to verbalize with sound. letter names. Working with prior knowledge. Carmichael. By analyzing a child’s motivation as a question related to their actual psychological ability to comprehend what they have just read because they were motivated to read it. as what is done regularly in middle school grades six through eight as well as high school grades nine through twelve.32 does not exceed 11 years old.

real paper. we have been presented with research that describes the benefits of taking the time to solidify the concrete concepts prior to introducing the broader more abstract concepts in the elementary years of education. Within this literature review. and in the end an entity that may take up real space on a shelf.33 Learning how to read online. through various authors. has texture. real ink on the paper. or is scanned and saved to a computer. I have presented many researchers that have done extensive research at the middle and elementary school levels. At this level. While the content can be very well represented. mass. In the light of the similarities. Real books have a cover. Moving forward with the concept of experiencing concepts. Berdel. the digital or more current term used is virtual book that is either an actual photocopy of a collection of pages from a book. weight. Sullivan. the content is completely generated within a computer software program that is then run. To be sure. Indeed. the physical book. and then presents a book with pages and text. Working with students who are and are not able to communicate at a mastery level in the school’s primary language used. it is easy to see that idea of concrete compared with abstract. there are similarities in skills used in reading a book compared with skills necessary to be able to read on line (Kinzie. 1992). here being English. . On the contrary. the context changes tremendously. according to Mann and Schaffer (1997). brings me to the concept of learning how to read on-line. rather than simply having them defined. In general. sometimes called and digital versions of books are designed to look the same on a computer screen.

2000). That all aspects of the process in becoming informed at the elementary level require being formally introduced to each of the previously introduced. Hultgren & Limberg.34 Through this type of process. which is called prior knowledge (Kieft. In general. that child needs to be able to understand the concept of book while at the same time. we must be sure the original concept (a book) has had time to be understood (Jonassen. strong devotion and interest but through knowledge and guidance. there is no turning of pages while reading on line there are no pages in a virtual book. In other words. All of which indicates that an elementary student needs to understand how the informing System works. Application support for the Informing System The Informing System will be modeled and defined in detail in the supporting subsections. there actually is a real absence of a book. 2003). The pages we pretend to turn are really animations. in actual practice. knowledge sets. 1994.based page. In expecting a young student to be able to manage the differences between a real book and a virtual one. teaching a child to learn to read a web. 1988). 1991). According to Hultgren & Limberg (2003). 2008) and (Kulic & Kulic. operating a computer (Kopcha & Sullivan. a computer generated image that the viewer perceives as a visual representation of a similar concept in abstract (Kulik. involves that child successfully taking a leap of faith. the young mind is able to benefit from. This system takes place in most elementary school classrooms today it just has .

the lens can be adjusted to allow for broad view and or all-encompassing stance. This subsection will offer arguments for its use. 1983). The primary difference with this work’s research focus compared to that of most of my other referenced works is the population used (under . My target specifically. For it too is a system of differently curved pieces of glass working in conjunction to provide a user. this study’s attention will be limited to one New York City elementary school.as well as against via. the ability to focus on things far and near while at a standpoint (Clark. Pickering’s and Pollock (2001). the main idea in this study is the implementation of a Predictable operating system within methods of instruction. At this point. Pursuing this further. The demographics of which were mentioned previously in the Introduction. In the same way.35 not been officially labeled as such. I will concentrate on Maule (1996) his study of Information Theory and Research. In this case. Furthermore. fifth graders. Informing System provides an educational researcher the ability to observe single phenomena through careful analysis. Defined broadly here as. According to Russell (2002). I intend to include Marzano. both in support. I will be using Informing System to denote method for instruction within an elementary school to be used with elementary school students. that process by which students are informed. I will use the metaphor of a camera’s telephoto lens. summary work of Research-based-strategies for increasing student achievement. within a formal classroom setting in an elementary school today. previous studies completed on similar subjects. Therefore. This offers the researcher ability to retract this lens focal point all the way down to Micro (sharp). in one of New York City’s Department of Education’s (NYCDOE’s) school Districts.

Pickering’s & Pollock. Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. Assuredly. Teachers create a 100 box where all numbers that end in Zero come first in the first column. devices that work in conjunction with other aspects of a learning activity provide me a means of introducing learning theory into this literature review. I wish to add here. all are placed under the same telephoto lens of observation. yet for purposes of conciseness and brevity. Activity Theory. teachers do so because over time and through the actual application. Example. To increase retention of many concepts. academically motivated. From the position of the human subject completing the activity. review. in elementary schools across our nation. to all the different necessary interactions that take place to undertake the activity. teachers introduce. Using in a classroom. and very closely related theories that could probably be worked into a study such as this. This focuses on humans .36 this case High School student research was used in the summary. Why do teachers use these devices? In the light of Oakan. teachers teach young children to sing the letter names of our alphabet. he brings into focus the use of camera lens analogy under the concept. that there are many more well researched. not elementary) (Marzano’s. mnemonic devices are used. According to Nardi’s (1996). it is easy to see that. 2001). and months of the year. long-term retention of this knowledge has been accomplished. I have chosen only three that I believe best represent the motivation behind broadly applying the concept of an Informing System. days of the week. Weiner and Cromer (1971). and assess the amount of retained information presented.

learning takes place. Following . 1996).37 interact actions with technology. Thus together context and consciousness is the means by which activity. he breaks down in her research a very complex system of operations that many drivers on the roads today. if there is a demonstrated lack of context. Consequently. the informing gap widens as more sprockets do not mesh up or operate simultaneous to generate the required activity. According to Nardi (1996). researcher’s looks at a problem. learning. and the learning from the interaction. Similar to this concept. results are concluded and finally. Consciousness refers to the state of being awake and aware of your surroundings (Nardi. These drivers just complete the activity because they have the prior knowledge to be able to do it. Certainly. according to Sears and Evemenova (2007). takes place. would rather not try to comprehend (Nardi’s. On the other hand. solutions to the problem are suggested. A simultaneous operation accompanied by a network of activity (meshing) is required to allow for movements. This indicates that active consideration of one’s surroundings is mandatory for understanding of one’s current state of being. the results will not be the desired ones. To explain this further. Additionally. The main concept behind his work is the establishment of an Informing System. he supports using and implementing the larger concepts of context (Ways and means an activity is to be completed) and consciousness. activity needs these parts to be able to be learned from. 1996). activity pertaining to the problem is started. if a human gets into a manual car and does not have the prior knowledge required to operate this type of vehicle. the problem is defined. the activity will be unsolvable directly inhibiting the learning process.

He extends the concept of Activity Theory to include the ability to predict patterns with in an activity. according to Patrick (1997) research. Pettigrew and McKechnie (2001). provided for the adhesion I was looking for in combining the theories. Once again using the camera’s telephoto lens.38 this further. The informing system seems to continue to gain support through past research. 2001). are still quite similar in their learning capacities. However. This is so because within Pettigrew and McKechnie. Researching questions in this way provides the analyst a means to study a problem from two stances at the same time. the approach seems to be in complete alignment with the concept. As this study falls directly under the domain of Information Science. which was able to produce assessments highlighting significant results in teaching (Patrick. we are presented with almost a direct follow up to ‘Nardi’s Theory of Activity Theory’. The populations of interest. the development of each question asked. offers both a close up as well as a wide-angle perspective of both the problem area as well as the . the use of Theory in information science research. though different in age and maturity. Informing System as was initially brought up by Russell (Russell. their approach was the use of theory in generating and promoting applicable concepts to my research questions. is directly in response to a specifically identifiable and isolated issue within a learning activity. 1997). Classifying Approaches to the Philosophies of Elementary School Technology. we have now been presented with two theorists that maintain the most effective means of providing for increased learning outcomes is by providing a systematic and predictable method of instruction to younger students. To support my theories. No doubt.

feedback is essential. Koki. the actions of the students receiving the instruction and psychology. The previous discussions have indeed looked at Pedagogy.39 problem as it may appear in the entire system. In other words. for the advancement of the knowledge base for this domain. which may or may not be as predictable to deal with. According to. Gooding and Swift . according to (Soe. Swift. we cannot check if all the activities and systems are operating simultaneously to generate require energy (sprockets and meshing up theory). prior to continuing onto actual activity analysis. Maule (1998) Systems Thinking. 2001). What still needs to be discussed in this review prior to going on to actual application of the Informing System is the concept of the student’s process of receiving and or comprehending. Obviously. Besides that. Nardi (1996) Activity Theory and the application of Theory by Pettigrew and McKechnie (2001). we can look back to concepts that have been discussed under my literature review. and Psychology applied to elementary education. The concept of theory too has been reviewed offering academic research findings to add support to directions. What has been considered at this point has been the act of instruction and pedagogy. theory in Information Science Informing System has been supported as an appropriate theory in which to use for aiding in the analysis of the questions listed above (Russell. Without feedback. as it seemed to have been in past classroom settings. and in addition. the obvious question here becomes. and Chang. why the act of receiving and or comprehending is vital to the Informing system. Afterwards. they ask this to ensure students verify their work without the teacher having to do it for them. Elementary school math teachers will ask their students if they checked you check their work. According to. 2000).

According to Herron and Lindamood (2010). to expound on feedback. He analyzed the results of the instrument and analyzed an attitude survey handed out at the end of the experiment and learned that the students that strongly liked the program in most cases did the best in the program (Traynor (2003). In the meanwhile. are really scripts of data that are placed in a computer system that produce what we see on computer screens (Valdez.40 (1988). or computer applications. characters. What was learned was that the system of informing the student to use the program had to be done in such a way as to promote the highest level of information receive-ability. The main point being made here is that these computer applications present the end user with information that must be both well received as well as comprehended. According to (Valdez. he studied the different effects different programs had on different students. On the contrary. 2010). the content of a computer program generates the scenes. to be able to offer the end user clearly defined choices that the previously presented information would naturally lead. Computer programs. this behavior assists computers. the kids who disliked the program did poorly . and input capability of some educational programs. action. 1989). feedback is what many computer scientists refer to as a program’s response to in-put data (Thode. according to Traynor (2003). in computer-assisted-instruction on different learners. 2010). then and only then has the complete activity been successful. This is to say that each student that used the study’s instrument computer program came away with different levels of liking or not liking the program. once a student can check his or her own work for correct answer and process. Furthermore.

output including input from young students is not nearly as predictable (Wallace. this problem arises in situations where the receiver’s end is not effective and information is not well comprehended. 1993). The more traditional way is with a classroom teacher in presenting and discussing new topics with young children. According to Zhao and Pugh (2002). receiving ability and comprehension are significant variables to consider when analyzing interactive lessons within a classroom setting (Walberg &Walberg. no. teachers in the classrooms themselves had not . when the input is predictable and known. At the same time. 2008). Owston. Certainly. young child uses language to communicate wants and needs to the adults around them. computers depend on language to produce the required action that set up a program operating (Williams. Though computer output may be highly predictable. While I have broached the topic of computers being used to transfer information in a predictable way with young students. 2004). according to Williams. I will discuss possibility that. Further. Indeed.41 on the program. keeping learning on track has been one of the primary roles teachers in elementary classrooms have suffered with over the years. The required action is the expected feedback a computer program will offer when the input matches all the internal program’s requirements to produce the wanted outcome (Wideman. 1985). the more traditional way still is an effective method too. this is because so much research on teaching children had not been done up to that point. Stewart and Slack (1996). We observe here that. This leads me to question if Informing System was perfect in years past when computer technology had not yet entered into the elementary classroom.

Generally speaking. educational technology is a label that the New York City Department of Education gives to all aspects of computer use within a classroom. and in many cases. the inactive state. The answer for many. According to NYCDOE (2010). 1998). and the user feed-back state. This concludes my part on application of informing system. The special certificate a teacher must hold to be able to teach computers in the New York City Department of Education is CST 71 as an Educational Technology Specialist. and next I discuss on Educational technology under this same aspect. the data entry state. the responsive or responding state. a teacher’s license area can be including any generalist classroom teacher at the elementary level to a high . it will not work well in a well-defined feedback based program. every system has different states of being (Maul. 2010). if not all these ponderings is the same. children’s feedback is in many cases far from predictable. The Informing System is and will remain a Living and an adaptable system. this is fuelled by the variable nature of its Information Input Source a child. Inclusion of Educational Technology that supports the Informing System To start with.providing the computer system with feedback in which to augment its program to produce more closely the results desired. This type of activity works well with computer programs using predictable feedback based on statements within a program. According to Russell (2001).42 learned or comprehended what they had been instructed. However. in any school of which it administers (NYCDOE.

43 school subject specific teacher, such as an English Literature or U.S. History Teacher. I will focus on the elementary school requirements in this area; a teacher must hold a common branch license, which may include Pre-Kindergarten, Kindergarten, and Grades up to sixth Grade. There are also specialists licenses that allow teachers to teach topics, subjects, such as Speech, which focus on improving verbal communication. English as a second language, which concentrates on incorporating students whose family, communicate primarily using a language other than English. This study is analyzing a fifth grade in one such New York City Elementary School. New York City elementary school has teachers that are generalists holding a common branch (CB) license, as well as any one of the credentials mentioned above. It has 100% New York State and New York City certified, and appointed in place teachers teaching in it. There are also Para-professionals, who are working towards a city certificate, as well as teaching aids that enter classrooms as certified helpers in a class whose class size could benefit from the addition of another adult in the room (NYCDOE, 2010). The establishment of a (NYCDOE) staff higher archly is important to grasp, when discussing the Informing System that takes place with such a building. The Principal is charged with running the physical building, the finances of the building, the administration of the building and its staff, any assistant principals, and of course all the teachers, teaching assistants, student teachers, Para-professionals, and of course the aids and kitchen and custodial staff. Of course, the principal is the most as the person who puts into place the teaching methodology and aligned theory that is to support his methodology. This is to say that the

44 school’s assessment results are monitored by the office of the Superintendent, who directly analyses the reports presented and in most cases decides if the direction his Principals is taking is producing the desired outcomes. The desired outcomes usually are in the form of raised scores in reading, writing, and math. How then are Principals best able to have their assessments reflect the best efforts of their teachers in their buildings? This is by providing professional development to their staff in support of that Principal’s methods and theories backing their concept of an Informing System. Undoubtedly, the Informing System of an elementary school should become the engine behind every included subject instructed, and teacher teaching method, all the way up to and including the Principal’s administration within that school. How does this happen? It must be introduced slowly and methodically into any new setting. To explain this I will discuss bottom up model for information flow.

The Informing System is a bottom-up model for information flow. To begin with, the students become the first users of the new informing system (Russell, 2010). It is important to keep in mind at this stage that this discussion is presenting a concept in support of a system that promotes learning through the presentation of information at an elementary level. Keeping this aspect in direct context to the previous discussion of Pedagogy in support of the Informing System and Psychology in support of the Informing System, we are now better able to understand the importance of Application support for the Informing System. However, the question still lingering is that of the actual application of the

45 informing system. What does application support look like for an informing System within an elementary school? To explain this is will highlight concepts of informing system. Granted, in New York City Department of Education Elementary School, informing application support could be defined as that equipment brought into a classroom that directly promotes the use and academic development of all subject content presented within that same classroom. This Includes all computer hardware, software, projecting devices, and in some cases a supporting audio devices. In addition, according to Martens, Valcke and Portier (1997), the chalkboard and or the White board can and may be included in the genre of Informing System peripheral devices. In my previous discussion, the school’s Principal is responsible for the professional development of the teaching staff as far as the staff is made knowledgeable about the current teaching, informing, methodology and supporting theory. This is accomplished in order to provide the end user- the student, with the most viable means in which to become informed (Lyons, Pinnell & Deford, 1993). Knowing about an Informing System and using an Informing System have been, and remain Academia’s biggest issue to date (Imel, 2010). Schools from Elementary to Middle Schools, up to and including High Schools continuously struggle with the better ways in which to keep their student populations current in their information gathering skills (Lepper, 1985). While on the other hand, the skills all these schools also notice needs constant experimenting in their student’s skills in their “…Information retrieval and comprehension” (Kulik, Kulic & Bangert-Drowns, 1985). Admittedly, once these issues mentioned, have been incorporated into the larger

it was learned that many teachers generated their own assessments for lessons presented to students. One possible direction to answer this question could be the student’s leaning environment. for an elementary level class assessment this would normally be expected. yet his population of interest was High school. especially elementary schools. the supporting pieces may better be analyzed for their realized benefits to the system. This indicated that skills learned for test giving by teachers at the elementary level were being applied still at the higher levels. .46 picture of the Informing System. In this work. via a classroom teacher or a classroom computer wired to view the Internet. The formal way of observing advancement in a single skill set is through assessment (Kohn. we need to question their current version of their Informing system. teachers and the whole community as a whole. This ability to study the end user’s interactions with the content of the presented topics. His researches lead me to conclude that. and the acts necessary to keep the child informed continue to cause schools. why have researchers been unable to come up with an ideal system. This affects greatly ways in which student interact with other student. or both simultaneously can be done in a few ways. Furthermore. an elementary school in New York City fell into the same category of information access issue Kohn (2005). 2005). Kohn researched the need for assessment literate teachers. if the act of getting a child informed. More so. This work discovered that many questions asked by teachers were done so providing the greatest flexibility in generating an answer. Arguably. according to Kohn (2005). information gathering was not being effectively instructed.

when presented with new things. mind in Society: the development of higher psychological processes. Student engagement was discussed within both previous discussions of Pedagogy as well as Psychology. there are regular Education classrooms. The more the physically interactive the primary lesson was. Within (ZPD) we are presented with how interactions between children at one point in their physical . the development of a curriculum around adding to a child’s prior experiences based on his or her Primary senses improves learning. music room. According to Vygotsky (1978). A child’s ability to order these memories was studied by Raudenbush in (Raudenbush. and an auditorium. smells. Under his concepts. sounds. At this point. we can be able to analyze what improves learning in school. computer Lab. In the school. lunchroom. discusses the Zone of Proximal development. the more the child was able to revisit an aspect of the previously presented lesson. special education classrooms. The remaining sub sections of this literature review will focus on the Regular education classroom and the computer Lab. I will focus on Interactive piece. 2005). Interactive lessons are designed to maintain the highest level of student engagement. Children. art room. True. 1978). explained better under Vygotsky model (Vygotsky. to promote learning recall of topics presented to children. pullout or special topic rooms.47 Educational technology use within a regular education classroom. gymnasium. and sights respond to them by communicating outward their experiences. the primary senses must be engaged. feelings. Children constantly are experimenting with their senses. tastes. The reason being that as Vygotsky alluded to. Comprising these are speech amenities.

and Ruddell & Unrau (2004). This indicates within the NYCDOE. NB: Zone of Proximal development shaded. this aspect of developmental learning is also supported by Price (2004). Zone of Proximal Development Illustration 1: Vygotsky (1978) This is a significant point to make in this study at this time. Price’s work analyzed the individual differences in learning via exploring cognitive control. this group is still very much at the less mature spectrum of the formal zone of development (Vygotsky. Please note that my population of interest is a 5th grade elementary class. Elementary . Presented in the illustration below we learn this further. Looking very closely at the ages that the most significant learning growth periods took place. that my population has in most cases not achieved the age of 11 years. and cognitive learning styles. or any increase of time. 1978) Consequently. Under Vygotsky.48 development will change with maturity.

The primary senses of the child need to be engaged.49 school. According to Ciofalo & Wylie. and age appropriate. (2006). my project’s population was one in which Russell’s (2002). It is usually the most current applicability of educational technology that causes the Informing System in place. the application and inclusion of the educational technology in a regular education classroom promotes at every level engagement of the senses and interest of the child. Bridging the Gap Between testing and technology in schools. Thus. ages 5 to 10 filling a majority of the largest growth period. within the regular education classroom then the informing system must be interactive. Effects of computer versus paper administrations of a State-mandated writing assessment was one of the pivotal pieces that directed this study’s direction for research. as may be determined within the scaffolding of the zone of proximal development within a given classroom. All of this research was undertaken at elementary through college level environments. larger concept of the informing system . Testing on computers: A follow up study comparing performance on computer and paper ( Russell. which culminated in his research on this closely related issue. Rudell & Unrau (2004) generated theoretical models and processes for reading at these same levels. Additionally. 2005). To explain this further. Russell and Plati work (2001). inspirational work was a follow up research project completed by only Russell (2002). to seem. 2010). in need of review (Russell. The computer hardware and software that the student will be expected to use is to be determined age appropriate as well. and concluded that the processes undertaken in elementary levels of academic work were what the student most reverted to when a new or unfamiliar method was introduced in later periods.

50 could be readily used with and the assessments in place could serve as a formative as well as a summative assessment instrument for this research project. Results were as predicted. Like. On-line learning required skills both from the reading and from writing disciplines. individual work as well as Russell and Plati (2001). In Neuman work (1992) [whether] is learning from media distinctive by examining children’s inference strategies. Both of which were the researched settings in both Russell’s (2002). 1992). radio. In this. but strongly recommended new skills being taught simultaneously in the realm of computer literacy. completed by previous studies. and Piaget.although the addition of . The motivation for a regular education classroom teacher to start using educational media in a distinctive way. Next.Neuman also saw great differences in how much a child was to be affected by media at different stages of maturity. Clark and Blomeyer (2005). I need was research on either support or non-support for the method of using both formative and summative assessment in conjunction with educational technology in both the regular education classroom as well as the computer lab classroom setting. joint research. computer technology were able to effect change in memory recall (Neuman. books. Pursuing this further. He examined how different forms of media. As concluded by Smith. were both regular education as well as computer lab situations. Vygotsky. 1992). the environments used in these prior studies by Russell and Plati (2001). Specifically. for specific purposes was undertaken (Neuman. video. we learned that indeed children’s inference strategies are very much affected by the media used. I was able to locate a synthesis of new research on K-12 Online learning that did indeed support this direction of curriculum planning.

What might be termed today becomes the student’s best chance for the greatest amount of information the significance though was low. the concept of a computer itself. the pending potential for increased activity. and stimulating to the child’s senses. A Computer Lab supports the Informing System. and interactive aspects of a highly engaging lesson. according to Case (2010). Admittedly. also supported. the setting too is a variable that can either increase the motivation to learn or similarly decrease it (Fisher. Learning Designs: An analysis of youth-initiated technology use. . 2005. which takes place within such a setting. The computer was mentioned to support the audio. visual. This concept of a single computer becoming a learning environment was well developed by the concept of an end-user having to navigate around to get to certain points. yet it remains the act of the content being stored that the Informing System seems to lack in purpose. Next. according to Neuman (1992) testing. as a teacher myself. I found this information highly predictable. being considered a learning environment was established. This may state due to the sensory immersion.51 computers to the list of media to effect change on student’s memory recall was. 2000). Following this further. It is within a Computer Lab situation where the Informing System regains that which was lost in a Regular Education Classroom. itself may be a learning environment change. Goodyear. So many teachers make their lessons highly engaging. The reason being. I will analyze on the aspects of computer lab support for informing system. the children when interviewed later recalled best how the lesson was conducted. In DeGennaro’s (2008) research of. As we have been presented earlier with in earlier discussion of pedagogy.

Children will continue to make an assessment during all stages of the formative time in an activity or at the conclusion of the same activity. and in the state at which things are being done. he was able to demonstrate that children are more than capable of learning inside as well as outside of the formal classroom. The decision was made. 1997). Youngsters are more prone to fun activities and are more playful during this period while completing other tasks.e. and presented the very same . is exactly what they wish to do at any given time. According to Nadri (1996). A child. i. Lucking& Badgett. Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. defined using a Webster’s Dictionary reads as amusing. It was this understanding that supported further the concepts I mentioned in pedagogy in support of the informing system. activity is condition in which things are happening or being done. Which indicates some sort of activity is actually desired by a child. a unique situation then presents in this literature review. According to Greenhow (2008). a process for assessment has been developed either internally or externally. or enjoyable is what any child near 11 years old. entertaining.52 Indeed. a judgment was made and the outcome from completing the activity was enjoyable. being a child under the age of 14 years will continue to make decisions on a single activity on an ongoing basis until that activity is complete (Christmann. prior to entering a physical environment (Greenhow. Greenhow simply took a few lesson plans from teachers and their books and pencils. The previously referenced authors have together presented a situation in which learning takes place for children. 2008). skill sets. Fun. At this point. To expound on this. the ability to complete certain activities was accomplished by completing clusters of specific tasks.

the activity becomes a challenge in how fast one can make it go forward. in elementary schools. When children have acclimated to a room completely. is directly associated with exploring (Hamza. Identical assessments were given to students who were both instructed in the regular setting as well as the different settings. within a computer lab. the story. to this subtopic. according to Black and William (2006). 2003). the concept. This is method of generalized instruction is done for a specific purpose. we now have some confirmation within the presented research that a child’s expectation to explore. not in the acceptance of a given state (Maul. Following this further. behind generalized instruction is to support the . information is presented to the students in most cases. Learning is in the exploration. 1996). 1998). This finding though is not surprising to any elementary school teacher. 1995). the child is demonstrating a yearning to learn (Park. is indeed a motivation to enter the physical environment and start an activity.53 content in different rooms and settings. where the yearning to explore it has vanished. activity in that room drops.The reasoning by Hahn (1996). In wishing to start an activity. in addition. Clements& Douglass. The results were significant in their reporting of raised achievement scores on the students who visited other rooms or settings. 1998). the computer application and method of following rules and so on. Generalized instruction on a new concept has been the model for elementary pedagogy for decades (Black & William. The means of assessments that support the Informing System Initially. just like in Nardi’s example of driving the standard car forward. or how smoothly one can down shift it back to a complete stand still (Nardi. Activity. In conclusion.

while also recording past growth periods. I . this need for assessment has increased. or on-line assessments. (2003). I needed to understand better why the switch to this newer format of assessment was gaining speed while scores on these assessments were not supporting the switch (Black. Clearly. and uses his school’s assessment methods as his own. noting strengths and weaknesses within growth periods. Considering this further. who is to say that the methods in one school are indeed better then ones used in another school. or school system for that matter. As discussed by Clark (1993). As discussed by Leung (2007). Student assessment no longer simply tries to gain information on how much a student remembers about a lesson presented. Indeed. assessments were then developed to assess if students were able to remember the content of the previously presented material. then we need to ask ourselves. the act of assessment has now become the means to becoming better informed. According to Hultgren and Limberg. in today’s elementary schools. trouble began in the development of ways in which knowledge growth could be monitored and increased. 2008). Generally. the means by which so many schools these days are trending towards web based. more knowledgeable about the actual informing process within the academic domain. in what ways then have assessments been utilized within elementary schools currently? Though the researcher for this study is an elementary school teacher. We need to know. alternative methods of assessment needed to be researched as well.54 growth and raised amounts of knowledge for the entire group of students rather than the benefit and growth of a single student.

Educational Technology or rather educationally purposed Communication technology produces greater potential for the informing system to take hold on its intended applicable population. what generally supports the move from paper-based assessment to web based seems to be the current act of reconsidering the research on learning from media in the classroom. potential increase for activity rose. the questions results were significant. from using books. student achievement in many subjects has not moved in either direction. This is. writing. To support this Russell (2002). Arguably. magazines. In this study using this population. In Chambers work. the technology consideration is our main question.55 we need to ask. In the light of the Nardi’s (1996). and computers. concept of Activity Theory. NB: This range may vary due to the issue of a child repeating a grade (NYCDOE. television. 2010). . and mathematical assessment reporting has indicated a stalling of sorts. Middle school aged range in age between 11 to 14 years. the presence of more current communication technology in the school setting promoted a greater interest in what was being presented. More so according to Chambers (1997). telephones. my body of research focused on a middle school population. the trend in reading. radios. Following this further. film strip projectors. for years now. From 1986 to now. It is easy to see that there is more support for that theory’s application within this study. As pointed out by Chambers (1997). this is directly reflecting an inability to promote raised activity within the realm of elementary learning. the potential for more actual interaction between the educational technology and the student.

places numerical values on interactivity within each zone of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD). which I highlight here to demonstrate that much of the studies I use within this research project were indeed cited in other referenced studies within this project. NB: To explain the ZPD effects and concepts I will make an illustration of Zone of proximal development (1978) through: Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory of Learning . Furthermore. if only books and paper and pictures from books are used in learning at the younger stages of development. Chaiklin (2003) too referenced Clark’s(1983). As discussed by Chaiklin (2003). Additionally. They are similar within each zone. In this situation. it further supports the work completed by Russell (Russell 2002). pertaining to the stage of physical and mental development each child was in when being studied. Chaiklin (2003). Furthermore. and higher numbers for higher levels of engagement. this explains low numbers for low interactivity or engagement.56 According to Chaiklin’s (2003). in analyzing to a greater extent Vygotsky’s theory on a younger population discovered that it was the tools employed by children’s teachers that made more prominent the previous work of Vygotsky himself. which the interest of the child and his or her level of activity during the presentation to that media is at a very low level. research on the Zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning instruction. Reconsidering research on learning from Media (1983).

child development of intellectual is maximized through instructions. http://tadahgroup. The development depends on social interactions and assistance by an adult. (2003). addition. Following this understanding.com/vygotskys-theory-2/ According to Vygotsky’s Zone of proximal development (ZPD) (1978).e. of knowledge acquisition the formal informing system that defines the real need for accurate assessment. i. Learning.57 Illustration 2: Vygotsky’s (1978): Kristinsdottir. A more defined process of checks and balances which promotes the smooth meshing of different . This process of operating within the informing system then requires an even better means for system alignment.wordpress. the use of assessment as instructional devices becomes more evident and significant as we see an increased presence of more and more current educational technology placed in both a regular as a well as a specialized classroom. we now are better able understand that age and maturity leads to a more comprehensible means to focus on the entire presented experience. Furthermore. through comprehending that activity produces a higher rate of retained information.

that practices that seemed to have worked years ago in seemingly similar classroom setting will no longer work today. as in (ZPD) or the different levels of activity. as well as the general interest of each student. elementary school teachers especially. 2000). photos. is the volume of potential presentable information. The impact of . and then augment the informing so that the gap. is filled in. Once this occurs the assessment administrator should then be able to check back to see if the formative assessment provided the missing element. while provide its user a means to supplement the missing knowledge. Following this further. it’s through using both formative assessment and as summative assessment that educators become better informed in how their instruction is producing the desired effect. It has to be able to provide the administrator greater understanding. what has changed significantly. To explain this further. by offering a summative assessment (Bell & Cowie. 2002). The level of interaction between teacher and students at the elementary level has not changed significantly in over 75 years (Ine.58 levels of information within the different zones. as well as real time and current audio and video presentations (Kurilovas. 2005). According to Crooks (1988) research project. this present to the current educators that. In the same way. Assessment today then has to be both objective as well as subjective. according to the understanding of Dunn and Mulvenon (2009). audio and visual clips. that which needs to be learned. An elementary school once could only present to its students. the computer technology is now able to present that same student almost an unlimited number of texts. in a book that the school held either on a shelf in the classroom or the school library. which was found in a book. Additionally.

high speed Internet access was becoming more and more available to public schools in New York City. tested one-way or the other. to the stage of assessment development. to start the preverbal ball rolling in the direction of supporting more research on such matters of aligning the content of a lesson as well as the means of information delivery. which students had already been using outside the classroom. academic research currently employs multifaceted approaches to what may seem outside the school setting. as only two-dimensional problems. according to research project (1988). this was later to be studied for effectiveness by Forman & Etchinson in (1991). it was learned that many teachers only used formal or numerically produced results as their summative assessment to produce. During the early time of 1991. Besides that. It took until 1993 for 95% of all schools under the administration of the NYCDOE to become fully Internet accessible. the process of using only quantitative information in judging a student’s work out-put as sufficient or adequate. was to be brought into the regular classroom. a tally of grades to offer support of their final grade for the term for that student. Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. or rather better aligning the delivery method of new information. This means that. formative or summative. was considered the norm. This . what exactly is being tested? If students were currently being assessed. which lead more and more researchers to asking. why was the content of that the assessment based using similar structure? According to work of Fuch & Fuch (1986).59 classroom evaluation practices on students. This revelation of matching. However. Undoubtedly. with the newer available educational technology. it was this same basic understanding of the elementary curriculum within the academic domain.

yet to date. and is turned around away from the reader to show the listening children the pages from the book. and then shortly sees the accompanying . In the light of. it was possible for the discovery of the comprehension disconnect (Kinzie. is read aloud to the class. tested it. Sullivan & Berdel. the computer was then used it to support both the formative as well as the summative aspects of assessment. a grade appropriate. how is it that Fuch & Fuch in 1991. This demonstration method then allows for immediate multi-sensory input. the reported outcomes of such applications have not been up to expectations (Haney & Russell. A comprehension disconnect happens when the delivered content and the following questions pertaining to the just delivered content are not aligned. 1992). opening both pages of the book assist in offering a greater view. The child hears the story. page by page. The teacher reads aloud the content of the book. 1999). I will explain this with an example: In a situation where. hard covered. prior to showing the children the pictures on the same two pages. and the year is 2011. This ratio of 1:1 still does not exist in New York City Schools. Arguably. two pages are read aloud. paper paged book The Cat in the Hat by Dr. Consequently. assessing how formative as well as the summative assessments were being delivered to the students. The informing system may be demonstrated at its most basic level. and found it to be a significant and positive change to use computer hardware in a classroom. in first grade. in order to accelerate the lesson and the story.60 is not to say that those schools had the hardware to make possible the ratio of 1 student to 1 Internet using computer. Next. We need to analyses the question raised during these early times. asked the question. Seuss.

Assuredly. under the study of informing system.61 story related pictures. Addition. under. Each word may now be clicked on. According to Kinzie & Broihier (1992). rather than simply looking a picture from far. In the understanding of Nardi (1996). according to Patrick (1998). Formative assessment: revisiting the territory. Furthermore. The audio output from such a reading promotion program. The system is comprehended. Living Books: The Cat in the Hat provides the student a vastly more interactive means of getting. Now the use of the senses by the student becomes even more focused on his or her direct interaction with the content instead of the indirect interaction with the incorporation of the teacher/reader (Ouyang. the interaction between user and was being used was vital and significant in the development of a working knowledge. 1993). or becoming informed. teacher/ reader questions are used to support the formative assessment of what was just introduced. The informing system changes states when the story that is usually read aloud by a teacher/reader becomes an interactive computer program that uses graphics and keyboard entries as input prompts to promote similar reading experiences. As mentioned previously. a sense of motivation to learn more about the topic being presented.e. Each sentence now becomes a point of interaction. not . i. at the end of set of pages read aloud and viewed. he supports this further in its direct application to elementary classroom learning according to work in classifying approaches to the philosophy of elementary school technology education. this was also promoted by Sadler (1998). it supported that the learning process of becoming better informed was through activity. during the presentation of the concept of Activity Theory. it generates within it.

has been instructed during a reading lesson to do certain activities. and then reading the same passage in a similar book that was used during the oral reading. to become informed. In other words.  Teacher collects writing response and scans it for standard errors. . or should direct many more who work in academic assessment fields to sit up and pay attention. then which dictate the speed and direction of the new means. and standard paragraph development routines. either print or script. These may range from. the medium is the message. It’s the student’s own questions. Pursuing the case of medium further. we ask. NB: At this level the formative assessment piece could start where:  The student answers the first question in composition form. At this point. and finally.62 the content solely. according to McLuhan (1964). listening to a passage and reading aloud to them. the informing gap becomes defined specifically at this point in time . according to Martinez & Martinez (1992). what then is the content of the message? How should a response be generated? The answer to this question alone. the student’s own need to have concepts mesh becomes the driving force behind the informing system. or respond in writing to a question that had followed the reading in the same book. if the medium. using complete sentences. spelling. {computer technology} inside a classroom becomes the message. or its corresponding work book. This is exactly where the current informing systems break down. this theory still holds true in elementary schools. writing On piece of loose-leaf paper or in a composition book responding to a question asked by the teacher. directs.The informing gap presents itself most clearly in the assessment process where a student in elementary school grade 5.

Summative. and writing purpose. by the student taking a Book Level. there is no informing gap that is present. .assessment (Phillips. as is listed above. Next.  Paper in book and paper in front of child.  Errors. is that. and above process is repeated. the summative assessment piece could start  The final edited version is hand written and handed in as a final draft. the second phase of assessment begins.  Ink in book and ink or graphite (marks from a pencil) on paper. and several final drafts have been collected. This involves:  Real human voice by real human being read to real children.63 punctuation.  Once all errors are corrected. Up to this point in the assessment process.  Student re-writes answer with corrections. the informing system remains consistent from delivery to response.  Human to Human Interaction (Student to Teacher/ Teacher to student)  Formative assessment. if any. Finally. This leads me to targeting specifically where this gap takes place. that the book used to generate these responses is then ready to have its contents ready to be officially and formally reviewed for student comprehension. Noted. this process has had many decades of success in analyzing the level of student comprehension noted at each elementary grade level. according to Russell (2002). grammar. are noted and discussed with student. 1988). It is after several reading responses have undergone this formative assessment process.paper to paper to paper  Summative assessment-paper to paper to paper In the same way.

which is to add. in discussion or in writing. in grade 5 elementary reading lessons some of the possible activities to take place include:  Oral reading by the teacher may or may not take place. how then can the informing gap defined.  Formative assessment may or may not take place during the entire books reading period. According to Ryan (1991). Placing the assessable qualities not in the text to be read and comprehended.  Post. we are now introduced to where the informing gap resides (Traynor.64 As was mentioned previously. Following this. on a given book. the informing system may be entered into from different points or states. 2003). this highlights the fact that we are then changing the previous routine of activity in the . statement: The medium is the message. but rather in the means to access it. In understanding of Threlfall (2005). Arguably. the assigned reading period. that the informing system state is also changed. in using educational technology to support reading comprehension.  Reading a passage right from a textbook without prior knowledge of the specific reading can take place. we are now augmenting and modifying the previous informing system. summative assessment is usually undertaken. This is explained below. if the informing system can be entered into at any point? To explain this we revisit McLuhan’s (1964).  Questions concerning the just read passage may or may not take place.

as this literature review has demonstrated. Yet. 2010). It must be then acknowledged that the assessment process must then change also. we have discovered through this literature review that many times assessments have been utilized without the benefit of delivery consistency. may . education technologies can provide alternative approaches to sustaining students’ interest. as was reviewed earlier. However. Following. thus presenting the informing gap. as the previous iterations of the informing system utilized consistency in the form of delivery. not in the absence of an activity. has now been started by the New York City Public School System to be better able to track and report on the successes and failures of each of the elementary school’s reading curriculums. raised student engagement within the learning process (NYCDOE. the activity itself must change as well. applying it appropriately. it is in an activity that one learns. These test scores are intended to be used to indicate to district administrators. we are now presented with assessments riddled with inconsistencies. what Nardi (1996) stipulated earlier that.65 classroom. in support of the argument of consistency. developing student’ knowledge and skills. When web-based assessments are applied appropriately to meet curricular goals. then if the tools presented in a previously established activity are changed. and provide supplementary materials that teachers can use to extend students’ learning (Russell. However. thus changing the way learning takes place. A reading curriculum using web-based formative and summative assessment connected with it. 2002).

In general. how then. according to Varlamis and Apostolakis (2006). First. while attempting to push in newer technology. At this level. Indeed. Lee. This is because. What has changed is the amount of technology students may use on a daily basis in pursuit of higher levels of engagement within the learning process. K-12 teachers. Macmillan/ McGraw-Hill for many reasons. Moreover. be an easy task. a question in application of assessment is presented. thus still present new information to students via the traditional or older version of the presented Informing System. 36 percent had them use CD-ROMs. Harrison &Black (2004). are teachers able to assess traditional skills using newer technologies? According to William. and 29 percent had them use the World Wide Web. Within elementary schools in New York City. If teachers in K12 classes still present new content using physical books with paper. from Wininger (2005) understanding. Houghton Mifflin. the continuity of the curriculum alignment has now been altered. what to teach has not altered much within the last 20 years. it is during this period of change that many schools currently find their reading and writing curriculums in a state of flux and uncertainty.66 not in most cases. additionally. Elementary schools within New York City’s Department of Education use such educational text book publishers like. in 1998 a national survey of teachers also showed that 50 percent of k-12 teachers had students use word processors. because each publisher has had teams of academic researchers researching . this data indirectly states that traditional methods of presenting information to students has changed little in comparison with the newer technology. then this indicates that the use of technology might be on the rise since 1998. Holt. According to Russell (2002). Clearly.

Questionably. generally refers to the extent to which a concept. This is accomplished to make valid and reliable the assessment outcomes each publisher cares to employ within their books. when the chosen informing system does not regularly implement the newer computer technology. According to Zandvliet & Farragher. (1997). having no single agreed upon definition. validity.67 in actual classrooms and speaking with school’s administrators discussing topics. Admittedly. according to Wang (2007). what makes the terms reliability and validity so important to this research project? The importance of these terms may be found in what is reported at the conclusion of the given assessments. when elementary schools attempt to use educational technology in roles of generating assessments. often used to describe a test. On the other hand. reliability is the consistency of a set of measurements or of a measuring instrument. at the initial presentation of the to be assessed information. It is precisely this issue of making and keeping the results of formative and summative assessments valid and reliable that provides greater strength and support to the undertaking of this research project. this leads researcher to seek more supporting information on how schools can support using educational technology. or measurement is well founded and corresponds accurately to the real world. administrators must make certain that the curriculum is much more aligned to producing outcomes that may be made valid and reliable. and what types of questioning should be employed at the end of each reading unit. conclusion. . for the purpose of students undertaking web based formative or summative assessments. In the understanding of William (2007).

the more informative and current the machine kept them became the primary focus. age ranges of between 10 and 15. the study focused on any significant differences in applied purpose between ethnically diverse groups as well as between boys and girls. boys were noted as using computers more towards the amusement side while girls the remaining current and informed was a primary . Interesting within a classroom the presented purpose in using the machines was teacher driven in all cases in this study.68 Unfortunately. Thus. while the older the student. in this study. work of Kalyanpur and Kirmani in their (2005). the more interested they were in the amusement capability of the machine. On the contrary. Studies such as:  The gender differences in an on-line learning environment by Barrett’s & Lally’s (1999)  Computer-assisted instruction (focused on middle school students using a word processor to write out reading responses) by Cotton’s (2005)  Effects of word processing on sixth grader’s holistic writing and revision by Grejda’s (1992)  Computer anxiety and attitudes towards computer use by Igbaria’s and Chakrabarti’s (1990) More precisely. The younger the user. It highlights the differences in ethnic as well as male and female make ups of how children and young adults. little known research exists that has studied this precise question. Diversity and technology: Classroom implications of the digital divide. who used computer technology in the classroom.

this trend is a highly discussed phenomenon in and around schools for years now. motivation is well focused. This is the concept supporting the use of computer technology within the classroom to either aid a student in the active reviewing of a previously presented topic. and Berdel (1992) studies. The proponents defend the concept by saying. or rather used to augment initial information presentation. Indeed. According to Kinzie. teachers in real classroom settings in addition. In the meantime. Point in fact.69 motivation. In the same way. students will learn more if they remain engaged. the argument of Woodrow (2010) that computers alone promote raised levels of engagement is further supported. this permits me to suggest that access time to a computer may be highlighted in future discussions as a significant variable to be incorporated into the determining of which informing system should be implemented into a specific classroom setting. Assuredly. the use of computer should be utilized in such a way as to provide the student with 1:1 instruction (1 student to 1 computer).Instruction). Arguably. just not at the 1:1 ratio in elementary schools (Zhang. it was reported that the gap noted in 2005 was not significant and that the access to the available machines was dominated by the boys in the study. Sullivan. . Girls were noted not signing up for time on the computers as much. then it must be done so on a completely equal basis. another question that is dealt with very comprehensively in my readings is one of motivation. have strongly asked for computers to enter classrooms. Motivational and achievement effects of learner control over content review within CAI (Computer-Assisted. If access time is a variable to deal with within the assessment period. No doubt.

providing for the ability to predict the future states of that pattern at any given time. According to Harrison. It’s this concept of consistency that provides for the maximum levels of active learning. Consistency is the repeating representation of a given pattern or design. the Informing . How can something so seemingly insignificant be so vital today? To answer the question I will discuss on consistency. Pierson & Burton. This division has been present. varying levels of actual fear start to rise in that student’s psyche.70 2010). Clearly. The informing gap must once again be brought to the forefront of assessment issues plaguing our elementary schools today. however it has been poorly defined in the media and general academic write-ups as well. (1992). A skeptic might ask how consistency can aid the active learning ability of a young student. HCI (Human Computer Interaction). and IR (Information Retrieval) we look at skills that are necessary in being able to use Web-based applications as potentially accurate tools for elementary school level state and city mandated assessments. Information Studies supports the Informing system Under CAI (Computer Assisted Instruction). then when a student is presented with an unknown situation. Hay. Reason being. I have though found profuse support for 1:1 to be present in Secondary and College level studies. I have not been able to locate any research that specifically and undeniably argue for or against 1:1 computer use in the elementary school.

Anderson. the experience is made up of a vast amount of recordable data. the computer hardware and software. we have looked at the student. in order . In Sadler work (1989). and the educational theories supporting their cooperative and multi-interdisciplinary application within the classroom setting. We have five senses that are activated during every state of learning that takes place. is as important as the information it self. children learn continuously in and out of the classroom. Through vision. Hawkes and Raack (2000). touching. Foertsch. “Territory”. This research thus supports McLuhan’s the medium is the message. educators at all levels in academia have long understood the importance of where the learning takes place. according to Valdez. is it that at this point I choose to look back to the Marshal McLuhan (1964) statement ‘the medium is the message?’ The medium according to McLuhan (1964) alluded to is the way in which the information can be received and comprehended by anyone. So why. hearing. However. we take in. Formative assessment: revisiting the territory (1989). 2008). the teacher. Obviously. As human beings. and yes tastingstudents actively associate daily instances into a learning moment. That the setting in which one is presented information. we are presented with the analogy. the classroom. However. The medium is the Informing System (Graham. the teaching method. 1989). the trouble has been what to place in that classroom along with the teacher and students. Following this further. Up to now. Each moment. all forms of information at any given time. McNabb. What they learn is totally an individual experience.71 System has not been properly populated by establishing the environmental settings (Sadler.

S. fear is then more able to be moderately controlled. Method as a scientific term is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena. To support this. In being able to. this understanding then places the concept of consistency in a position of great significance. or correcting and . must be during an activity (Nardi. computers. which lends more credibility to the importance of my research questions being studied today. when a student is then able to use their prior knowledge. In this situation going back to my previous discussion on methods of assessments. At this level. access to the Internet in classrooms was undertaken by Cattagni & Farris (2002).S. This was to promote all of these variables which aid in the promotion of engaged learning in the classroom. in the hands of the students being assessed for all the city and state tests in their educational regions. they studied classrooms and their computer access to the World Wide Web from 1994-2000. while focusing on the inclusion of yet another variable. which is consistent with other prior experiences. acquiring new knowledge. in these types of situations. Department of Education. According to Wininger. acquired during a previous activity. In this study we are presented with the data that documents the actual placement of educational technology. Internet access in U. control their anxiety due to knowing more about the unknown. Public Schools and classrooms. According to sandler (1989). (2005) understanding. 2004). their recordable success rate increases at a statistically significant rate (Priya & Hannafin. having started as early as 1994.72 for learning to be able to take place. It is this type of data collection. 1996). The data being retrieved was done so directly from data on the subject from the U. according to Cattagni & Farris (2002). In final consideration.

within this study’s results. but in this case. Undoubtedly. Following this study. I found it important in comprehending further the current problem of how to align web-based assessment with a traditional informing system in place. the instrument’s design should directly reflect that of the primary informing system. Web based dynamic assessment: Taking assessment as teaching and learning strategy for improving student’s e-learning effectiveness. assessment as discourse and assessment of discourse. in Zhang (2010) topic. in the study the term that was used was method and not system. One such study was completed on look at how teachers use formative assessment and talk in classroom contexts in addition. Leung & Mohan (2004) were able to enter settings with . Connell & Gray in their work use system interchangeably with method in their work.73 integrating previous knowledge. the terms I do believe are inter-changeable. Under. Waxman. Yes there are a number of studies that looked at this side of the predicament. according to Leung & Mohan. What about the teachers’ themselves using the technology to teach with? Were there any studies that looked at that question? In answer is yes. All of which focused solely on the student’s ability to interact with the computer machines. exploring the learning mechanism of web based questioninganswering systems and their design. he offered a great explanation on how the question should be best attacked from both the end user (student) as well as the school’s system administration. (2004). the main point that was made was that each general level of web-based assessment must be designed specifically for that population. Granted. According to Zhang’s (2010). Additionally. In this study. method is termed only as system in Wang’s (2010) work.

as was mentioned previously.none of this is accomplished or collected (Russell. Today. 2002). when an elementary school teacher teaches a reading lesson to a group of children. when a student sits for a web based assessment. There has also been research completed on why web-based assessments providing more accurate results then . what was being reported to the administration. Their results were not as high as their peers. listened for. No grade flux was used because the computer system had not been programmed that way. research has been done on the ages. some students were being assessed using a web-based instrument that was presenting information to them not in their native language. and general background is collected on each child that enters a classroom. the separation of sex and diversity and motivation between students who use computers for both activities outside as well as inside the classroom. Though. It was this study that highlighted to me the significance of exactly what was being comprehended by the student. then directed straight to the first assessment in English. the grade level.74 teachers. while at the same time. It had only been programmed for only English Speakers much like the instrument being used in this research project. Contrary to this. the students being tested spoke and read English. their native language was not English. Furthermore. actual fluency is looked at. In this situation. administrators. These students had passed a fluency test upon entering school that year. The results reported back to the administration only reported the returned numbers. and students to see and try to better understand how mandated state and city tests could better be utilized within a school. The student is asked to log in with a user name and password.

(1989). Interestingly enough though. Only briefly mentioned in Zuga (1989) study: Relating technology education goals to curriculum planning. was the concept of web based assessment instrument alignment even considered along the lines of the school’s regular. I am able to now ask you the reader of this review an important question. why are we testing children as if they are not. (2010). According to Zuga (1989). he went so far to recommend that computer skills used during the taking of the web based assessment should be previously gone over and reviewed prior to having the student sit for the assessment. (1993) and Moursund. So what? Why is the connection between the effects of computer versus paper administration of a State-Mandated Writing assessment and .75 paper based. Pursuing this further. {if reading skills are significantly different between the two methods. The primary reasons I have been able to locate in schools using web-based assessment over paper based are because of cost effective. Mead and Drasgow. In support of the case scenario question mentioned above. and reporting the results as if they are the same?} According to Russell and Plati (2002). what was not reported in any of the previously mentioned studies was the subject’s past interactions and neither instruction on the hardware used nor the software used. according to Zuga. Effects of computer versus paper administrations of a State-Mandated Writing Assessment as my research method model. speed in collecting results and assimilating the data. the highest reported reason for educational technology being placed in both a regular as well as a special-needs classroom was in it providing an efficient and rapid ability to act on a student’s strengths and weaknesses. computer curriculum.

On onside. The zipper gets zipped up! However the meshing does not take place. if the teeth mesh perfectly with each other. in this case.76 understanding the difference between the skills necessary to read a book versus reading on line so important? Following this question. According to Nardi (1996). Success is sometimes acquired the second time. a similar cloth is stitched to another very similar sized set of projecting teeth. On the other side. the teacher may reverse his or her actions and try moving forward again later. the system may be considered to be working properly. For if a single tooth of this system is out of alignment the remaining pieces of the system will cease to function at all. as both sides get drawn closer and closer to each other by the direction of the mechanical connecting agent. cloth is stitched to a row of small projecting teeth. This can represent the child’s prior knowledge going into a reading lesson. Nevertheless. A zipper on a coat or boot can represent the parts of the Elementary School Level Informing system. Besides that. computer literacy knowledge. the entire system will break down. when one aspect of a smoothly working activity is not able to continue due to an inconsistent behavior of one of its required parts. I know this analogy simplifies greatly the relationship between student. the development of the Informing System makes it so important. This can represent the new knowledge about to be imparted to the student. . the informing system cannot work. the actual Zipper or Connector [the Teacher]. If a single informing gap exists. Let me use an analogy here. the major problems may be revealed when just one of the many projecting teeth of this combination is out of alignment.

In final consideration. Many of these confounding issues I will raise in my methods section. and teacher. both Nardi (1996) and Mann & Schaffer (1997) use zippers as forms of technology in conjunction with children and activities.77 content. informing system that presents new knowledge in such a way as to provide student’s a gap-less means of being assessed. because these are the very same . In trying to determine what the most significant issues are in the application of Educational Technology in the classroom was or is. bags. throughout this review. I introduce this concept of confounding variables in a human computer interaction rooted research study. I have presented research that has in one form or another focused on the development of a consistent. is with the creation of a well-aligned and populated informing system. What makes it so powerful though is the action of the connector. I have chosen here to relate the slide’s purpose mentioned here as the final goal of an elementary school teacher. It will be the development of a consistent and reliable method for generating and populating the student’s Informing System that now will become the challenge (MacArthur. 1988). The only way in which this process becomes possible. Methods used in past and current research for further development of an informing system. and other items. Both define a zipper as a device consisting of two flexible strips of metal or plastic with interlocking projections closed or opened by pulling a slide along them. used to fasten garments. In context. I was presented with a vast amount of variables that could possibly confound any study I started.

may affect the outcomes during the taking of an on-line or Web based.78 variables I dealt with in entering into this project’s main research questions. (2010). This hardware configuration caused children to slow their normal progress in working with a well-known application. In this study a Macintosh computer was used in both circumstances. that I learned that the actual choice in computer hardware. when children started using the laptops track pad over the table top version of the same computer brand. this observation took place 7 out of 10 times when originally tested. As an example. would attempt to continue using the computer with this configuration and not ask a teacher to switch the mouse to the other side. Yet. The only difference was the use of the brand’s I book line. The I-Book is a . computer supported collaborative learning within New York City Public Schools. mandated state assessment. activity times went up in minutes. According to Graham. elementary school computer class research projects. had children interact with the applications differently. This research project also analyzed the functional differences students ran into when presented with a mobile computer’s track pad (Laptop Computer with Track-pad configuration. In the same study as mentioned above. through physical placement of a wireconnected mouse to the right or to the left of the computer’s keyboard. and the Power Book line. not in seconds. Besides that. It was in the completing of one of my own earlier. it was discovered. if presented or sat at a computer with the mouse to the left side of the keyboard. children who were normally right hand dominant in writing would normally use a mouse on the right side of the keyboard. Static versus mobile. In the light of the project.

this extends to to having a user able to with 3-D digital glasses and digital interface recognition devices interact with a virtual reality representation graphic interface application where the user attempts to pour a liquid successfully into a digital vessel. This is in most cases dealing with how a user. joystick. and apply them to this single subject. Human Computer Interaction studies focus primarily on how the user is able to interact with a computer.79 desktop or tabletop version. pressing it. through understanding how students interact with computers via research HCI. Admittedly. keyboard. Clearly. which is computer . then the task difficulty may be as basic as finding the letter G on a keyboard. while the Laptop uses a track pad (now Touchpad) design (Graham. we learn what may affect speed and accuracy in dealing with computers and their programs. and watching it pop on to the computer’s screen. The Tabletop uses a wired (Now wireless) mouse. and mouse to complete a task. Additionally.assisted instruction. Clements and Douglas (1995). according to Park. I must bring into this literature review research methods that deal with information retrieval. while the Power-Book is the laptop version. 2010). We are also presented with research that focuses on how computers are used in academic settings through CAI. uses a computer screen. Through much of the research methodology that has been implemented in closely related topical research. or IR. And lastly. I was able to construct a research method for this study that applied certain aspects from each separate discipline. The literature review that highlights research methods that seem to strongly support the ongoing research concerning: Effects of Computer versus Paper Administration of a State- .

Transitioning from writing on a computer using a word processor. Therefore. 2000). Plati. The rather clear response to this phenomenon is consistency. the letters we use in our written language today are presented to us via. . This too is important to understand from an educator’s point of view. and Hanafin and Dalton (1987). The students having learned to type. and you will learn more…” discussed by MacArthur & Graham. suggests that strategies that had promoted the more traditional. is able to self-correct without the aid of an applications writing aids (Phillips. As Russell and Hanley (2000) describe. When written text is presented.80 Mandated [Web-based] Assessment (Russell. two previous studies provide evidence when these students accustomed to writing on computers. it should be done so in a way that the user will interact with it. Having this knowledge to work off of is important when first working on computer applications dealing with the written word. may actually have been working against each other. performed better on written tests when these students were allowed to compose their responses using a word processor. we can now analyze the similar skills necessary to read the content using a word processor’s output. Certainly. 1988). using a keyboard and mouse. when applied to meet curricular goals. 2000). and provide supplementary materials that teachers can use to extend students’ learning (Russell. Current and still ongoing research however. educational technologies provide alternative approaches to sustaining student’s interest. (1987). developing student’s knowledge and skills. Plati. “Write more using a computer. and comprehending paragraph formation using correct punctuation while interacting with a computer’s input and output device.

and I-Pad’s or e-readers. Desktops. why are we testing children as if they are not. then schools would not need to consider it as a topic for instructional support. not the printed on paper word (Russell. If children did not have this technology in which to interact with in their immediate futures. Baker. the current way is via the World-WideWeb (www) and via text messaging using devices such as. But let us not forget Movies and Television. For now we have even more ways in which the printed representation of information can be presented to us. Indeed. according to Buchanan. McKechnie. the Text messages are all communications initiated and comprehended by learning how to read and interact with electronic communication. and Posters. if reading skills are significantly different between the two methods. 2010.81 News Papers. 2002). 2000. This having been known and researched since 2000 lead me to ask. (2000) and Moursund. Laptops. and reporting the results as if they are the same? A possible research method to help analyze this question was written up in Michael Russell’s and Tom Plati’s (2000). According to Buchanan (2000). (2010). today there is still more means to get the written word out. Journals. today’s school aged children are not interacting only with ink on paper and television media or the movies anymore. Smart phones. However. Case. Magazines. statement ‘the medium is the message’. the Internet. Greenwood & Jilien. Effects of Computer versus Paper administration of a . they now have and use the Internet. Yet. 2000. World Wide Web (www). all which are ink on paper-based mediums. Buchanan. This fact alone now places even greater significance on McLuhan’s (1964).

& Ducrey. What I have done differently may be found in my variables used. (2000). and my population of interest. This project studied a population of middle school and high school students in grades eight and tenth. The methods section of my study will go into greater depth of the structure of this quasi-experimental research project. and the population being studied that drew my attention to this study. this was the only research project that sought out to determine if one method of assessment was actually doing what is was supposed. This particular study. G. Here I am only discussing the reasons supporting its use as a viable research method based on the supporting literature. a controlled experiment. Bibliography Allal. Russel’s and Plati’s (2000) was designed to examine the extent to which student performance on an open-ended writing task differs on paper versus on computer.82 State mandated Writing Assessment research. grade 5. L. In the final consideration.. Assessment of or on the zone of proximal development. I have chosen to seek and understand better the effects of Computer versus Paper Administrations of a City-Mandated Assessment on elementary school students. . It is the development of the question. It was reporting on how the assessments were being reported and what actual significance could be associated with the results.

(2003). Information Overload: Context and causes. N. A. The New Review of Information Behaviour Research. V. The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. D. A. (1986). Barrett. B. (2003). American Educational Research Journal. (2004).) Boston: MA. H. Becker.. Barron. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. (1999). (Dordrecht. Journal of Educational Computing Research. The Impact of Computer Use on children's learning: What research . E. T. Ausubel. Learning ecologies for technological fluency: Gender and experience differences. Batey. Building a case for computers in elementary classrooms: A Summary of what the Researchers and Practioners are saying. 3 (1). 685-730. & Wilson. 31-44. 4. Allen. Gender differences in an on-line learning environment. (2000). 137-152. D. 40 (3). J. Discussion based approaches to developing understanding: classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. 1-36. 10. Ed. & Lally. D.83 Learning and Instruction. Applebee. 24-36.. (1987).

P. Black. 623-637. 'In praise of educational research': Formative assessment. P. Science Education. D. Education Association for Evaluation and Accreditation. D. B.. Developing the Theory of formative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles. Full marks for feedback. 7-65. Developing a theory of formative assessment. (2007).84 has shown and what it has not? Bell. P. D. B. & Cowie. & William. Black. 29 (5). . 81-100. Policy and Practice. Black. 5 (1). P. & William. Make the grade. P. British Educational Research Journal. 18-21. 85... Journal of the Institute of Educational Assessors. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment and Learning. 2 (1). Black.. (2000). (2003). The Characteristics of formative assessment in science education. Black. (2006). & William. (1998a). 5-31. (2008). 536-553.

Online Learning for K-12 Students: What do we know now? North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.. 750-765. (2002).. C. 18 (1). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: on procedures.. NJ. A. J. L. Brown.85 Blatchford. J.ncrel. R. 52 (8). The effect of a new approach to group-work on pupil-pupil and teacher-pupil interaction. & Schauble (Eds.. (2002. Rubie-Davies. In L.Learning. R. Educational Researcher.org/tech/elearn/html Bloomeyer. & Campione. (1989). S.. A. 32-42. E. Hillside. P. October). Blomeyer. Retrieved October 18. (1996). Innovations in Learning: New Environments for Education (pp. Designing technology education activities for elementary students. principles. (2006). P. J.). Braukmann. 2010. Bassett. Situated cognition and the culture of learning. A. & Duguid. 291-292). from the North Central Regional Laboratory website: http://www.. (1993). Brown. Collins. & Chowne. E. P. .. 23-25. Journal of Educational Psychology. Baines. and systems. Central Regional Laboratory. The Technology Teacher. 98.

Internet Access in U.S. Case. March).ed. Interdisciplinary: What is it and what are the implications for information seeking? Hamanities Collections. Public Schools and classrooms: 1994-2000. Retrieved May 28. Information Behavior. Cattagni. D. 193-200. Using assistive technology adaptations to include students with learning disabilities in cooperative learning activities. 16. T. (2003).pdf Chaiklin. (1998). Buchanan. 41-54. (2001). R. E. NCES. (2000). Journal of computer assisted learning. & Bryant.gov/pubs2001/2001071. 35-46. (2010).86 Bryant. A. 295-315. 3 (1). 1 (4). (2000). (2002. Buchanan. The Zone of proximal development in Vygotsky's analysis of . from the NCES website: http://nces. T... Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. N. 16. Caidi. The efficacy of worldwide web mediated formative assessment. S. 2011. B. Journal of Computer Assisted learning. The efficacy of a World-Wide Web mediated formative assessment. D. P. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 193-200. & Farris.

P. Review of Educational Research. suburban. 31-40. J. Chambers. & Wylie. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 60 (1). & Stiggins.87 learning and instruction. Clark.. (1983). J. R. 13 (4). (1997). Lucking. (1983).. & Badgett. R. (1997). 53 (4). (2002). J. R.). Reconsidering research on learning from Media. Teachers college record. January). E. Clark. The effectiveness of computer assisted instruction on the academic achievement of secondary students: A meta-analytic comparison between urban. (2006. 40-43. 3rd. . C. A. 31 (1). Reconsidering research on learning from media (Vol. Educational Leadership. Classroom assessment for learning. New York: Macmillan. 20-25. E. and rural educational settings. A. Using diagnostic classroom assessment: one question at a time. R. Has Technology been considered? A guide for IEP teams. Ciofalo. 445-459. C. Christmann. S. Computers in the schools. L. Chappuis...

41 (1).d.88 Clay. The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Classtalk: a classroom communication system for . DeGennaro. Davis. 53. 37 (4). (2008).borg.. Review of Educational Research. A case study of information-seeking behavior in 7-year-old children in a semi-structured situation. K. 904-922. from the CAI website: http://www. 438-481. 58 (4). (N. (1991). E.com/~rparkany/promoriginal/etap778/cai. Cotton.). M. N. Computer-Assisted Instruction. NH: Heinemann.html Crooks. Portsmouth. D. CAI. G. Learning Designs: An analysis of youth-initiated technology use. Z. L. (1988). Cooper. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. T. M.. 2010. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. & Mestre. (2002). Becoming Literate: The construction of inner control. 399-409. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. Retrieved February 24. 1-20. L. Preparing teachers for "the schools that technology built": Evaluation of a program to train teachers for virtual schooling. (2005). M. Dufresne. (1996). D. & Roblyer.

& Mulvenon. L. & Etchison. Journal of computing in Higher Education. England.. C. A critical review of research on Formative assessment: The limited scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessment in education. G. Dynamic assessment in educational settings: Realizing potential. 7.. Foster. Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A metaanalysis. Exceptional Children. D. Fisher. . The Technology Teacher. J.89 active learning. (2005). 199-208. R.. Fisher. Classifying approaches to and philosophies of elementary school technology education. 13-16. K. (2003). 3-47. 53. Technology 2000: A profile of technology education at Dranesville Elementary. Teaching Children to learn. 14 (7). In R. 21-56. 55. London. Fuch. S. & Fuch. S. Dunn. 15-32. Teaching Children to Learn. (2009). P. Forman. (1991). April). Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation. Elliot. Journal of Technology Education. Educational Review. (1997. (1986). 5 (1).

. C. C. Greenhow. (2008).W. Graham. Improving category specific web search by learning query modifications. Information Studies. Old Brookville. Goodyear. Information Studies. (2001). G. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. Old Brookville.. Commentary: Connecting formal and informal learning in the age of participatory media: A response to Bull et al. Flake. Environments for lifelong learning: ergonomics. (2010). Long Island University. 2. 1-18. 8 (3). (2008). Lawrence. Static Versus Mobile. instruction and Technology. Perspectives on learning. Technology-Mediated Learning. Post. C. Long Island University. G. Graham. Graham.. (2000). 22-31. G. architecture and educational design. Long Island University. A study analyzing access to and the preservation of student records within New York City Public Schools. In The Proceedings of the Symposium on Applications and the Internet. Old Brookville. (2008)..W. Post. Computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) In a New York City Public Elementary School. A. Information Studies. Birmingham. S. E.90 Glover. & Kruger. G.. J. W.

K.liu.91 Greenhow.. C... B. (2010. M. Teaching in the Information Age: The Creative Way! Haney. Retrieved March 18. Haas.. C. (N. 85 (3). & Burton. PA. (1999. C. & Hayes. 32 (4).edu/cwpost/libraries Grejda. Effects of word processing on six graders' holistic writing and revision. W. J. Computer Literacy skills among .). From the Research News and Comment website: www. 2010. (1986). March). Low-tech tests shortchange high-tech students. Hahn. Teaching. G.. A.. Robelia. & Alhaalabi. 624-631. J. Pittsburgh. Harrison. Pioneers of online age. Hamza. (1992). 15-28. J. and Scholarship in a digital age. B. (1996). Hay..d. Information Processing & Management. 144-149. July). M.. & Hughes. T. Pierson. & Russel. Christian Science Monitor. Pen and paper versus the machine: Writers composing in hard-copy and computer conditions. (1992). Journal of Educational Research. D. Learning.

Hemphill. (2006). April). (1987). Hess. 26-29. Children's inferences with print and pictures. 187 (1). The language of instruction: Assessing the instructional syntax of technology-based training. American Journal of Distance Education. The American School Board Journal. J. (2000). Educational Technology. & Willis. 261-276. L. C. A. D. Henry. Journal of Educational Psychology. 8. F. 53-56. The Reading Teacher. 14-18.92 school students and employees in industry. 40. . 19 (2). None of the above: Promise and Peril of high stakes testing. Design issues related to the evaluation of learner-computer interaction in a web based environment: Activities v. B. Hemard. (1994). (2010. Computer assisted language learning. 8 (2). Searching for an answer: The critical role of new literacies while reading on the Internet. 79. Learner Interface Interaction in distance education. D. H. 194-205. 30-42. Hillman. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. Tasks. (2000). Holmes. D. C..

Computers as mind tools for schools: Engaged critical thinking. E. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. schools and networks.93 Hughes. Inc. Upper Saddle River. e learning. Ine. (1990). (2003).. P. 9.. A computer anxiety and attitudes towards computer use. Igbaria. 229-241. D. Trends and Issues Alert. (2007). England. 1-15.. 277-302. J. Carmichael. e. S. 13. London. J. NJ: Prentice-Hall. L.. A. M. Improving Learning how to learn in classrooms. & Limberg. A study of research on children's information behavior in a school context. 5 (40). 62-86. (2000). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology-integrated pedagogy. Information Technology Skills for a pluralistic society: Is the playing field level? Journal of Research on Technology in Education. James.. Imel. . The New Review of Information Behaviour Research. & MacBeath. William. 58-79. Behaviour & Information Technology. & Chakrabarti. M.. C. Jonassen. Hultgren.. 4. 35 (1). A. (2002). D. F. Fox. (2005). P. Drummond.


Kalyanpur, M., & Kirmani, M. (2005). Diversity and Technology: Classroom implications of the digital divide. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20 (4), 9-18.

Kendall, K. A., & Broihier, M. (1992). Student responses to computers: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8 (2), 215-227.

Kieft, L. D. (1988). Your help is needed in elementary schools. The technology teacher, 48 (2), 27-30.

Kinzie, M., Sullivan, H., & Berdel, R. L. (1992). Motivational and achievement effects of learner control over content review within CAI. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8, 101-114.

Kohn, L. (2005). The need for assessment literate teachers. Southeastern Teacher Education Journal.

Kopcha, T., & Sullivan, H. (2008). Learner preferences and prior knowledge in learner controlled computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 265-286.


Kulic, C., & Kulic, J. (1991). Effectiveness of Commuter-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75-94.

Kulik, J. A. (1994). Meta-Analytic studies of findings on computer based instruction. Technology assessment in Education and Training, 9-33.

Kulik, J., Kulic, C., & Bangert-Drowns, R. (1985). Effectiveness of computer-based education in elementary schools. Computers in Human Behavior, 1, 59-74.

Kurilovas, E. (2005). Several Aspects of Technical and Pedagogical evaluation of virtual learning environments. Informatics in Education, 4 (2), 215-252.

Lepper, M. (1985). Microcomputers in Education: Motivational and Social Issues. American Psychologist, 40 (1), 1-18.

Leung, C. (2007). Dynamic assessment: assessment for or as teaching? Language Assessment Quarterly, 4 (3), 257-278.

Leung, C., & Mohan, B. (2004). Teacher formative assessment and talk in classroom contexts: Assessment as discourse and assessment of discourse. Language Testing, 21 (3), 335-359.


Lipsey, N. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment. American Psychologist, 48.

Lyons, C., Pinnell, G., & DeFord, D. (1993). Partners in Learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

MacArthur, C. A. (1988). The impact of Computers on the writing process. Exceptional Children, 54 (6), 536-542.

Mann, D., & Schaffer, E. A. (1997). Technology and Achievement. The American School Board Journal, 22-23.

Martens, R., Valcke, R., & Portier, S. (1997). Interactive learning environments to support independent learning: The impact of discern ability of embedded support devices. Computers Education, 28 (3), 185-197.

Martinez, J., & Martinez, N. C. (1992). Re-examining repeated testing and teacher effects in a remedial mathematics course. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 356-363.

Journal of Educational Psychology. Mead. Information Theory and Research.. . E. Using Web-Based Computer Games to meet the demands of Today's high stakes testing: A mixed method inquiry. D. (2001). Alexandria. Greenwood. (1980). Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: A Meta analysis. 72. 449-458. A story a story: The influence of the medium on children's comprehension of stories. L. 449-458. Psychological Bulletin. Mead. J. A. McKechnie. & Hannafin. Summary of Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. & Drasgow. L. 113-1126. VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. A. Research method trends in human Information behaviour Literature.. R. Information Associates Press. 35 (4). F. & Pollock. Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: A Meta analysis. (1998). Pickering. 3.97 Marzano. & Drasgow. McDonald. 240-244... M. 114 (3). Meringoff. Psychological Bulletin. (1993). Baker. R. 459. 1 (14).. H. M. & Julien. Journal of research on technology education.. Maule. P. W.. The New Review of Information Behaviour Research.. J. L. K. (2003). (2002).

. 28. and Reading Comprehension for good and poor readers. (1989). Weiner. B. 29 (1). 62. (1971). Oakan. (1996). American Educational Research Journal. J. (1993). 1 (1). (2010). Reading Research and Instruction. (1992). . (B. 119-140.98 Moursund. R.). Is learning from media distinctive? Examining children's inferencing strategies. 29 (1). 119-140. Neuman. S. Orlando. Journal of Educational Psychology. Neuman. Nardi. B. Neuman. 71-78. M. Ed. The impact of different media on children's story comprehension. W.. Organization. Identification. S. & Cromer. Ouyang. Nardi.) London. 38-47. CAI at the level of elementary education. Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age? International Society for Technology Education. Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction (2nd ed. (1992). D. FL. S. American Educational Research Journal. Is learning from media distinctive? Examining children’s inferencing strategies. England: The MIT Press.

(2004). Price. and learning style. (1988). M. 5. Priya. 62-73.. L. D. (1997). 52. Inc. NY: International Universities Press. 681-698. 8 (2). Cognition and Instruction. S. 9 (2). Individual differences in learning: Cognitive Control. & Douglas. Piaget. F. L. S. Clements. N. Classifying Approaches to the Philosophies of Elementary School Technology Education. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 24 (5). cognitive style. (1951). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. Phillips. Pettigrew. Journal . The use of Theory in information science research. Journal of Research in Childhood Education. New York. & McKechnie. 193-222. Young readers' inferencing strategies in reading comprehension.. Patrick.. (2004). J. (1995).99 Park. K. Journal of Technology Education. Educational Psychology. Young Children's Representation of Replay: Developmental Stages and Effects of Mediated Computer Environments. H. (2001). & Hannafin. Scaffolding crital thinking in an online course.. L. E.

Ryan. from the e-scholarship website: http://escholarship. B. W. N. . R. 34 (5). 27 (2).. M. M. (I. Association. & Plati. Ed. U. Theoretical models and processes of reading. Raudenbush.bc. (2005). 181-208. Testing on computers: A follow-up study comparing performance on computer and paper. 2010. Russel. R. & Unrau. Boston College. Bridging the Gap Between testing and technology in schools. 7 (20). Meta-analysis of achievement effects of micro-computer applications in elementary schools. DE. Education Policy Analysis Archives. Retrieved March 12. Chestnut. Ruddell. 25-31. Hill. Effects of Computer Versus Paper Administration of a State-Mandated writing assessment.100 of Educational Computing Research.S. Educational Researcher. (2004). Russel. School of Education. A.edu/intase/7 Russel. T. S. (2002). Learning from attempts to improve schooling: The contribution of methodological diversity. (2001). W. (1991).) Newark. (2005).. 31 (2). M. 120-135. Education Administration Quarterly.

L. Clark. Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. A synthesis of new research on K-12 Online learning. Students' Attitudes toward computers: Validation of a computer attitude scale for 16-19 education. 5 (1). R. Instructional Science. & Evemenova. R. The Reading Teacher. Shepard. D. Principles. Sadler.. . R.. A. (1998). 119-144. The role of assessment in a learning culture. Computers Education. 28 (1). (2007).. Schwartz. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. 18. Sears. (2005). Assessment in Education. Formative assessment: revisiting the territory. (2000). and Processes for integrating technology into instruction. Smith. M. Teaching Exceptional Children. & Blomeyer. (1989). R. Sadler. Selwyn. R.101 161-184. 4-14. Self-Monitoring in beginning reading. Educational Researcher. (1997). 51 (1). D. N. T. A. 29 (7). Premises. 77-84. 35-41. 52-62.

(1980). 12-16. & Chang. P. N. Stanovich. Questions and Wait time. (1988). Threlfall. T. Todd. Swift. & Swift.. Toward an interactive compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. and learning. Koki. K. S. Interest. 37-54. C. 192-211. E. Tobias. (2005). 49 (1). Gooding.. (1989). Thode. The formative use of assessment information in planning-The notion of contingent planning.102 Soe.. prior knowledge. Adolescents of the information age: Patterns of information seeking and . S.. Effect of Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) on reading achievement: A Meta-analysis. 32-71. K. Technology education in the elementary school. R. The technology teacher. (2003). Reading Research Quarterly. J. J. 64. Pacific Resources for Education and Learning. 16. 54-65. Questioning and Discussion. J. British Journal of Education Studies. Review of Educational Research. 53 (1). T. (1994). (2000).

. M. & Apostolakis. G. Foertsch. Computer Assisted Instruction to prevent reading difficulties in students at risk for dyslexia: Outcomes from two instructional approaches. January).. G.. & Lindamood. (2010). North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. R.. Technology: A catalyst for Teaching and Learning in the classroom. Computer-Based Technology and Learning. 2-22. I... I.. Anderson. June). Varlamis. School Libraries Worldwide. Effect of Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) on Reading Achievement. 27-46. & Raack. Traynor. M. Valdez. 9 (2). J. (2006. 60 (40). McNabb. and implications for information professionals. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects.. Hawkes. J. Herron. P. Effects of Computer-assisted-instruction on different learners.103 use. October). P. 1-3.. Wagner. Valdez... Rashotte. M. L. (2003. Journal of Instructional Psychology. The International Dyslexia Association. The present and future of standards for e learning technologies. C. (2010. (2000). Torgesen. M.

L. 41. Walberg. A framework for understanding teaching with the Internet. & Owston. American Educational Research Journal. 447-488. Computers & Education. North Central Regional Education Laboratory. 435-440. 1 (4). J. R. C. T. C. A quantitative synthesis of recent research on the effects of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes. What strategies are effective for formative assessment in an elearning environment? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 171-186. (2010). H. (1993). 1157-1166. T. (1985). Cambridge. Wang. H. H. S. Knowledge base construction as a pedagogical activity. H. R. Connell. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 23. Waxman. 165-196. October). (2005... Journal of Education Computing Research. Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes. J. Wideman. & Gray. H. (2004). & Walberg. J.. Wang. Web-based dynamic assessment: Taking assessment as teaching and learning strategy for improving students' e-learning effectiveness. .104 Vygotsky.. M. Computers and achievement in elementary schools. (2007). H. MA: Harvard University Press. L. 96-115. D. 9 (2). (1978). Wallace. 54.

Stewart. Social learning in technological innovation: Experimenting with information and communication technologies. (1996).105 William. Lester. 49 65. Lee. 24-37. 321-329. (2008). Keeping learning on track: classroom assessment and the regulation of learning. (2008). (2005). (2007a). Woo. Assessment in Education. Educational Researcher. 18 (1). CT: Information Age. & Black. 32 (2). P. C. R. D... 11. Harrison. (2004). Williams.. Journal of Science Education and Technology. Teaching Psychology. Science Studies. 11. R. Williams. . R. 1053-1098). Engaging new audiences: Translating research into popular media. M. 164-166. Using your tests to teach: Formative summative assessment. 37. Greenwich. Second Handbook of mathematics teaching and learning (pp. D. William. & Slack. Teachers developing assessment for learning: Impact on student achievement. C. Y.. K. Y. J. 86-88. S.. Moving Technology to the center of instruction: How one experienced teacher incorporates a web-based environment over time. Wininger. In F.

Relating technology education goals to curriculum planning. Teachers College Record. F. 165-187. 104 (3). (1991). International Journal of Instructional Media. J. Y. The Integration of Mastery Learning in English as a Second language (ESL) Instruction. 34-58. 41 (4). K. Zhang. D. 29 (4). & Farragher. 1. (2002). K. Journal of Research on Computing in Education. British Journal of Educational Technology. A. Exploring the learning mechanism of web-based question-answering systems and their design. P. 7. A comparison of four computer attitude scales. Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Journal of Technology Education. Zhao.106 Woodrow. Zandvliet. (2010). 423-438. A comparison of computer-administered and written tests. Journal of Educational Computing Research.. & Pugh. Zuga. (1997). Y. 482-515. 40-48. (2010).. Zhang. . (1989). 37 (1).

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful