Running head: EFFECTS OF BLOGGING ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 1

Effects of Blogging on English Language Learners

Nicole Garza

Kennesaw State University

Literature Review

Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………4

Introduction………………..………………………………………………………………………5

Literature Review……………………………...…………………………………………………..6

Significance of Teacher-Child Relationships in Writing……………………..…………...6

Influence of Teacher Perceptions …………………………………………………………8

Writing and Technology…………………………………………………………………..9

Blogging …………………………………………………………………………………11

Methodology …………………………………………………………………………………….12

Purpose…………………………………………………………………………………...12

Setting……………………………………………………………………………………12

Participants……………………………………………………………………………….13

Research Design………………………………………………………………………….13

Instruments Used for Data Collection……………………………………………………14

Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………….14

Results………………………………………….………………………………………………...15

Limitations……………………………………………….………………………………17

Implications………………………………………………………………………………19

Conclusions…………….……………………………………...…………………………………20

References……………………………….……………………………………………………….21

Appendices……………………………………………………………………….………………25

Appendix A………………………………………………………………………………25

2

Literature Review

Appendix B………………………………………………………………………………26

Appendix C……………………………………………………..………………………..27

Figure 1………………………………..…………………………………………………29

Figure 2………………………………………………..…………………………………30

Figure 3………………………………………………..…………………………………31

Figure 4………………………………………………..…………………………………32

Figure 5………………………………………………………………………………..…33

3

Literature Review

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine if blogging had an effect on English Language

Learners. As we can all attest, technology has become an increasingly hot topic among

educators. There are different forms of technology utilized in classrooms across America.

However, we must decipher and decide which are effective for instruction among our students.

This study was designed to determine if using blogging has an effect on students, specifically

ELL students. With our demographics evolving and changing rapidly, the shift in demographics

call for more emphasis to be placed in pedagogy practices that are effective for students,

including ELLs.

4

Literature Review

Introduction

As our nation’s demographics evolve and change, so do the needs of the students in our

classrooms. As teachers we are constantly and continually adapting to the needs of our students.

Continuing professional development (CPD) for educators is essential to raise student

achievement as the single most important action that can be taken to improve student

performance is to strengthen teaching (Mohamed, 2008). We are always keeping up with the

latest research based best pedagogy strategies to better meet our student’s needs. One change that

is relevant in our classroom is the makeup of our student demographics.

The changing demographics are especially pronounced in the child population, with

children of immigrants representing a disproportionately high percentage of young children in

the United States (Jessica and Pastan, 2010). The English Language Learner (ELL) population is

increasing in classrooms across America. Therefore, we need to adapt to this population

evolution, and adequately equip ourselves to meet the needs of our students.

Sadly, however, studies have revealed that many mainstream teachers are not ready for

classes with ELLs (Bryan and Atwater 2002). Consequently, more emphasis needs to be placed

in pedagogy strategies for English Language Learners, so that we are accommodating the needs

of all our students, including our ELL population. Research shows that ELLs do not seem to be

well supported by classroom teachers because many such teachers lack understanding of how

their roles and teaching approaches can best support ELLs’ needs (Yoon, 2008). In addition, few

mainstream classroom teachers feel confident to teach limited-English or non-English speakers

or children from diverse backgrounds (NCES, 1999).

5

Literature Review

If we are not providing our students with the proper and necessary accommodations, they

will fall behind and eventually lose interest in education all together. The national dropout rate

for ELL students in 2009 was 40%–60% (NCES, 2009). Therefore, the push for implementing

best pedagogy practices for ELLs is very significant. ELLs have recently become the focus of

many reform initiatives, due in part to their rapid growth in the country (Daniella 2013). After

all, we are all very familiar with the federal legislation entitled No Child Left Behind. No Child

Left Behind is a major educational reform effort to eliminate the achievement gap for minority

learners and ensure educational success for all students. ELLs are identified as one subgroup that

has fallen behind academically, and under NCLB K-12 schools are held accountable for ELLs’

academic achievement (No Child Left Behind).

New learning environments must be created that effectively integrates ELLs (rather than

merely physically include them) (Harper and de Jong, 2009). In order to meet the needs of ELLs,

educators must provide the most conductive environment for learning as possible as stated by Dr.

Tissington and Dr. LaCour in their article Strategies and Content Areas for Teaching English

Language Learners (2010). With that said, I will address using technology for effective writing

pedagogy practices for ELLs, due to its significance and transference into all subjects. I will

focus on the effects of blogging on ELLs. Writing pulls together all the writing skills (listening,

speaking, reading, and writing) ELLs need to acquire to have academic success as they move

toward continuing their education (DelliCarpini and Adams, 2009).

Literature Review

Significance of Teacher-Child Relationships in Writing

Writing proficiency is among the various issues influencing academic achievement

among ELLs. It is important for teachers of ELL students to possess cultural sensitivity and have

6

Literature Review

an understanding of second language learning, as those teachers have been found to be more

effective in teaching ELL children (Fitzgerald, 1993). It is important for teachers to establish a

relationship and draw closer to all students, including the ELL populations. “When children

experience conflict in relationships with their teachers during early education, they perform more

poorly on measures of language development and overall academic competence. Whereas

children who have close relationships with teachers, often perform better on these measures

(Kelley, 2013).” The importance of the relationship a teacher has with a students, is very

influential and essential among student performance. If we have good relationships with our

students, they will perform well, on the other hand, if we neglect creating meaningful

relationships, then our students will fail to perform well. Due to the nature of the connectivity of

writing and internal feelings, it is important to address this manner. We have to watch and

monitor our relationships with our students very closely, as they have an impact on student

writing. There is an emotional connection in writing. Writing is an outlet of internal feelings, and

can be very intimate. Writing is an outlet for emotions and thoughts, and despite the fact that

writing skills come late on the ladder of acquisition, they still form an important component of

second/foreign language learning (Fageeh, 2011).

Research on closeness in teacher–child relationships has shown a variety of benefits for

young children's social, behavioral, cognitive, and academic development (Kelley, 2013). If we

want to benefit as educators and want our students to benefit from the many gains that teacher-

child relationships can bring, we need to draw closer to our students. This is something that we

have full control over, and has many great advantages. Teacher–child relationship quality has

important implications for children's literacy learning (Kelley, 2013). Relationships are at the

heart of educational encounters (Giles, 2012). If we draw closer, and become involved in good

7

Literature Review

relationship with our students, it will bring about great gains for both parties. Teachers will have

higher performing students, and students will perform to their best potential because this need is

being met.

Influence of Teacher Perceptions

In a study conducted by Kathy Brashears I Know This To Be True…Perceptions of

Teachers in In Rural Elementary School Regarding Writing Scores, she explored the many

reasons teachers give for low writing scores (2006). The responses ranged from the “high

percentages of free and reduced lunch, to inconsistent test scores lies within the students

themselves (Brashears, 2006).” One thing these teachers failed to recognized are the factors that

they (we as educators) have control over, such as their teaching expertise and their perceptions.

Research has repeatedly demonstrated that teachers may be the single most important influence

on a child’s reading and writing development (Corkett, Hatt, and Benevides, 2011). We need to

have high expectations and perceptions of our students. Once again this is something that we can

either choose to do, or not to do. Ultimately, it is in our control to have a positive or negative

outlook upon our students.

Students feed off the energy that teachers radiate. The energy that teachers choose to emit

is a reflection of their personal perceptions, beliefs, and thoughts. All things that we as teachers

possess control over. “Teachers develop certain characteristic patterns in their instructional

practices. These patterns may be manifestations of consciously held beliefs, values, thoughts,

decisions, judgments, preferences, experiences, or perceptions that teachers bring to the

classroom in addition to their content knowledge (Harbin and Newton, 2013).” We must be

conscious of this, as it can be reflected in our teaching. We may not realize it, but our students

can be affected by our perceptions that we unconsciously generate through our instruction.

8

Literature Review

During instruction, we don’t actively think of the percussions these unconscious behaviors can

bring. However, they affect our students, and our teaching. This is something that we need to be

conscious of when we are teaching our students.

Writing and Technology

Learning to write can be a complex process for all young children, and most likely,

English Language Learners will need additional instructional support (Goldenberg, 2011). That

support can come in the form of technology. The possibilities technology can bring seem to be

numerous. As we all know technology is quickly evolving, and becoming more prominent in our

classrooms. Technological progress has brought great changes in all areas, including learning

(Abik, Ajhoun, & Ensias, 2012). Whether we agree or disagree with its advantages and

disadvantages, it is evident that it is here to stay. Although, the research does not make explicit

mentions of ELLs, “Recent research indicates that writing development in preschool and

primary-grade English Language Learners is similar to writing development in young native

speakers of English (Buckwalter and Lo2002; Neufeld and Fitzgerald2001).” Consequently,

researchers suggest that writing instruction that is effective with native speakers may also prove

useful with young ELLs (August and Shanahan 2006).

Writing can be painful for ELL students (DelliCarpini and Adams, 2009). Technology

should be embedded into student learning as a natural fit-the right tool for the right job (Cohen,

2012). There is wide variety of learning sources at our disposal that can lessen the pain for ELLs

through technology. Specifically in writing, there are various options that we as teachers can

utilize to promote higher involvement and progress among ELLs. Our students seem to have a

natural fit and comfort with technology, since they have been exposed to it from an early age, in

9

Literature Review

a home environment, and educational environment. It is nothing new to them. They naturally

gravitate to it.

“Technology provides ELLs with opportunity to learn problem-solving skills. It can also

be used across all disciplines while addressing all learning styles. Computers can be used to

develop the writing skills of English language learners, the use of computers and graphics-based

programs can make the writing task much easier and enjoyable, and can make them express

their thoughts more clearly” (Nomass, 2013). Meta-analyses have revealed that students in

computer-using instructional settings showed significant gains in academic achievement

(Crisholm and Beckett, 2003).

The Internet is a naturally motivating tool and many young learners are familiar with using Information technology (Boas, 2011). The Internet is a world of its own. There are infinite

materials that we can use. Not only do teachers have access to the Internet, but our students

do as well. Among the many strategies and tools to incorporate meaningful activities into the

writing curriculum, the use of the Internet stands out for its ability to create conditions for idea

generation, research, and collaboration (Boas, 2011).

In addition, there are other forms of technology options we can utilize in our

classrooms. There are many sources we have at our disposal. One thing to remember is not

about how many forms of technology are being employed in our classrooms, but the quality of

the selection/s we make. Technology is a tool that can have positive or negative effects

depending on how well instruction takes advantage of its capabilities (MacAuthor, 2009). We

want to make selections based on research based best pedagogy practices that will be most

effective on our students. In my case, I want to focus on what will be most effective for my ELL

population. Forms of technology that have graced education are computers, eReaders, iPads,

10

Literature Review

iPods, many software with specific emphasis on certain content areas, blogs, emails, and

recorders.

As teachers, we can use technology to enhance and reinforce concepts that have been

taught, or that will provides practice opportunities. When making selections as to which we will

use in our classrooms, we have to keep in mind the pros and cons of using specific technology.

In exploring how technologies can be most effectively integrated into classroom learning it is

important to acknowledge that not all students have the same digital exposure where they

have access to the latest technologies on a regular basis (Greer and Sweeney, 2012).

Blogging

The Internet has made available a chance for writers to give vent to their feelings and

voice their ideas in a variety of ways – blogging being one (Halic, Lee, Paulus& Spence, 2010).

The Internet is this generation’s defining technology for literacy (Zawilinski, 2009). Blogging is

one way that students and educators can use this “generation’s defining technology” to improve

literacy in a modern and engaging manner. Blogging provides students with an arena to allow

their thoughts and ideas to roam and be expressed. Not only does it provide an alternative to

traditional writing on paper but it also gives students a new and inventive way to engage with

their writing. A blog, short for weblog, is an easy edible webpage with posts ad entries organized

in reverse chronological order (Zawilinski, 2009). I would refer to a blog as an online journal,

where others can comment and create discussion. Blogs help activate interaction with readers,

create an audience and an outlet for students' writing (Huffake, 2005). When students have an

audience that they are aware of, they become more encouraged to put more into their writing,

because others are reading their writing, not just their teachers. They are more enthusiastic about

putting more into their work, knowing that it will be shared among others on the Internet. The

11

Literature Review

accumulated research so far has proven that blogs can be a powerful tool for English language

learning particularly reading and writing skills as is documented in published research and

literature (Richardson, 2006). With this said, ELLs would greatly benefit from blogging their

writing. Furthermore, blogs are one of the emerging technologies offering student-centered

pedagogical practices that could promote learner autonomy (Dettori, Giannetti, & Persico, 2005).

Students take more control of their own learning, because they have more freedom to do so.

They are able to concentrate and focus on areas they are having more difficulty in, or move on if

they feel comfortable enough to do so. Students are even able to work from home. Blogging

connects in school and out of school new literacies (Alvermann, 2002). Since students are able to

access the Internet from home, students can blog and engage in learning at their leisure, which

also promotes learner autonomy.

Methodology

Purpose

The purpose of the research was to determine the effect of using technology among

ELLs. Motivation for this research came about due to the high ELL population at the location

where the action research was conducted, in addition to the increasing number of ELL students

in classrooms across America. Not only is there a high ELL population, but this population also

scores the lowest on standardized tests at the school where the action research was conducted.

This research study examined the effects of blogging among English Language Learners (ELLs).

Setting

The action research was conducted at Jefferson Parkway Elementary, during the months

of January 2013 through March of 2013. Jefferson Parkway Elementary has a total of 581

students enrolled. The student body is very diverse, consisting of different races and ethnicities.

12

Literature Review

The breakdown is as follows: 37.18% are African American, 29.94% are white American,

23.93% are Hispanic, 6.54% are multiracial (two races or more), 1.38% are Asian, 0.86% are

American Indian, and 0.17% are Pacific Islanders. English to Speakers of Other Languages

(ESOL) is offered to 9.4% of the student population. These percentages display how culturally

rich our school is. Also, the school’s ELL population has been steadily increasing with the years.

The research was conducted among a class of 23 students total. There was an almost

equal balance of boys and girls, 52% were boys (12 boys), and 48% were girls (11 girls). Four of

the students were receiving ESOL services. All students ranged from the ages 6-7 years old. Of

the four students receiving ESOL services, 2 were boys and 2 were girls.

Participants

Participants were divided into two groups. All particiapnts were second graders who

rangerd from the ages of 6-7 years old. One of the two groups consisted of English Language

Learners that were blogging on edublogs.com, and the other group of English Language Learners

did not use any form of technology. Theres were four ELL students total in the class. Of the four

students, only two participated in the study; One girl and one boy. The boy utliized technology,

by blogging on edublog.com, and the girl did not utilize any technolgy.

Research Design

There were two groups of students. One group utilized edublogs.com, (Group 1) as a

form of technology, the other group (Group 2) did not utilize any form of technology. Both

groups had personal assistance from me during writing conferences. Interviews and observations

about student motivation and thoughts were recorded in a journal. Students in both groups were

interviewed on consistent basis throughout the action research. Participants were asked the

following questions:

13

Literature Review

1. How do you feel about writing? What makes you feel that why?

2. How do you feel about technology? What makes you feel that way?

3. Does using technology encourage you to write?

4. Do you believe that technology makes you a better writer? Why?

Questions that were answered due to the conduction of this action research were:

1. Does using technology in writing affect ELL student growth in ELA? (Quantitative

data)

2. Is student motivation and encouragement affected when students feel they can

connect with their teacher? (Qualitative data)

3. Does the use of technology encourage student motivation to write? (Qualitative data)

Instruments Used for Data Collection

Both qualitative and quantitative methodology was used in this action research. All

student progress was measured based on their pre-and post-test. These scores were obtained

using the Writing Rubric (Appendix C). Students were given a pre-test prior at the beginning of

the action research, prior to any instruction and implementation of technology. The post-test was

given at the end of the action research. Students were assessed throughout the action research on

weekly basis. All data was compared and analyzed between the two groups of students. The data

collected either supported the hypothesis that technology affects student writing, and in turn

brings about progress in ELA or not.

I kept notes on observations of both groups of students throughout the research. I also

recorded their responses throughout our interviews in a journal. The interviews were held in the

classroom. All students were interviewed individually, so that they would not feel nervous or

14

Literature Review

intimated, because they were in a familiar environment and had no audience. The children were

interviewed once a week throughout the action research.

Data Analysis

Initially there were 4 ELL students that were invited to participate, however, only two

participated in the study. One student blogged on edublogs.com and the other did not utilize any

form of technology. The two students were divided into two groups. Group one was the student

who utilized technology (blogging), and Group 2 consisted of the student who did not utilize any

form of technology. The quantitative data for both groups of students was analyzed and

compared using Excel and different graphs to determine if technology had an effect on writing

with ELL students. My quantitative data (interviews and observations) was recorded in a journal.

Results

Based on the data that I collected on my research, I concluded that blogging did not have

a significant effect on ELL students in writing. Figure 1 actually displays each group’s weekly

results on in weekly basis on every topic that was assessed on the Writing Rubric that was used

to assess students. Figure 2 displays Individual Weekly Group Results graphed to show student

progress on weekly basis. Figure 2 (Individual Weekly Group Results: Group 2) displays that

Group 1 did not have any progress for the first few weeks of the study. There was actually no

change until the last few weeks. In regards to Group 2 (Figure 2), there was no consistency in

progress. Figure 3 compares Group’s 1 and 2 weekly results. In Figure 4, I calculated the mean,

median, mode, and standard deviation. Figure 5 just shows the Pre-and Post-Test results for

Group 1 and Group 2. The standard deviation for Group 1 (0.95) and Group 2 (0.82), are very

close. This goes to prove that there was no significant effect between the Group that was

blogging (utilizing technology) and the group that did not. Both groups had a difference of +2,

15

Literature Review

between their Pre-and Post-Test results. The median and mode also remained the exact for both

groups.

In reference to the interviews, both felt that writing was not fun or interesting at the

beginning of the study, prior to the research beginning. They both said that writing was boring

and hard. This remained the same for Group 2 throughout the entire research, the student that

was not blogging. She would make comments such as, “I only sit there, and think! I think too

hard! It takes too long!” However, this thought changed for the student in Group 1 (the student

that was blogging). After week one of the study, the student in Group 1 responded, “Writing is

fun, because I can see how everyone can see my writing.” He was referring to blogging on the

Internet.

When it comes to feelings about technology, both students seemed enthusiastic and

excited about it at the beginning. Comments from both groups were those such as, “It’s cool! I

wish I could have a computer at my home! I think it’s fun!” However, Group 1’s responses to

their feelings about technology began to change throughout the interview. The students began to

make comments such as, “Sometimes it doesn’t work. I hate when I have to wait, a long, long

time! I don’t like it sometimes.” I noticed this student was becoming somewhat irritated with the

technological difficulties, such as lost of Internet, slow Internet, and bad connection. However,

when this student was actually blogging, he was very engaged in his writing. When there were

technical difficulties, he would have to be redirected, and would come off task. The student who

was not utilizing technology had to be redirected as well. They too would become distracted

during writing for different reasons.

Both students at the beginning considered technology to be an encouraging factor. Prior

to the study, student made comments such as “Writing would be fun if I got to use a computer or

16

Literature Review

iPad! I could type all my work!” Both groups viewed technology as some form of

encouragement. They both had positive outlooks on it. However, the students who was blogging,

was at times discouraged once the study got going. He made comments such as, “I just hope the

Internet is not slow, or that the computer wont shut down on me.” I noticed, that his perspective

on whether technology would encourage him or not depended on what type of experience he had

with technology that week. His responses would fluctuate. Group 2’s responses did not fluctuate.

She was always in agreement with technology being an encouraging factor.

As far as technology making students better writers, both groups agreed that it did not

make them better writers. This belief remained constant throughout the entire study. When asked

why, responses were those of, “I do my writing, not technology. Technology can’t do my journal

for me.” I don’t think that the students truly grasped the depth of this question, because of their

age. In addition, they did not understand the benefits of how technology could help them. They

only thought of technology as being something fun to do.

Limitations

There were multiple limitations in this research study. There was a limited amount of

time, limited number of participants, limited Internet connection, and limited access to class

computers. To begin with, there was limited amount of time to conduct this research. I believe

that results would be more reliable if I had started this research at the beginning of the school

year. I would have a better representation of student. Pre-test scores would be more accurate,

because I would have a better picture of where students stood at the beginning of the year, before

they were introduced to any kind of writing instruction and redirections. It would have been a

more natural start that would have more sense, instead of starting in the middle of the school year

or such. Since this study only lasted five week, the data that was collected was limited to five

17

Literature Review

weeks. Therefore, progress was not very accurate, due to the limited amount of time. In

addition, I was not able to take notes in my journal about observations as often as I would have

liked, due to the limited time I had. Interviewing was also limited.

Secondly, there were a limited number of participants that participated in this study. Out

of my four students receiving ESOL services, only two students participated in the study. Only

one girl and one boy participated. The boy utilized the technology (blogging on edublogs.com)

and the girl did not. Since there were a limited number of participants, this created difficulty for

me to properly analyzed data more in depth. Therefore, there weren’t many distinguishes and

comparisons that could be made the data that was collected, other than the data analyses that are

included in the study.

Limited Internet connection caused much stress and frustration among my students and

me. There were many times we had “technical difficulties.” This included times that our Internet

was either down, or very, very slow. When the Internet was down, my student could not blog. He

would get frustrated and somewhat discouraged, because he had been looking forward to doing

something, he wasn’t even able to do, due to the technical difficulties. He would then become

distracted and at times would get off task and would need to be re-directed. When the Internet

was down, I would have him type out his writing in Word, then copy that to his blog. Even

though he was still typing, he didn’t enjoy typing his writing in Word, as much as he did on

edublogs.com. Based on observations, he was as enthusiastic.

Not only, did we have limited Internet at times, but we also had a limited number of

computers in the class. In our class we have five computers total. Of the five computers that we

have for disposal, two are out of commission at all times. Of the three others, one of them was

18

Literature Review

constantly breaking down, or turning off randomly, one is a teacher computer, leaving just one

student computer, which needs to be shared with 22 or 23 students for several different reasons.

Implications

There are some changes that can be made to improve this study. To begin, I would have

set point goals, in regard to the Writing Rubric that I used to assess student writing. Prior to

analyzing my data, I had not determined what would be considered “does not meet, needs

improvement, and exceeds.” Having this would have helped in better discussing the results and

the progress that students made. I would have been able to go into deeper discussion about

student progress throughout the study.

One change that may not seem like a major problem in my study is that of the

participant’s ability levels. It would have been ideal for all participants to be in similar level in

their writing development. As you will notice in the results, Group 2 seems to be at a lower

overall level than Group 1. Although, neither made significant progress, their levels were still

very different. Group 1 is more developed in their writing than Group 2.

Starting at the beginning of the school year would have yielded more reliable and telling

results. I would have had a better grasp of where students actually stood prior to being exposed

to any instruction and teaching. The beginning of the school year would have been idea for

obtaining student pre-test scores. I would have been able to make more reliable analyses to the

data, with pre-test scores at the beginning of the school year and post-test scores toward the end

of the school year, after students had been exposed to instruction and conferences.

Lastly, I would have turned my interview questions into some kind of survey for students

to take on weekly basis. This would have brought about more reliable results. Instead of me

speaking about something on perception, I would be speaking and analyzing actual qualitative

19

Literature Review

data. A survey would also be more realistic to obtain on weekly basis. Since students would

have been able to complete individually on their own time.

Conclusion

In conclusion, not only are our student demographics changing in our schools, so are the

needs of our students. Different groups of students require different pedagogy techniques to

be implemented to assist with their success. In reference to ELLs, their representation is

growing rapidly in our classrooms. Finding the best effective strategies that will

further their success, specifically with the involvement of technology would be a great benefit. I

believe that ELLs can make great gains from technology, if the proper form of technology is

implemented appropriately. I believe that further research is needed to disregard blogging as an

effective form of technology. Although, my data did not show significant gains, there wasn’t a

decline in performance of students either. Therefore, the need for further research would validate

this claim. When it comes to student motivation, it is obvious that students are very excited and

enthusiastic about writing in reference to technology. However, there may be technological

difficulties that may begin to bug, irritate, and make students skeptical about using technology.

Therefore, their feeling about technology may fluctuate, depending on Internet connection, and

such other factors that may affect the technology that is being utilized. Although, I believed that

my research would answer the question, about student motivation and encouragement being

affected when students feel they can connect with their teacher, I do not think my data can

neither support nor deny this claim. Further research is needed as well.

20

Literature Review

References

Abik, M., Ajhoun, R., & Ensias, L. (2012). Impact of Technological Advancement on Pedagogy.

Turkish Online Journal Of Distance Education, 13(1), 224-237.

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006).Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of

the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Boas, I. (2011). Process Writing and the Internet: Blogs and Ning Networks in the Classroom.

English Teaching Forum, 49(2), 26-33.

Brashears, K. (2006). I Know This to Be True...: Perceptions of Teachers in One Rural

Elementary School Regarding Writing Scores. Rural Educator, 27(2), 19-27.

Bryan, L. A. and Atwater, M. M. (2002), Teacher beliefs and cultural models: A challenge for s

cience teacher preparation programs. Sci. Ed., 86: 821–839. doi: 10.1002/sce.10043

Buckwalter, J. K., & Lo, Y. G. (2002). Emergent biliteracy in Chineseand English.Journal of

Second Language Writing, 11, 269–293.

Chrisholm, I.M., and Beckett, E.,C. “Teacher Preparation for Equitable Access through the

Integration of TESOL Standards, Multiple Intelligences and Technology.”Technology,

Pedagogy and Education Vol. 12, No. 2. (2003): pgs 249-275.

Cohen, S. (2012). Apps Meet the Common Core State Standards in Writing. Teacher

Librarian, 40(2), 32-39.

Corkett, J., Hatt, B., & Benevides, T. (2011). Student and Teacher Self-Efficacy and the

Connection to Reading and Writing. Canadian Journal Of Education, 34(1), 65-98.

21

Literature Review

Daniella, M. (n.d). Facilitating professional development for teachers of English language

learners. Teaching And Teacher Education, 29197-207. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.10.002

DelliCarpini, M., & Adams, S. R. (2009). Success with ELLs: Writing in the ESL Classroom--

Confessions of a Guilty Teacher. English Journal, 98(3), 117-120.

Fageeh, A. (20110. EFL LEARNERS’ USE OF BLOGGING FOR DEVELOPING WRITING

SKILLS AND ENHANCING ATTITUDES TOWARDS ENGLISH LEARNING: AS

EXPLORATORY STUDY. Journal of Language & Literature (207803030, 2(1),

31-48.

Fitzgerald, J. (1993). Literacy and students who are learning English as a second language. The

Reading Teacher, 46 (8) pp. 638–647.

Giles, D., Smythe, E., & Spence, D. (2012). Exploring Relationships in Education: A

Phenomenological Inquiry. Australian Journal Of Adult Learning, 52(2), 214-236.

Goldenberg, C. (2011). Reading instruction for English language learners. In M. Kamil, P. D.

Pearson, E. Moje, & P. Afflerbach(Eds.),Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 684–

710).New York: Routledge

Geer, R., & Sweeney, T. (2012). Students' Voices about Learning with Technology. Journal Of

Social Sciences (15493652), 8(2), 294-303.

HARBIN, J., & NEWTON, J. (2013). DO PERCEPTIONS AND PRACTICES ALIGN? CASE

STUDIES IN INTERMEDIATE ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS. Education, 133(4),

538- 543.

Harper, C. A., & de Jong, E. J. (2009). English language teacher expertise: the elephant

in the room. Language & Education: An International Journal, 23(2), 137-151.

22

Literature Review

doi:10.1080/09500780802152788

Jessica M., K., & Joy Pastan, G. (n.d). Factors predicting early childhood education and care use

by immigrant families. Social Science Research, 39642-651.

doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.03.007

Kelley Mayer, W. (n.d). Associations between teacher–child relationships and children's writing

in kindergarten and first grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28166-176.

doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.05.004

MacArthur, C. A. (2009). Reflections on Research on Writing and Technology for Struggling

Writers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice (Wiley-Blackwell), 24(2), 93-103.

doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00283.x

Mohamed, N. (2008). “I HAVE BEEN DOING THINGS THIS WAY FOR SO MANY YEARS;

WHY SHOULD I CHANGE?” EXPLORING TEACHERS’ RESISTANCE TO

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING. New Zealand Studies In Applied Linguistics. 14(1), 19-

35.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (1999) Teachers’ Feelings of Preparedness.

Indicator of the Month [on-line]. Available at:

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=58

National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). The condition of education: 2009.

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics/Institute of Education

Sciences.

Neufeld, P., & Fitzgerald, J. (2001). Early English reading development: Latino English learners

in the ‘‘low’’ reading group. Research in the teaching of English, 36, 64–109.

No Child Left Behind Act. 2002. http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html

23

Literature Review

(accessed July 05, 2013)

Nomass, B. (2013). The Impact of Using Technology in Teaching English as a Second

Language. English Language & Literature Studies, 3(1), 111-116.

doi:10.5539/ells.v3n1p111

Tissington, L., & LaCour, M. (2010). STRATEGIES AND CONTENT AREAS FOR

TEACHING ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS. Reading Improvement, 47(3), 166-

172.

Yoon, B. (2008). Uninvited Guests: The Influence of Teachers' Roles and Pedagogies on the

Positioning of English Language Learners in the Regular Classroom. American

Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 495-522.

24

Literature Review

Appendix ASIGNED CONSENT FORM

Title of Research Study: Technology and Writing among ELLs

Researcher's Contact Information: Nicole Garza678-770-4893nicolegarza04@yahoo.com

IntroductionYou are being invited to take part in a research study conducted by Nicole Garza of Kennesaw State University. Before you decide to participate in this study, you should read this form and ask questions about anything that you do not understand.

Description of ProjectThis research study will examine the effects of using technology among English Language Learners (ELLs). Motivation for this research came about due to the high ELL population at the school I am currently at, and the increasing number of ELL students in classrooms across America. Not only is there a high ELL population, but this population also scores the lowest on standardized tests at the school where the action research will be conducted.

Explanation of ProceduresParticipants will be divided into two groups. Both groups will consist of English Language Learners. However, one group will consist of English Language Learners utilizing technology, and the other will consist of English Language Learners not using technology. Both groups will have personal assistance during writing conferences from the teacher. Interviews and observations about student motivation and thoughts will be recorded in a journal. Students in both groups will be interviewed on consistent basis throughout the action research.

Time RequiredResearch will be conducted within the months of January 2014 to March 2014. All research will be completed by March of 2014. Risks or DiscomfortsThere are no known risks or anticipated discomforts in this study.

BenefitsAlthough, there will be no direct benefits due to taking part in this study, the researcher may learn more about technology and English Language Learners (ELLs).

Compensation There will be no compensation for this study.

25

Literature Review

ConfidentialityThe results of this participation will be confidential between my professor and I. In order to maintain confidentiality, I will not release or disclose any information to others that would endanger participants. I will not put participants at danger of being identified. All data collected will be safeguarded and locked away when not in use. I will be the only person with access to the data.

Inclusion Criteria for ParticipationParticipants in this study will range from the ages 7-8 years old. Research procedures will not cause a participant either physical or psychological discomfort, or be perceived as harrassment above and beyond what the person would experience in daily life. All English Language Learners in the class will be invited to participate, no one will be excluded. Students are already exposed to being divided into different groups, for differentiated instruction in all subjects. Students are well aware that all groups are divided based on their needs. All participants have the right to stop participating in this action research without penalty.

Signed Consent

I agree and give my consent to participate in this research project. I understand that participation is voluntary and that I may withdraw my consent at any time without penalty.

__________________________________________________Signature of Participant or Authorized Representative, Date

___________________________________________________Signature of Investigator, Date

____________________________________________________________________________________

PLEASE SIGN BOTH COPIES OF THIS FORM, KEEP ONE AND RETURN THE OTHER TO THE INVESTIGATOR

Research at Kennesaw State University that involves human participants is carried out under the oversight of an Institutional Review Board. Questions or problems regarding these activities should be addressed to the Institutional Review Board, Kennesaw State University, 1000 Chastain Road, #0112, Kennesaw, GA 30144-5591, (678) 797-2268.

26

Literature Review

Appendix B

Participant Interview Questions:

1. How do you feel about writing? What makes you feel that why?

2. How do you feel about technology? What makes you feel that way?

3. Does using technology encourage you to write?

4. Do you believe that technology makes you a better writer? Why?

5. Do you feel/believe that your teacher understands you?

27

Literature Review

Appendix C

Writing Rubric

Stage 33 points

Stage 22 points

Stage 11 point

Used punctuation at the end of all

sentences throughout entire

paper.

Punctuation usage in all or majority of

paper.

Some usage of punctuation in

paper.

Little or no usage of punctuation in

paper.

Used proper capitalization

throughout the entire paper.

Proper capitalization usage in all or

majority of paper.

Some usage of proper

capitalization in paper.

Little or no usage of proper

capitalization in paper.

Created complete sentences

(subject and predicate)

throughout the entire paper.

Created complete sentences in all or majority of paper.

Some usage of complete

sentences.

None or very little usage of

complete sentences.

Stayed on topic throughout the

entire paper.

Stayed on topic all or majority of the

paper.

Got off topic very little.

Off topic most or all of the paper.

Used correct subject verb

agreements in entire paper.

Correct usage of subject verb

agreements in all or majority of

paper.

Correct usage of subject verb

agreements in some of paper.

None or very little usage of

correct subject verb agreements.

_____________________ /15 points

28

Literature Review

Figure 1Weekly Group Results

Group 1 Weekly Results

Pre-Test

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Post-Test

Used Punctuation/3

2 2 2 2 3 3 3

Used Proper Capitalization/3

2 2 2 2 2 3 3

Created Complete Sentences/3

2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Stayed on Topic/3

3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Used Correct Subject Verb Agreement

2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Total/15 11 11 11 11 12 13 13

Group 2 Weekly Results

Pre-Test

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Post-Test

Used Punctuation/3

1 1 1 1 2 2 2

Used Proper Capitalization/3

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Created Complete Sentences/3

1 1 1 1 1 2 1

Stayed on Topic/3

1 2 2 1 1 1 2

Used Correct Subject Verb Agreement

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total/15 5 6 6 5 6 7 7

29

Literature Review

Figure 2

Individual Weekly Group Results

Pre-Test Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Post-Test10

10.5

11

11.5

12

12.5

13

13.5

Group 1 Weekly Results

Group 1 Weekly Results

Pre-Test Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Post-Test0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Group 2 Weekly Results

Group 2 Weekly Results

Figure 3

30

Literature Review

Group 1 and Group 2 Weekly Results

Pre-Test Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Post-Test0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Group 1Group 2

Figure 4

31

Literature Review

Group 1 Group 2

Pre-Test 11 5Week 1 11 6Week 2 11 6Week 3 11 5Week 4 12 6Week 5 13 7Post-Test 13 7

Sum 82 42

Mean11.7142857

1 6Median 11 6Mode 11 6Standard Deviation

0.951189731

0.816496581

32

Literature Review

Figure 5

Pre-and Post-Test Results

Group 1

Group 2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Post-TestPre-Test

33