Phase 5: Documenting Project Outcomes and Recommending Revisions
Implementation of the Project
Prior to this technology-based plan, students in my kindergarten class were accustomed to using the Promethean Board, Kindle Fires, and desktop computer available in the classroom. Since students have been using this technology since the beginning of school, initial implementation and introduction to the project went smoothly. Based on this prior experience, students were already proficient with opening programs, activities, or apps. Since students were familiar with the technology, I only had to introduce the new Kindle app and desktop computer activity each day. However, according to how I had previously structured their literacy block rotations, students only got to interact with the Kindle and desktop computer twice each week – once during literacy and once during math. The project allowed students to go to both the Kindle and desktop computer each day. This really heightened their excitement about “literacy centers”. In the mornings, students would often ask “is it time to go to literacy centers yet?” Since students were interested in the activities, they seemed more engaged. Though implementation did not always run without obstacles (see Phase 4), overall I was pleased with the execution of the plan. Almost all students made gains in their uppercase and lowercase letter, and sight word knowledge. I will continue with the model of implementation throughout the year, changing the apps and programs that I feature to target new learning needs. It was truly exciting to see my students' growth in such a short amount of time.
Prior to this technology-based plan, students in my kindergarten class were accustomed to using the Promethean Board, Kindle Fires, and desktop computer available in the classroom. Since students have been using this technology since the beginning of school, initial implementation and introduction to the project went smoothly. Based on this prior experience, students were already proficient with opening programs, activities, or apps. Since students were familiar with the technology, I only had to introduce the new Kindle app and desktop computer activity each day. However, according to how I had previously structured their literacy block rotations, students only got to interact with the Kindle and desktop computer twice each week – once during literacy and once during math. The project allowed students to go to both the Kindle and desktop computer each day. This really heightened their excitement about “literacy centers”. In the mornings, students would often ask “is it time to go to literacy centers yet?” Since students were interested in the activities, they seemed more engaged. Though implementation did not always run without obstacles (see Phase 4), overall I was pleased with the execution of the plan. Almost all students made gains in their uppercase and lowercase letter, and sight word knowledge. I will continue with the model of implementation throughout the year, changing the apps and programs that I feature to target new learning needs. It was truly exciting to see my students' growth in such a short amount of time.
Overall Findings
I conducted a pre and post assessment of uppercase letters, lowercase letters, and kindergarten sight words. Following is the data including growth for each student.
I conducted a pre and post assessment of uppercase letters, lowercase letters, and kindergarten sight words. Following is the data including growth for each student.
At the beginning of implementation, six students already knew all of the uppercase letters. They maintained their knowledge of 26 uppercase letters so their growth appears as “+0”. However, the remaining fourteen students all increased in their uppercase letter knowledge. None of the students knew all 28 lowercase letters at the time the pre-assessment data was collected. Nineteen out of the twenty students increased their lowercase letter knowledge. None of the students knew all 44 kindergarten sight words at the time the pre-assessment data was collected. Seventeen students increased their sight word knowledge. The three students that did not show growth maintained their knowledge of three of fewer sight words.
Overall, the class average for all learning outcomes increased. An average of 3.3 uppercase letters, 7.45 lowercase letters, and 5.3 sight words were gained. The area in which the most increase in data was shown was lowercase letters.
Overall, the class average for all learning outcomes increased. An average of 3.3 uppercase letters, 7.45 lowercase letters, and 5.3 sight words were gained. The area in which the most increase in data was shown was lowercase letters.
Data Interpretation
Objective 1: Provided access to web-based computer activities
targeting letter identification, students will be able to verbally identify 26 uppercase
letters within five seconds at a succession rate of 80%.
90% (eighteen students) of the class met Objective 1. I think this high achievement can by contributed to the high pre-assessment data for uppercase letters. The class knew an average of 19.8 uppercase letters in the beginning of the implementation plan. Additionally, the pre-assessment data shows that six students knew all letters. This data skewed the overall growth of uppercase letters for the class. Using the data of the fourteen students that did not know all of the letters at the beginning, they had an average increase of 4.7 letters.
Student 11 and 13 both only knew one letter when the data was initially collected. In order to meet Objective 1, they needed to increase their uppercase letter knowledge by twenty. This is an extremely lofty goal for this short two and a half week project plan. Both students are ESOL need much support to complete on-grade level tasks. Neither of the students have previous school experience.
90% (eighteen students) of the class met Objective 1. I think this high achievement can by contributed to the high pre-assessment data for uppercase letters. The class knew an average of 19.8 uppercase letters in the beginning of the implementation plan. Additionally, the pre-assessment data shows that six students knew all letters. This data skewed the overall growth of uppercase letters for the class. Using the data of the fourteen students that did not know all of the letters at the beginning, they had an average increase of 4.7 letters.
Student 11 and 13 both only knew one letter when the data was initially collected. In order to meet Objective 1, they needed to increase their uppercase letter knowledge by twenty. This is an extremely lofty goal for this short two and a half week project plan. Both students are ESOL need much support to complete on-grade level tasks. Neither of the students have previous school experience.
Objective 2: Provided access to web-based computer activities
targeting letter identification, students will be able to verbally identify 28
lowercase letters within five seconds at a succession rate of 80%.
80% (sixteen students) of the class met Objective 2. Only Student 12 was able to identify all 28 lowercase letters. Six students knew 27 letters. All of these students said “p” for “q”, which was a common mistake among the whole class. This is a frequent error due to the visual similarity of the letter as well as discrepancies between how it looks when typed in varying fonts. While students struggled with the “q”, sixteen students could identify both lowercase g’s and seventeen students could identify both lowercase a’s. Overall, the class increased their lowercase letter knowledge by 7.45.
Student 9 knew 27 letters for the pre- and post-assessments. Both times, they too said “p” for “q”. Although Student 9 met Objective 2, they were the only person that did not increase their lowercase letter knowledge.
80% (sixteen students) of the class met Objective 2. Only Student 12 was able to identify all 28 lowercase letters. Six students knew 27 letters. All of these students said “p” for “q”, which was a common mistake among the whole class. This is a frequent error due to the visual similarity of the letter as well as discrepancies between how it looks when typed in varying fonts. While students struggled with the “q”, sixteen students could identify both lowercase g’s and seventeen students could identify both lowercase a’s. Overall, the class increased their lowercase letter knowledge by 7.45.
Student 9 knew 27 letters for the pre- and post-assessments. Both times, they too said “p” for “q”. Although Student 9 met Objective 2, they were the only person that did not increase their lowercase letter knowledge.
Objective 3: Provided access to web-based computer activities
targeting sight word identification, students will be able to recognize 44
kindergarten sight words within five second at a succession rate of 25%.
20% (four students) of the class met Objective 3. The post-assessment data shows that sight word knowledge ranges from 0 to 24 of the 44 kindergarten sight words. At this time in the school year, students should know 25% of the sight words, which is eleven words. Although the class average increased by 5.3 words, sixteen students still do not know 25% of the sight word list. It is imperative that students be able to read and recognize these kindergarten sight words. This is an integral and foundational skill for reading. It is evident from this data that students still need much more practice with the technology-based solutions. Since 90% of the class met Objective 1 and 80% met Objective 2, Objective 3 can become a main focus going forward. The needs of students that did not meet Objectives 1 and 2 will be met in small groups to address these goals.
Overall Data Interpretation
The data shows commonalities among ESOL students and those with previous schooling experience. 85% (seventeen students) of the class is ESOL and 35% (seven students) have previous school experience including county pre-kindergarten and Head Start programs. For all learning outcomes, ESOL students performed lower than non ESOL students. For all learning outcomes, students with previous schooling experiences did better than those with no previous school experience.
Based on this data, it is clear that ESOL students require additional support in learning letters and sight words. It is important to differentiate and group students according to their needs using baseline data. Progress monitoring and informal assessments are also key for providing effective instruction.
Based on this data, students with previous schooling experience to kindergarten is beneficial. Not only is it important for these foundational literacy skills, and although unrelated to this plan, previous schooling experience also provides students with valuable opportunities to engage with like-aged peers to strengthen their socialization skills.
Recommendations: Part 1
One recommendation I would make to this plan is to revise the implementation timeline. All students met Objective 1 except two students, and four did not meet Objective 2 within the two weeks. I would have increased implementation for uppercase and lowercase by another week for all students to solidify these skills as well as allow those six students more time to become proficient with their letter identification. However, I would span the use of the technology-based solution to target sight words throughout the nine week quarter. For each quarter throughout the year, I would implement the sight word plan and adjust the resources to reflect the sight words being targeted for that current quarter.
Another revision I would make would be to thoroughly investigate the lowercase letter resources that I choose to implement. The post-assessment data showed that many students struggle with identifying the letter “q” as well as discerning it from the letter “p”. Based on this, going forward I need to examine the fonts used in the apps and online resources that target lowercase letters. In the kindergarten program at my school, we teach students about the two visually different lowercase letter q’s. One has a “tail” that is curved and the other has a straight line. It is important that there are lowercase letter resources that feature both types of fonts. Though students did not struggle with this, it is also important to have resources that include the two visually different lowercase a's and g's.
Lastly, I would recommend that another teacher is be present to help provide support in the computer lab, at least for the first time. Students were successfully able to access the resources that we had been using in the classroom. However, due to their heightened excitement engaging in their favorite activities, they were quite distracting to others working. Students were very interested in seeing which activities their friends were playing. While talking about the different activities and watching others, students unfortunately lost time practicing the targeted skills. After this initial experience in the computer lab, I consciously assigned students to computers. Based on the personalities of a class, this would be a recommendation for other teachers. After allocating computer lab seats, the distractions became less and less. However, it was hard to anticipate this commotion. Therefore, it would be been helpful to have another teacher in the lab to support.
One recommendation I would make to this plan is to revise the implementation timeline. All students met Objective 1 except two students, and four did not meet Objective 2 within the two weeks. I would have increased implementation for uppercase and lowercase by another week for all students to solidify these skills as well as allow those six students more time to become proficient with their letter identification. However, I would span the use of the technology-based solution to target sight words throughout the nine week quarter. For each quarter throughout the year, I would implement the sight word plan and adjust the resources to reflect the sight words being targeted for that current quarter.
Another revision I would make would be to thoroughly investigate the lowercase letter resources that I choose to implement. The post-assessment data showed that many students struggle with identifying the letter “q” as well as discerning it from the letter “p”. Based on this, going forward I need to examine the fonts used in the apps and online resources that target lowercase letters. In the kindergarten program at my school, we teach students about the two visually different lowercase letter q’s. One has a “tail” that is curved and the other has a straight line. It is important that there are lowercase letter resources that feature both types of fonts. Though students did not struggle with this, it is also important to have resources that include the two visually different lowercase a's and g's.
Lastly, I would recommend that another teacher is be present to help provide support in the computer lab, at least for the first time. Students were successfully able to access the resources that we had been using in the classroom. However, due to their heightened excitement engaging in their favorite activities, they were quite distracting to others working. Students were very interested in seeing which activities their friends were playing. While talking about the different activities and watching others, students unfortunately lost time practicing the targeted skills. After this initial experience in the computer lab, I consciously assigned students to computers. Based on the personalities of a class, this would be a recommendation for other teachers. After allocating computer lab seats, the distractions became less and less. However, it was hard to anticipate this commotion. Therefore, it would be been helpful to have another teacher in the lab to support.
Recommendations: Part 2
I would highly recommend other teachers to implement this plan. I slightly adjusted my previous structure of literacy centers which enabled students to go to the Kindle and computer each day. If a Kindle is not available, other mobile devices such as a tablet computer or an eReader will suffice. If these technologies are not available, but there are additional computers students can rotate to the other computers. It is important to communicate these types of successes with your grade level teammates.
In order to persuade other teachers to adopt my innovation within my school, I would first seek the help of the Staff Development Teacher. She would be able to help me arrange a workshop or organize a session for me to share my implementation plan. Throughout the year my school often holds small, in-school professional development workshops on a range of topics. Sometimes teachers are recruited for sharing something they have done, but all teachers are encouraged to volunteer to lead a session as well. For schools that do not have these types of workshops, I would recommend discussing this model with the Staff Development Teacher and/or the Principal. From personal experiences, these opportunities are valuable and always informative. It also encourages teachers to collaborate and showcase their strengths. Additionally, if there is a Technology Specialist available, it would be wise to enlist their support as well.
When soliciting the support of others, it is vital that the value of technology integration and the academic benefits of doing so are clearly communicated. This can be accomplished using data from the implementation plan or through research. Another powerful strategy is for teachers to see a plan in action. I would recommend inviting teachers and other staff members for a peer visit. Or, record students as they engage in the technology-based solution for others to observe first hand. While integrating this plan, I observed students amplified motivation levels and enthusiasm. This in turn reduced the distractions in the room as students worked and improved focus.
Another recommendation would be to create a wiki to encourage other teachers to adopt this implementation plan. A wiki is a great resource for sharing information and resources. In addition, it would serve as a forum for asking questions or facilitating discussions about the plan. The wiki would help to connect with other teachers in the community that have ideas to share on how to improve the plan as well. Sharing the wiki on networks such as Global SchoolNet, ePals, or district/county/state forums are another great way to share findings and encourage others to embrace this plan.
I would highly recommend other teachers to implement this plan. I slightly adjusted my previous structure of literacy centers which enabled students to go to the Kindle and computer each day. If a Kindle is not available, other mobile devices such as a tablet computer or an eReader will suffice. If these technologies are not available, but there are additional computers students can rotate to the other computers. It is important to communicate these types of successes with your grade level teammates.
In order to persuade other teachers to adopt my innovation within my school, I would first seek the help of the Staff Development Teacher. She would be able to help me arrange a workshop or organize a session for me to share my implementation plan. Throughout the year my school often holds small, in-school professional development workshops on a range of topics. Sometimes teachers are recruited for sharing something they have done, but all teachers are encouraged to volunteer to lead a session as well. For schools that do not have these types of workshops, I would recommend discussing this model with the Staff Development Teacher and/or the Principal. From personal experiences, these opportunities are valuable and always informative. It also encourages teachers to collaborate and showcase their strengths. Additionally, if there is a Technology Specialist available, it would be wise to enlist their support as well.
When soliciting the support of others, it is vital that the value of technology integration and the academic benefits of doing so are clearly communicated. This can be accomplished using data from the implementation plan or through research. Another powerful strategy is for teachers to see a plan in action. I would recommend inviting teachers and other staff members for a peer visit. Or, record students as they engage in the technology-based solution for others to observe first hand. While integrating this plan, I observed students amplified motivation levels and enthusiasm. This in turn reduced the distractions in the room as students worked and improved focus.
Another recommendation would be to create a wiki to encourage other teachers to adopt this implementation plan. A wiki is a great resource for sharing information and resources. In addition, it would serve as a forum for asking questions or facilitating discussions about the plan. The wiki would help to connect with other teachers in the community that have ideas to share on how to improve the plan as well. Sharing the wiki on networks such as Global SchoolNet, ePals, or district/county/state forums are another great way to share findings and encourage others to embrace this plan.
Recommendations: Part 3
While technology holds infinite possibilities for learning, they must be implemented strategically and appropriately in order to achieve their intended learning goals. Based upon my experience with this implementation plan, I have two recommendations for future research.
The first recommendation I would make would be to have future research on how the speaking accents featured in activities that have a voice interface impacts students learning. All of the apps and online resources that were used in this plan had a voice interface to provide feedback and reinforce correct letter and word identification. However, several had voices that had a slight or apparent accent. None of the students commented on this but I wonder if these accents affect how students learn their letters and words.
The second recommendation for future research is if there is a benefit to using a touch screen device versus one that utilizes a mouse. The Kindle Fire is a touch screen device and the desktop computer in my classroom uses a mouse. I provide students with the option of using a stylus to use in conjunction with the Kindle, but I do not observe a strong affinity to using the Kindle with or without the stylus. However, I wonder if the kinesthetic input of using one’s finger to engage in activities benefits learning. I suspect this may have an impact on writing when students trace letters with their fingers, but I wonder how it impacts letter and sight word reading. Many of the activities on the Kindle and the desktop computer were similar; therefore I would encourage research to investigate if general usage of a mouse or the touch screen has any different bearing on learning.
Based on this plan, I would like to continue to research how mobile devices and technology can help to enrich learning. I would like to implement a similar plan, using the same model, to address learning needs in math. The math block follows the same rotations and centers as during literacy. Therefore, integrating the use of the Kindle and desktop computers each day in a similar fashion should be fairly straightforward. Like this plan, I will first need to identify a learning need and conduct research. Then I will create objectives and assessment materials, develop a plan, find resources, prepare the environment, implement the plan, and reflect upon the data and project outcomes.
While technology holds infinite possibilities for learning, they must be implemented strategically and appropriately in order to achieve their intended learning goals. Based upon my experience with this implementation plan, I have two recommendations for future research.
The first recommendation I would make would be to have future research on how the speaking accents featured in activities that have a voice interface impacts students learning. All of the apps and online resources that were used in this plan had a voice interface to provide feedback and reinforce correct letter and word identification. However, several had voices that had a slight or apparent accent. None of the students commented on this but I wonder if these accents affect how students learn their letters and words.
The second recommendation for future research is if there is a benefit to using a touch screen device versus one that utilizes a mouse. The Kindle Fire is a touch screen device and the desktop computer in my classroom uses a mouse. I provide students with the option of using a stylus to use in conjunction with the Kindle, but I do not observe a strong affinity to using the Kindle with or without the stylus. However, I wonder if the kinesthetic input of using one’s finger to engage in activities benefits learning. I suspect this may have an impact on writing when students trace letters with their fingers, but I wonder how it impacts letter and sight word reading. Many of the activities on the Kindle and the desktop computer were similar; therefore I would encourage research to investigate if general usage of a mouse or the touch screen has any different bearing on learning.
Based on this plan, I would like to continue to research how mobile devices and technology can help to enrich learning. I would like to implement a similar plan, using the same model, to address learning needs in math. The math block follows the same rotations and centers as during literacy. Therefore, integrating the use of the Kindle and desktop computers each day in a similar fashion should be fairly straightforward. Like this plan, I will first need to identify a learning need and conduct research. Then I will create objectives and assessment materials, develop a plan, find resources, prepare the environment, implement the plan, and reflect upon the data and project outcomes.
Conclusion
Reflecting back upon this Capstone project, I am pleased by the overall implementation as well as the progress made by my students. Their letter and sight word recognition has improved. These are integral foundational skills for reading and writing that will serve them throughout their lives. Students expressed motivation and enthusiasm to learn and engage in the learning tasks. It is evident from the data and observations that technology can help improve students’ letter and sight word identification. Learning from both the successes and challenges I will make revisions to this plan and look forward to implement it with classes in future years. I am also excited to share the success of this technology-based plan with my colleagues and other teachers.
Reflecting back upon this Capstone project, I am pleased by the overall implementation as well as the progress made by my students. Their letter and sight word recognition has improved. These are integral foundational skills for reading and writing that will serve them throughout their lives. Students expressed motivation and enthusiasm to learn and engage in the learning tasks. It is evident from the data and observations that technology can help improve students’ letter and sight word identification. Learning from both the successes and challenges I will make revisions to this plan and look forward to implement it with classes in future years. I am also excited to share the success of this technology-based plan with my colleagues and other teachers.