Technology and early literacy: The impact of an integrated learning system on high-risk kindergartners' achievement

Reading Psychology

Volumn 28, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 443-467

  Tracey, Diane H ^a   Young, John W ^b,c  

^a KEAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 36048930095     PISSN: 02702711     EISSN: 15210685     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02702710701568488     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1, pp. 1.85-224). New York: Longman.
3. Anderson-Inman, L., & Horney, M. A. (1998). Transforming text for at-risk readers. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 15-43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Baker, E. A., Rozendal, M. S., & Whitenack, J. W. (2000). Audience awareness in a technology-rich elementary classroom. Journal of Literacy Research, 32(3), 395-419.
5. Bangert-Drowns, R. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A metaanalysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 69-93.
6. Becker, H.J. (1992). A model for improving the performance of integrated learning systems. Educational Technology, 32, 6-15.
7. Cunningham, J. W., Many, J. E., Carver, R. P., Gunderson, L., & Mosenthal, P. B. (2000). How will literacy be defined in the new millennium? Reading Research Quarterly, 35(1), 64-71.
8. Hiltonsmith, R. W. (1992). Review of the test of early reading ability. In J. J. Kramer & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), The eleventh mental measurements yearbook (2nd ed., pp. 944-946). Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska, Lincoln. The Buros Institute of Mental Measures.
9. Kamil, M. L., & Lane, D. M. (1998). Researching the relationship between technology and literacy: An agenda for the 21st century. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 323-342). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10. Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., Pearson, P. D., & Barr, R. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. Karchmer, R. A. (2001). The journey ahead: Thirteen teachers report how the Internet influences literacy and literacy instruction in their K-12 classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(4), 442-466.
12. Kramer, J. J., & Conoley, J. C. (Eds.). (1992). The eleventh mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska, Lincoln. The Buros Institute of Mental Measures.
13. Labbo, L. D. (1996). A semiotic analysis of young children's symbol making in a classroom computer center. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 356-385.
14. Labbo, L. D., & Reinking, D. (1999). Theory and research into practice: Negotiating the multiple realities of technology in literacy research and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(4), 478-492.
15. Leu, D. J., & Kinzer, C. K. (2000). The convergence of literacy instruction with networked technologies for information and communication. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(1), 108-127.
16. MacArthur, C. A., & Haynes, J. B. (1995). Student assistant for learning from text (SALT) : A hypermedia reading aid. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(3), 150-159.
17. McGuinness, D., McGuinness, C., & Donohue, J. (1995). Phonological training and the alphabet principle: Evidence for reciprocal causality. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 830-852.
18. Morrow, L. M., Gambrell, L. B., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (2003). Best practices in literacy education. New York: Guilford.
19. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research, literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
20. Orr, J. S. (1997, August 26). Report: Newark third worst city for raising kids. Star Ledger, p. 17.
21. Patterson, W. A., Henry, J. J., O'Quin, K., Ceprano, M. A., & Blue, E. V. (2003). Investigating the effectiveness of an integrated learning system on early emergent readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(2), 172-207.
22. Readence, J. E., & Barone, D. M. (2000). Envisioning the future of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(1), 8-9.
23. (2000, April/May). Reading Today, p. 21.
24. Reinking, D., & Watkins, J. (2000). A formative experiment investigating the use of multimedia book reviews to increase elementary students' independent reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(3), 384-419.
25. Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523-568.
26. Shaywitz, S. (2004). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York: Knopf.
27. Snow, C. E., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
28. Stanovich, K. E. (Ed.). (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York: Guilford.
29. Tracey, D. H., & Morrow, L. M. (2006). Lenses on reading: An introduction the theories and models. New York: Guilford.