A comparison of young children’s technology-enhanced and traditional responses to texts: An action research project

Journal of Research in Childhood Education

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 58-65

  Tancock, Susan M ^a   Segedy, Janis ^b  

^a BALL STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Burris Laboratory School   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052614329     PISSN: 02568543     EISSN: 21502641     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02568540409595054     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Benenson, G. (2001). Teachers researching, children designing. Retrieved on February 20, 2003, fromhttp://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejoumals/JTE/vl2n2/benenson.html
2. Coulter, B., Feldman, A., & Konold, C. (2000). Rethinking online. Learning & Leading with Technology, 28(1), 42-47.
3. Despot, RC. (1992). Nurturing the communication abilities of second-grade students by using notebook computers to enhance the writing process. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova University, Ft. Lauderdale, FL (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 351 700).
4. El-Hindi, A. (1998). Beyond classroom boundaries: Constructivist teaching with the Internet. Retrieved on February 20, 2003, from www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=/electronic/RT/constructivist.html
5. Flood, J., Lapp, D., Fisher, D., Lungren, L., Flood, S., Frey, J., & Eyres-Wright, D. (1997, December). Enhancing the literacy curriculum with visual technology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ.
6. Fountaine, D. (2000). Technical advances and fifth grade reading comprehension: Do students benefit? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 448 416).
7. Gambrell, L., Bradley, V., & McLaughline, E. (1987). Young children's comprehension and recall of computer screen displayed text. Journal of Research in Reading, 10(2), 156-163.
8. Goldman, J. M. (1988). The use of computers versus basal readers for reading comprehension in the primary grades. Illinois (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED299548).
9. Greenlee-Moore, M. E., & Smith, L. L. (1996). Interactive computer software: The effects on young children's reading achievement. Reading Psychology, 17(1) 43-64.
10. Harper, J. A, & Ewing, N. J. (1986). Acomparison of the effectiveness of microcomputer and workbook instruction on reading comprehension performance in high-incidence handicapped children. Educational Technology, 26(5), 40-45.
11. Keene, S., & Davey, B. (1987). Effects of computer-presented text on LD adolescents' reading behaviors. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10(4), 283-290.
12. Labbo, L. (1996). A semiotic analysis of young children's symbol making in a classroom computer center. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 356-385.
13. Labbo, L., & Kuhn, M. (1998). Electronic symbol making: Young children's computer-related emerging concepts about literacy. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, & L. Labbo (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology (pp. 7991). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
14. Labbo, L. D., Reinking, D., & McKenna, M. C. (1998). Technology and literacy education in the next century: Exploring the connection between work and schooling. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(3&4), 273-89.
15. Leu, D. (1997). Caity's questions: Literacy as deixis on the Internet. The Reading Teacher, 51, 62-67.
16. Mayer, R. E., Schuster, M. W., & Blanton, W. (1999). What do children learn from using computers in an informal, collaborative setting? Educational Technology, 39(2), 27-31.
17. McCormick, R. (2000, December). Theoretical and empirical issues of technology education research. Paper presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Conference on Research in Tfechnology Education, Washington, DC.
18. Meskill, C., & Swan, K. (1995). Roles for multimedia in the response-based literature classroom (Report No. R117G10015). Washington, DC: Office ofEducational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 387 803)
19. Olson, K A. (1994). Writing and revising with pencils and computers: An analysis of the processes and products of seven first-grade children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(22). (University Microforms No. 95-13,449)
20. Orabuchi, I. (1992, August). Effects of using interactive CAI on primary grade students' higher-order thinking skills: Inferences, generalizations, and math problem solving. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tfexas Woman's University, Denton.
21. Reinking, D. (1998). Introduction: Synthesizing technological transformations of literacy in a post-typographic world. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, & L. Labbo (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology (pp. xi-xxx). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
22. Technology Counts: Education Week's National Survey of Teachers' Use of Digital Content. (1999). Retrieved on February 20, 2003, from www.edweek.org/sreports/tc99ffiidex.htm
23. Tillman, G. (1995). Will implementing reading computer assisted instruction compared to traditional reading instruction produce more effective comprehension at the elementary school level! New York: Berrent Publications. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 392 025)
24. Tzung-Yu, C. (1993). Comparing the use of computers with traditional print in reading instruction: What the research says. Munde, Indiana (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 362 831)
25. Christopher Columbus: Explorer. (2003). Retrieved on February 24,2003, from www.enchantedleam ing.com/explorers/pzige/c/columbus.shtml
26. George, L. B. (1996). Around the pond. New York: HarperCollins.
27. 1? New York: Holt.
28. Rylant, C. (1980). Henry and Mudge and the starry night. New York: Simon & Schuster.
29. Schade, S., & Buller, J. (1999). Cat on the mat. New York: Golden Books.
30. Two different cultures. (2001). Scholastic News, 58(2), 1-8.
31. Veterinarian, Dr. Faye Vittotoe. (n.d.). Retrieved on February 24, 2003, www.teacher.scholastic.com/commclub/vet/index.htm