Integrating Technology to Assist English 101

Students with Their Essays

___________________________________________________
Introduction

Effective technology integration occurs when teachers “develop technology-enriched

learning environments that enable all students to pursue their individual curiosities and become
active participants in setting their own educational goals, managing their own learning, and
assessing their own progress.” – National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers,
International Society for Technology in Education (2008).

When designing integration strategies, Roblyer (2006) suggested using technology that
had the power to improve teaching and learning needs; however, before any technology was
implemented, the tool had to be examined to determine how it would be beneficial for the
teacher and students. Web-based activities, such as Google Docs, had the potential to enhance
teaching and learning, but the implementation of the tool was time consuming for the teacher.
Moreover, the teacher was responsible for introducing students to technology integration,
helping students plan for technology integration, and providing students many opportunities to
practice technology integration skills (Roblyer, 2006).

The focus of this capstone project was to determine if technology, when used to
collaborate, could help English 101 students become better writers. Specifically, if the students
used Google Docs to provide and to receive peer feedback, would there be any improvement in
their college-level writing? Some teachers and professors of English might wonder why not use
the traditional method of peer review. With the traditional method, the teacher was responsible
for collecting the papers, distributing them to other students in the class, and collecting them at
the end of the process. There was nothing wrong with the traditional method of peer review, but,
when technology and peer review were used jointly and correctly, two major things occured.
First, the teacher was no longer solely responsible for providing all of the feedback, and, second,
students became better critical readers and writers.

Instructional Integration Strategies

An instructional strategy is a method used to get students involved in teaching and

learning activities. Examples of instructional strategies used in English 101 included –
discussion, demonstration, presentation, peer review, multiple intelligences, think-pair-share,
graphic organizers, self-reflection, independent study, and written products. The instructional
strategies used to address and meet the needs of English 101 students were based upon the
following objectives:

a. Students applied graphic organizers based on an organizational pattern (descriptive,

compare and contrast, cause and effect, and argumentative), captured and organized ideas
for their essays, and developed working theses to further organize generated ideas.
 b. Students related notes written on graphic organizers and identified sources of relevant
information for specific audiences and purposes.
c. Students planed rough drafts using a specific graphic organizer.
d. Students provided peer review feedback using Google Docs.
e. Students evaluated peer review and used feedback to edit and revise their rough drafts.
f. Students applied the rubric to help them write and publish essays for specific audiences
with intended purpose that developed a thesis with relevant material and that followed a
logical pattern of development.
g. Students used self-reflections to recall, explain, and defend their writing experiences.

Content Approach

Based on the aforementioned objectives, English 101 was approached as a single-subject

taught using teacher-centered and learner-centered strategies. According to Smaldino, Lowther,
and Russell (2008), teacher-centered strategies are activities that an instructor uses to organize,
promote, and maintain an engaging learner-centered environment. Likewise, learner-centered
instructional styles focus on individual students and such things as their academic needs,
interests, background knowledge, personalities, and capacities with emphasis on the most
effective teaching strategies that will involve the students in active learning (Barrett, Bower, &
Donovan 2007). Palloff and Pratt (2007) write, “…the learner-centered instructor focuses
attention on the learning process: what is the student learning, how is the student learning, under
what conditions is learning occurring, is the student retaining and applying the knowledge, and
does current learning prepare the student for future learning.”

Within the English 101 class, content was not just simply covered; it served as a passage
for the development of skills (communication and critical thinking), values (social and
educational), culture, and technology integration. Google Docs was a collaborative technology
that accommodated students as they became of aware of their strengths and weaknesses when
writing various essays. Furthermore, students used their strengths in collaborative efforts assisted
others, who were weaker in certain aspects of the writing process.

Grouping Approach

All of the English 101 students were expected to enhance their current writing abilities
and make academic gains while doing so. Based on the students’ participation and responses
during the discussion of assigned readings, it became obvious that the traditional lecture did not
work well. Therefore, deviation from the norm and differentiation were implemented to meet the
academic needs, interests, background knowledge, personalities, and capacities of the students
(Patterson, Connolly, & Ritter, 2009). Differentiation is defined as the practice of creating
lessons and activities to accommodate the diverse needs of students in a class. Landrum and
McDuffie (2010) listed Carol Ann Tomlinson’s suggestions for differentiation – rigor,
scaffolding, and grouping. In the words of Carol Ann Tomlinson (2001), “In a differentiated
classroom, commonalities are acknowledged and built upon, and student differences become
important elements in teaching and learning.”
 Further analysis of the English 101 students’ academic needs, learning styles, and
motivations proved that grouping was the most effective differentiation tool because students are
continuously afforded opportunities to become engaged in activities in a whole-class, alone,
pairs, or with a small group. Since the students had varying academic levels, grouping
encouraged students to learn to work independently and cooperatively; helped students
strengthen their weaknesses and/or weaknesses; and was seen as a combination of teacher-
assigned and student choice selections (Chapman & King, 2008). The table below is a table
detailed how differentiation and grouping were used in the English 101 class.

Grouping Instructional Arrangements

Grouping Approach Instructional Strategies Teacher- Learner-
centered centered
Whole class Discussion, Demonstration, and X
Presentation

Small group and Discussion, Peer review, Presentation X

pairs Multiple intelligences, and Think-pair-share

Individual Graphic organizers, Self-reflection, Drill- X

and-practice, Independent study, Multiple
intelligences, and Written products

Diverse Learners

The multiple intelligence model based on the work of Howard Gardner instruction
was implemented to meet the diverse needs of each student. The intelligences included
visual/spatial, logical/mathematical, verbal/linguistic, music/rhythmic, bodily/kinesthetic,
interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalist, and existentialist (Smaldino, Lowther, & Russell 2008).

The multiple intelligences recognized the diversity of the students and the many different
learning styles. None of the students had a 504 plan or an IEP. Four of the nine multiple
intelligences were addressed in each class meeting, and the other intelligences were infused as
needed. Differentiated strategies met the varied needs of all learners based on the
following intelligences:

a. Visual/Spatial learners – Graphic organizers allowed students to see the organizational

pattern (descriptive, compare and contrast, cause and effect, and argumentative) of each
essay. Students read the peer review feedback provided by a classmate or classmate using
Google Docs.

b. Verbal/Linguistic learners – Pairs and small groups generated ideas for presentations,
discussions, peer review, and think-pair-share activities. Individually, each student was
scheduled to conference with the instructor after the completion of each essay.
 c. Bodily/Kinesthetic learners – Students moved about the classroom and made
presentations to other peers.

d. Intrapersonal – Students worked independently to write the required essays, filled in

graphic organizers, and reflected on their writing strengths and weaknesses with each
essay.

Technology Integration

Technology has changed the way people communicate and work. Moreover, technology
has caused a shift in the decision-making and communication responsibilities to workers
(Sweeney, 2010). The changes demand that workers have certain skills (critical thinking,
collaboration, accessing and analyzing information, and oral and written communication).
Writing skills are one of the most difficult communication abilities to teach students. Effective
communication of ideas through speaking and writing is essential. When the writing process is
taught, peer review is often under-utilized or not used at all. Students are quite capable of
providing peer review when they are taught to do so. In the words of Van Horn (2010), “…, peer
review can provide students with critical feedback and an authentic collaborative writing process
before their final drafts are completed.” Lending further support to skills of communication and
collaboration is the National Educational Technology Standards for Students, International
Society for Technology in Education (2007), which reads, “Students interact, collaborate, and
publish with peers, experts, or others employing a variety of digital environments and media.”

Computer technologies can help students become better writers, but when considering
which technology to use, the instructor must examine the tool to determine if it is effective for
the students and the writing tasks. Additionally, before introducing and integrating technologies
to aid with the writing process, instructors and students must fully understand that technology
integration is more than having access; it is a tool for improving teaching and learning.

In the case involving English 101 students, there was a need for online word processing
applications for collaboration and peer review. When students worked in small groups or pairs,
they learned to help one another master concepts. Of the leading online word processing
applications, Google Docs, was the best because it was free, and it allowed students to
collaborate – both synchronously and asynchronously. During the writing process, students
needed and wanted immediate feedback. On the other hand, traditional feedback using pen and
paper was extremely time consuming. As an example, Google Docs provided students with
feedback from more than one person, and this feedback proved to be more beneficial than
traditional peer review. When students posted their essays to Google Docs, the audience was no
longer just the teacher. The audience grew to include the many class members, who helped the
author consider effectiveness, writing strengths and/or weaknesses, and a better understanding of
audience.

Student Preparation

The English 101 students were anxious to earn their first college degrees, which should
lead to new careers and/or career advances. The students were not resistant to using technology
and learning new technology. So, the introduction of Google Docs was met with open arms. On
the downside, since writing was a difficult skill to teach and master, some students were still not
comfortable with peer review because they were shy about giving peers constructive criticizing
because they assumed that feelings would be hurt. And, since use of peer review wass optional,
some students decided to disregard the peer review provided. On a positive note, one student
took advantage of Skype for peer review questions and concerns. She used Skype to speak with
others about her reviews (given and received). Ultimately, it was not about the technology; it was
about the learning and the application of knowledge.

Timeline
Subject: English Composition 101

Timeline: 9 weeks

Outcome: Students composed a variety of essays, developed content, employed specific

organizational patterns, and selected language appropriate for a particular audience and purpose.

Major Composition Objectives:

a. Students applied graphic organizers based on an organizational pattern (descriptive, compare

and contrast, cause and effect, and argumentative), captured and organized ideas for their
essays, and developed working theses to further organize generated ideas.

b. Students related notes written on graphic organizers and identified sources of relevant
information for specific audiences and purposes.

c. Students planed rough drafts using a specific graphic organizer.

d. Students provided peer review feedback using Google Docs.

e. Students evaluated peer review and used feedback to edit and revise their rough drafts.

f. Students applied the rubric to help them write and publish essays for specific audiences with
intended purpose that developed a thesis with relevant material and that followed a logical
pattern of development.

g. Students used self-reflections to recall, explain, and defend their writing experiences.

***Approval of the timeline was granted by the Chair of the English Department.
Date: February 03, 2011

Focus: Collaborating and Peer Editing with Google Docs

Objectives: Students :

• Watched Sharing in Google Docs (Google, 2010).

• Created a new document (Who Am I).

• Uploaded the document to Google Docs.

• Shared the document to receive peer review.

• Edited the shared document (Who Am I).

Date: February0 4 – February 05, 2011

Focus: Collaborating and Peer Editing with Google Docs

Objectives: Students:

• Drafted a diagnostic essay. Use MLA format. Name the document Diagnostic Essay.
Save the document in a folder.

• Uploaded the diagnostic essay to Google Docs.

• Shared the document to receive peer review.

• Edited the shared document (diagnostic essay).

• Submitted the final copy of diagnostic essay using Turnitin.com (due 02/05/2011).

Date: February 10 – February 19, 2011

Focus: Recalling a Person, Place, or Thing

Objectives: Students:

• Read the requirements for the essay.

• Read the rubric.

• Completed the descriptive essay graphic organizer (due 02/11/2011).

• Submitted descriptive essay rough draft (due 02/13/2011).

• Completed peer review using Google Docs (due 02/15/2011).

• Submitted final copy of descriptive essay via Turnitin.com (due 02/19/2011).

• Discussed self-reflection via Skype with instructor (due 02/19/2011).

February 24 – March 05, 2011

Focus: Comparing and Contrasting

Objectives: Students:

• Read the requirements for the essay.

• Read the rubric.

• Completed the compare and contrast graphic organizer (due 02/25/2011).

• Submitted compare and contrast essay rough draft (due 02/27/2011).

• Completed peer review using Google Docs (due 03/01/2011).

• Submitted final copy compare and contrast essay via Turnitin.com (due 03/05/2011).

• Discussed self-reflection via Skype with instructor (due 03/05/2011).

Date: March 10 – March 19, 2011

Focus: Explaining Causes and Effects

Objectives: Students:

• Read the requirements for the essay.

• Read the rubric.

• Completed the cause and effect graphic organizer (due 03/11/2011).

• Submitted cause-effect essay rough draft (due 03/13/2011).

• Completed peer review using Google Docs (due 03/15/2011).

• Submitted final copy of cause-effect essay via Turnitin.com (due 03/19/2011).

• Discussed self-reflection via Skype with instructor (due 03/19/2011).

Date: March 24 – April 02, 2011

Focus: Taking a Stand

Objectives: Students:

• Read the requirements for the essay.

• Read the rubric.

• Completed the argumentative essay graphic organizer (due 03/25/2011).

• Submitted an argumentative essay rough draft (due 03/27/2011).

• Completed peer review using Google Docs (due 03/29/2011).

• Submitted final copy of argumentative essay via Turnitin.com (due 04/02/2011).

• Discussed self-reflection via Skype with instructor (due 04/02/2011).

Reflections
Learning Styles

Landrum, T. J., & McDuffie, K. A. (2010). Learning styles in the age of differentiated
instruction. Exceptionality, 18(1), 6-17. doi:10.1080/09362830903462441

In this present day and time, individualized instruction and differentiated instruction are
confused. Each form of instruction made it known that students have different learning styles,
and all students deserve to be met where they are educationally. However, that was the only
similarity shared between individualized instruction and differentiated instruction and
individualized instruction. As with its namesake, individualized instruction forced a teacher to
develop something different for each student. On the other hand, differentiated instruction made
the case for grouping because the teacher had to work with the whole class, sometimes with
small groups, and sometimes one-on-one with individuals. Subsequently, teachers truly
differentiated instruction by adjusting content, process, and/or products based on students’
academic needs and learning styles (Rock et al., 2008).

Differentiation

Rock, M. L., Gregg, M., Ellis, E., & Gable, R. A. (2008). REACH: A framework for
differentiating classroom instruction. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 31-47. Retrieved
from EBSCOhost.

According to Barrett, Bower, & Donovan (2007), learner-centered instructional styles

focused on individual students and such things as their academic needs, interests, background
knowledge, personalities, and capacities with emphasis on the most effective teaching strategies
that involved the students in active learning. Differentiated instruction supported learner-
centered instructional strategies; however, a major obstacle to student-centered instruction and
activities was the practice of “teaching to the middle.” The act of “teaching to the middle”
negated the needs and learning styles of advanced and basic students. Differentiated instruction
practiced: (a) focus on essential ideas and skills, (b) respond to individual student differences, (c)
integrate assessment and instruction, and (d) continuously adjust content, process, and/or
products to meet individual students’ intelligences and learning styles. Overall, differentiated
instruction proved to be a method to engage students with diverse learning backgrounds in the
teaching and learning process.
 References

Barrett, K. R., Bower, B. L., & Donovan, N. C. (2007). Teaching styles of community college

instructors. American Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 37-49.

doi:10.1080/08923640701298738

Chapman, C. & King, R. (2008). Managing grouping strategies. Differentiated instructional

management: Work smarter, not harder (p. 83). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POIR37Hmydg

ISTE. (2007). The ISTE nets and performance indicators for teachers (NETS.T). Retrieved from

http://www.iste.org/Libraries/PDFs/NETS_for_Student_2007_EN.sflb.ashx

ISTE. (2008). The ISTE nets and performance indicators for teachers (NETS.T). Retrieved from

http://www.iste.org/Libraries/PDFs/NETS_for_Teachers_2008_EN.sflb.ashx

Landrum, T. J., & McDuffie, K. A. (2010). Learning styles in the age of differentiated

instruction. Exceptionality, 18(1), 6-17. doi:10.1080/09362830903462441

Palloff, R. M. & Pratt, K. (2007). Moving teaching and learning online. Building online learning

communities (pp. 105-106). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Patterson, J. L., Connolly, M. C., & Ritter, S. A. (2009). Restructuring the inclusion classroom

to facilitate differentiated instruction. Middle School Journal, 41(1), 46-52. Retrieved

from EBSCOhost.

Roblyer, M. D. (2006). Preface. Integrating educational technology into teaching (p. vi) (4th ed.)

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Rock, M. L., Gregg, M., Ellis, E., & Gable, R. A. (2008). REACH: A framework for

differentiating classroom instruction. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 31-47. Retrieved

from EBSCOhost.
Smaldino, S. E., Lowther, D. L. & Russell, J. D. (2008). Chapter 2: Instructional strategies:

Integrating technology and media (pp. 38-42). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Smaldino, S. E., Lowther, D. L. & Russell, J. D. (2008). Chapter 4: The ASSURE model:

Creating the learning experience (p. 89) (9th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Sweeny, S. M. (2010). Writing for the instant messaging and text messaging generation: Using

new literacies to support writing instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,

54(2), 121-130.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). What differentiated instruction is – and isn’t (p. 1) (2nd ed.) Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). What differentiated instruction is not (p. 2) (2nd ed.) Alexandria, VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Van Horn, M. C. (2010). Module 8: Teaching with peer review. Teaching with hacker

handbooks: Topics, strategies, and lesson plans (p. 101). Boston, MA: Bedford/St.

Martin’s.