stu.westga.edustu.westga.edu/~lgoodno1/8480_articlecritique_lgd.docx · web viewarticle five...
TRANSCRIPT
1Doughman
RUNNING HEAD: Article Critique
Article Critique
Leah G. Doughman
University of West Georgia
Spring 2011
2Doughman
Introduction
This paper is written in response to, yes to an assignment, but to also analyze, evaluate,
and critique numerous articles that are readily available to the education arena in reading and
technology. This paper dives deeper into the meanings of the articles; it is not just a summary
of them all. It answers those questions of “how?” “why?” “what?” and “how well?”. Some of
the critiques are negative while many are positive. This paper provides readers with an
understanding of implementation of specific evaluations and the methods. It is also the
framework for my evaluation project which helped strengthen my personal understanding of it
all.
Article One Summary
The authors of this article analyze and discuss a technology that is affordable, easy to
access, and promotes learning. This technology is called WriteToLearn; it is a web-based tool
that integrates reading and writing to provide assessment and immediate feedback to students
(Dooley, Lochbaum, & Landauer, 2009). The article is intended and directed toward teachers
who are interested in providing students with immediate feedback, allowing students to work
at their pace, and who want to incorporate reading, writing, and technology. The summative
study evaluated the effectiveness, accuracy, and reliability of the program in the classroom.
WriteToLearn provides two sections with its program: Summary Street (students read
and summarize short passages) and Intelligent Essay Assessor (students write essays based on
computer generated responses). The authors provide examples of the immediate feedback and
evidence of students’ academic growth. They also provide teachers with comments of the
3Doughman
program. Many educators state that they like the immediate feedback that the program
provides the students and how it allows them more time to work with the students on skills
instead of spending more time on assessing (Dooley et al., 2009). In the end, the researchers
state that the evaluations completed on the program show that students’ reading and writing
data improved each time. Their only recommendation for their study was the need for more
studies in this field.
Article One Critique
In my personal opinion, I thought the article was very well written. The authors present
their arguments in an easy to read, easy to follow format. They explain the program and its
components before jumping into their evaluation of the product. A thorough explanation of
the program is needed for readers to understand the multiple components of the program.
Once an understanding of the program is established, then arguments and/or assessments of
the programs can be presented; this is what the authors did and it provides clarity for the
reader. After reading the article I am curious to evaluate the program and try it out myself.
I feel the evaluation of the program is carried out in a professional manner. Time is
spent explaining the program, examples taken from the program are provided along with
student performance samples, and numerous teacher responses of the program are listed. I
feel that the terms have been defined and there is sufficient evidence to support the authors’
arguments or ideas. My only question of the evaluation was when the authors stated “comes
from several sources” (Dooley et al., 2009, p. 49). I feel like they should have listed their
4Doughman
sources. This would have provided more reliability of their evaluation. Overall, I feel the
program is worth looking into and evaluating for school use.
Article Two Summary
This summative article explores and evaluates the effects of an interactive singing
software program called Carry-a-Tune (CAT). It was originally designed to improve singing but
has been adopted in the reading classroom because of its ability to provide repeated readings
which aid with comprehension and fluency. The authors and evaluators felt that this
interactive program help adolescent readers with their reading skills, ability to gather and gain
background knowledge, and increase self-esteem.
As the authors point out, many adolescent readers no longer engage in reading and
their self-esteem in regards to their ability to read is low. They are very reluctant to read, feel
discouraged because of experienced difficulties, and believe they will automatically fail (Biggs,
Homan, Dedrick, Minick, & Rasinski, 2008). The program provides students with opportunities
to feel individual success in a non-threatening environment. Through the use of this program,
students’ performances are not compared to their peers, friends, or role models (Biggs et al.,
2008). Another important aspect of this program is automatic feedback. Students do not have
to wait on the teacher to grade their performance(s); the computer program evaluates their
performance at the end of each session and provides them with an immediate evaluation.
5Doughman
Article Two Critique
The article was well written and presents its evaluation in an effective manner. The
authors’ arguments were logical, well organized, clear, and easy to read. At the beginning of
the article, I felt it was very slow at presenting its points but picked up in the middle-half of the
paper. It did not explain how the program works up front, but instead provided some very solid
background research in the field of which this technology would cover. The National Reading
Panel report was included along with research from very famous authors, such as Allington,
Caulkins, Chall, Fry, Caldwell, LaBerge, and Samuels who are renown in the field of reading and
writing. This background of research-based information set a solid foundation for presenting
the evaluation of the computer-based program.
Once the stage was set, the authors went on to state the “how” aspect of their research.
I really like the fact that the authors explained the levels of expertise of the singing levels and
the tools used. It is broken down into levels: beginner, intermediate, and advanced and the
students/singers use a soundproof microphone headset that they can listen, sing, and record
with (Biggs et al., 2008). The program explanation and purpose for using this program were
clear, but the evaluation of the participants was slim. The evaluation only included twenty-four
participants. If I had been conducting the research, I would have included a larger number of
participants to gain an accurate, more precise evaluation of the technological tool.
An issue that was not addressed, but crossed my mind several times was the number of
songs available or provided with the program. Did it only have about twenty to fifty? Or did it
include more? Student could very quickly go through this amount of songs and get bored. Can
6Doughman
teachers add to the song list? Can this be adopted into younger aged classrooms? I could see
trying this program out, but not if it didn’t apply to my age group. I feel like many questions
were left unanswered in regards to the program itself, but the evaluation of the program was
well organized and well conducted.
Article Three Summary
This formative article evaluates and discusses the “benefits” using a computer-based
program to increase reading strategy training with adolescent readers. The program or training
tool used is called iSTART which stands for Interactive Strategy Trainer for Active Reading and
Thinking. According to this article, there are a growing number of adolescent students who do
not understand what they read (McNamara, O’Reilly, Best, & Ozuru, 2006). Students who have
a better understanding of reading strategies tend to perform better in comprehension than
students who do not. The overall goal of the interactive program is to increase reading
strategies among adolescent students through training. The goal of the evaluation was to
investigate the effects iSTART had on adolescent students’ comprehension on non-fiction text
such as science texts.
Article Three Critique
In my opinion, this article was very boring and too wordy. The points the authors were
trying to make could have been stated in a more straight forward method. I felt specific points
were thrown in the paper without the thought of clarity and understanding (i.e. working
memory). Since the data and evidence were not straight forward, I felt as if the authors’ points
and meanings were lost in all the wording. I had to look back and forth numerous times to try
7Doughman
and gain more clarity on the topic. Their arguments were not clear, and I thought the article
could have been organized a clearer manner to aid with clarity. I also felt that this article did
not hold the attention of its intended audience. If I, an educator, were confused by their
message, then I am sure that others who are not trained in the education field would be quite
lost.
Almost five pages into the article, the goals were finally stated. Why could the goals not
be stated up front? It would have made their study and objectives much clearer for the reader.
The study also had several focuses; why have so many? I felt like they should have stuck with
one or two focuses and which would have made their point(s) stronger instead of diluted. The
number of participants was rather low; it consisted of 39 children (11 males, 28 females)
(McNamara et al., 2006). After twelve pages of excessive wording, I learn that the students
benefitted from the training. After reading this article, I will use it as an example of what not to
do when evaluating and writing about a program.
Article Four Summary
This article summatively evaluates and examines the benefits of a CAI (computer-
assisted instruction) called Lexia Strategies for Older Students or Lexia S.O.S. It is a program
that was designed for older students who did not completely grasp reading concepts when
introduced or who may have missed out on the benefits of phonics, fluency, and
comprehension instruction. The program “contains five levels with twenty-four skill activities
and 369 discrete units” (Macaruso & Rodman, 2009, p. 106). It provides teachers with the
ability to monitor students’ progress, and it progresses with the students’ individual rate.
8Doughman
Macaruso and Rodman (2009) also state that the tool provides students with the opportunity to
master skills before moving on to the next.
The participants, procedures and materials of evaluation, along with a description of
each subtest were quickly and thoroughly addressed with adequate pace in the article. These
key points help the reader to understand the main points of the evaluation. Teachers,
administrators, or curriculum specialist (the intended audience) can quickly see and understand
the benefits of using the Lexia S.O.S. program with struggling students. Up to this point, this
evaluation had the largest number of participants (47) when compared to others in this paper.
A larger sample size aided with the evaluations validity and reliability, but more students are
still needed.
Article Four Critique
I felt this article was well written, comprehensible, and easy for all to follow. The
language was written in a straightforward method and all components were clearly explained.
Questions about the program did not arise while I was reading the evaluation. The program
was thoroughly explained, even for readers who have never used the program. The facts,
based on the well documented references, appear to be legitimate and accurate.
With my reading background, I feel that there is solid research presented in the area(s)
of phonics, fluency, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, and comprehension which provide the
data with a solid foundation. The overall findings were positive and indicated that the CAI can
provide struggling with numerous benefits. The only concern stated was that other CAI
programs have not all provided positive results. Details about these results were not
9Doughman
thoroughly discussed. It is recommended that these types of programs should be used as a
supplement and carefully integrated into the curriculum to get the best results.
Article Five Summary
Article five evaluates two programs that were developed by the Frostig Center Research
Department to improve reading and spelling among student who have learning disabilities. The
two programs evaluated were Speech Recognition-Based Program (SRBP) and text-based
Automaticity Program (AP). The purpose of this evaluation was to see how effective the
program was for students with learning disabilities and the teachers who teach these students.
The study was conducted as a summative evaluation with all involved as stakeholders,
especially the developers of the computer-based programs.
The Speech Recognition-Based Program (SRBP) and the Automaticity Program (AP) were
designed to improve word recognition, reading comprehension, phonological processing, and
spelling (Higgins & Raskind, 2004). Training required an extensive amount of time for both the
students and teachers. Researchers of the programs monitored the usage of the program; they
were available daily for the first week and then weekly to troubleshoot any problems that may
have occurred. In the end, researchers noted a significant increase in word recognition and
reading comprehension, but not spelling (Higgins et al., 2004).
Article Five Critique
I felt the researchers of this article did a great job of arguing their points. The facts were
clearly laid out on the table, and the data was well organized, clear, and easy for any educator
10Doughman
to follow. I was extremely concerned though with the amount of time required to train
educators and students and the difficulty of it. The research stated, “training to proficiency has
proved difficult and time-consuming”, “training for continuous speech programs requires
children to read stories aloud into the microphone, which many children with LD are able to do
effectively”, and “the use of speech recognition in the classroom as an assistive technology has
proved difficult to implement” (Higgins et al., 2004, p. 366). This was alarming, but very
beneficial in knowing.
At the beginning of the evaluation all students were grouped to together; students’ ages
and IQs were not separated accordingly. The age range was rather large; students’ ages ranged
from eight to eighteen. Results would definitely vary among this diverse age group and ability
levels. Researchers later separated the students accordingly and the evaluations were much
clearer. Also, I liked the fact that program provided self-paced activities. Students were not
forced to move onto the next topic if they were not ready, so master of a concept was
achievable.
The other recommendations reported by the authors were small sample size and
statistical data. Since the evaluation only consisted of forty-four students (twenty-eight who
were listed as LD), authors state that this might hinder meaningful analysis of the programs and
the evaluation of them. Another recommendation mentioned was the need for statistical
verification. Without the statistics, researchers did state the data should be interpreted with
“considerable caution” (Higgins et al., 2009, p. 383). I feel that if statistical data had been
gathered, then it would have a more legitimate standing in the field of research.
11Doughman
Article Six Summary
This article builds upon another evaluation that investigated the use and effectiveness
of computer-assisted instruction (CAI). It looks more thoroughly into the use of a program
called Lexia Early Reading. The program is designed “to supplement classroom instruction in
building a foundation for emerging literacy skills” (Macaruso & Walker, 2008, p. 270). The
program aids students with sound identification, rhyming, segmenting and blending sounds
within words, and application of letters with immediate feedback. Training is minimal and the
program, based on the results, has shown an increase in phonological skills among struggling
reading students.
Throughout the article, the authors explain and clearly lay out the benefits of using
computer-assisted instruction in the classroom. The focus was on one particular program, and
it was evaluated in a very summative manner. The stakeholders included the authors of the
study and the teachers and students who participated in the evaluation. The struggling
kindergarten readers were the ones who had the most to gain and/or lose based on the results
of the evaluation. Qualitative and quantitative data was gathered, including surveys. In the
end when the results were reported, there were positive results that came through the use of
the CAI Lexia Early Reading.
Article Six Critique
Overall, the article was well written and clear; I personally like Paul Macaruso’s
research, presentation style, and topics. The article was very interesting and easy to read. It is
a relative topic that applies to numerous educators, students, and what is carried out in the
12Doughman
classroom in regards to technology. This evaluation supports computer assisted instruction
(CAI) as a supplement and not as the sole instruction of the classroom. The evaluation found
that all students involved in using the CAI benefited from receiving phonics-based reading
instruction that was offered as part of the computer instruction (Macaruso et al., 2008).
The author does an excellent job of targeting his audience, teachers, with promising
facts or information about the program. It provides students with immediate feedback and
progresses to the next activity once the student has mastered a particular phonics skill. As an
educator, I like the fact that the program provides individual support and progresses with the
student’s ability. There was also a large number of participants (94 to be exact) in this study
and consideration of a child’s sex was also considered. I felt that the larger participant numbers
helped to foster accuracy and validity in this evaluation. My only concern was the fact that the
researchers used a different tool to evaluate the final results. I feel like they should have used
the evaluation tool that was provided with the CAI, but no explanation was stated as to why
they did this.
Article Seven Summary
This summative article evaluates numerous research and tools that are used as
computer assisted technology. The authors look specifically at three important aspects that are
included in all the articles. The first major aspect evaluated was the impact computerized print
versus printed reading material had on comprehension. The second aspect addressed was
computers, comprehension, and reading difficulties. And the third aspect considers the
research on the computerized tools, engagement, and meaning that is gained (Stetter &
13Doughman
Hughes, 2010). The evaluation results showed many positive effects that computer assisted
technology has on learners, yet the results were mixed in regards to improved comprehension.
The mains points the authors were trying to make were that there are technologies
available to aid with reading comprehension among all students. They do argue that there is
still not enough research in this particular field, and that there needs to be more. This will help
educators and others to determine if computers and technology are truly effective in the daily
classroom. By using several different tools listed in the reviewed articles, authors are able to
support their main points and arguments with solid, sound facts. On the other hand, Setter and
Hughes (2010) might have some biases, because they do feel strongly about the positive effects
technology might have reading comprehension. This is the internal push of their research and
quest for other supportive data.
Article Seven Critique
The article is well written and very lucid about their intended goals. I agree with the
authors shortly after a few sentences into their evaluation. Stetter and Hughes (2010) quickly
state that teachers are faced with new and unique classrooms that are different from the past;
teachers need to know how to best meet the needs of their unique students. I also feel that
students, especially those with learning disabilities, need explicit instruction, and the authors’
evaluations of the literatures and technologies listed in them are very useful to the everyday
educator. I also feel that we must teach students reading comprehension strategies and
monitor for understanding—Stetter and Hughes (2010) try to prove just this.
14Doughman
Through their evaluations, I was shocked to read that twenty-three percent of teachers
and students recorded that they used computers only once a week (Stetter et al., 2010). And
most of that was internet use, so no programs were used regularly based on the evaluations.
Programs to aid with reading comprehension, strategies, and diverse learners are becoming
more and more popular. If feel that it is important to evaluate the programs that school
systems are looking to adopt or implement for effectiveness in regards to cost, resources, time,
and training. The authors of this article do just that; they evaluate the research and tools that
are used as computer assisted technology, and present it in an simple, “up-front” manner.
Conclusion
In the end of the whole critiquing process, I have gathered numerous articles that will
aid to my own personal research evaluation project. It provided me with insight on how
evaluations are carried out and the processes of them. It also allowed me to see the “ins and
outs” as well as a big picture of what I am doing. I feel as if I know have the framework for my
research, I just have to now fill in the pieces. I believe that my articles aid with my own
evaluation since they are all related to reading comprehension and technology. Others who are
interested in a wide variety of reading comprehension technologies would find these articles
worth their time and applicable to their own research evaluations. The articles provide some
valuable resources which can aid or apply to other technologies as well.
In regards to relevancy and my personal practices, these articles have “opened my eyes”
to the slew of technologies that are readily available to the education field. Not all are great,
but researching provides educators some insight so they can apply their knowledge and not just
15Doughman
blindly lead. I feel like my collection of articles provides me with some knowledge and
background to a few technologies available. This knowledge and background will help to guide
me in my own personal research evaluation journey. I am now better equipped to tackle some
of the “unknowns”.
16Doughman
References
Dooley, S., Lochbaum, K., & Landauer, T. (2009). A new formative assessment technology for
reading and writing. Theory Into Practice, 48, 44-52. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Biggs, M., Homan, S., Dedrick, R., Minick, V., & Rasinski, T. (2008). Using an interactive singing
software program: A comparative study of struggling middle school readers. Reading
Psychology, 29, 195-213. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
McNamara, D., O’Reilly, T., Best, R., & Ozuru, Y. (2006). Improving adolescent students’ reading
comprehension with iSTART. Educational Computing Research, 34(2), 147-171.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Macaruso, P., & Rodman, A. (2009). Benefits of computer-assisted instruction for struggling
readers in middle school. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24(1), 103-113.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Higgins, E., & Raskind, M. (2004). Speech recognition-based and automaticity programs to help
students with severe reading and spelling problems. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(2), 365-387.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Macaruso, P. & Walker, A. (2008). The efficacy of computer-assisted instruction for advancing
literacy skills in kindergarten children. Reading Psychology, 29, 266-287. Retrieved from
EBSCOhost.
17Doughman
Stetter, M., & Hughes, M., (2010). Computer-assisted instruction to enhance the reading
comprehension of struggling readers: A review of the literature. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 25(4), 1-16. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.