You are here:

Making Individualized Literacy Instruction Available to All Teachers: Adapting the Assessment to Instruction (A2i) Software for Multiple Real-World Contexts
PROCEEDINGS

, , , Arizona State University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Jacksonville, Florida, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-07-0 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA

Full Text

Abstract

The purpose of this project is to use design-based implementation research to complete the development of Assessment to Instruction (A2i) software by gathering and applying ongoing feedback from K-3 teachers, school administrators and educational leaders in Phoenix, AZ and Girard, PA. The schools serve a highly diverse student body: across schools, approximately 40% of the students qualify for the US Free and Reduced Lunch Program and about 79% belong to ethnic/racial minority groups. The A2i software is an integral part of the Individualizing Student Instruction (ISI) intervention. A2i was originally developed as a research tool to compute recommended amounts and types of instruction taking into account that the effect of specific types of reading instruction appears to depend on students’ language and reading skills. Although it shows potential as an effective way to support teachers’ implementation of effective differentiated reading instruction, in its current form it is not feasib

Citation

Connor, D.C., Barrus, D.A. & Fellows, J. (2014). Making Individualized Literacy Instruction Available to All Teachers: Adapting the Assessment to Instruction (A2i) Software for Multiple Real-World Contexts. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2014--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1220-1226). Jacksonville, Florida, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved January 25, 2020 from .

© 2014 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B., Krajcik, J.S., Marx, R.W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling-up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 149-164.
  2. Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
  3. Chall, J.S. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
  4. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher,, 32(1), 9-13.
  5. Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon& T.O'Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15-22). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
  6. Fishman, B., Marx, R., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J.S., & Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 43-76.
  7. Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Phillips, N.. (1994). The relation between teachers' beliefs about the importance of good student work habits, teacher planning, and student achievement. Elementary School Journal, 94(3), 331-345.
  8. Kelly, A.E. (2003). Research as design. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 3-4.
  9. National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington DC: National Institute for Literacy and the National Center for Family Literacy.
  10. NICHD. (2000). National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Reading Panel report: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
  11. Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
  12. Penuel, W.R., Roschelle, J.M., & Schectman, N. (2007). Designing formative assessment software with teachers: An analysis of the co-design process. Research and practice in technology enhanced learning, 2(1), 51-74.
  13. Reiser, B.J., Spillane, J.P., Steinmuller, F., Sorsa, D., Carney, K., & Kyza, E. (2000). Investigating the mutual adaptation process in teachers' design of technology-infused curricula. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Mahwah, NJ. Reynolds, A.J., & Ou, Suh-Ruu. (2004). Alterable predictors of child well-being in the Chicago longitudinal study. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 1-14.
  14. Snow, C.E. (2001). Reading for understanding. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education and the Science and Technology Policy Institute. Spira, Elana Greenfield, Bracken, Stacey Storch, & Fischel, Janet E. (2005). Predicting improvement after first-grade reading difficulties: The effects of oral language, emergent literacy, and behavior skills. Developmental Psychology, 41(1), 225-234.
  15. Squires, D., & Preece, J. (1999). Predicting quality in educational software: Evaluating for learning, usability and the synergy between them. Interacting with Computers, 11, 467-483.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read