Article Summaries

Article Summaries and Critiques

FRIT 7235

Chris Brist

Georgia Southern University

Summer 2014

Billingsley, B., Israel, M., & Smith, S. (2011). Supporting new special education teachers: How online resources and Web 2.0 technologies can help. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 43(5), 20-29.

http://proxygsu-ecor.galileo.usg.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ925572&site=eds-live&scope=site

Professional Practice Article

Summary

The mentoring of new special education (SPED) teachers is a growing concern among the

exceptional child community in the age of computers. As these teachers leave their colleges and

universities they are confronted with an endless stream of tasks and new acronyms that can

confuse the most prepared teachers. Mentoring programs have been established to meet these

transitional needs, but in some cases the mentors have little time to meet or knowledge of the

needs of SPED teachers. Some schools only have one SPED teacher. Who are they to turn to?

All of these new teachers are looking for resources to help them with classroom management,

IEP’s, the RTI process, and more. Some teachers are even surprised to find that they are

required to teach courses for which they have received no training. They are looking for

solutions that are readily available and that can be instantly applied. Enter the world of the

Internet and Web 2.0. Virtual meetings and online collaboration tools are bridging the gaps of

the standard mentoring process. The use of social networks, blogs and wikis are also expanding

mentoring possibilities. However, with the increased usage of Web 2.0 tools comes an increased

concern for student safety. Billingsley, Israel, and Smith (2011) state that “confidentiality issues

extend to considerations as protection of student identities and the protection of content shared

between online mentors and mentees.” The article goes on to say that online professional

conduct is must. Although there is a multitude of ways to use the Internet and Web2.0 tools to

aid in the mentoring/learning process, sufficient scaffolding must be in place to help the new

SPED teachers use the tools effectively and professionally.

Critique

While I am not a “Special Education Teacher” in the strictest sense, I am still a resource

for them in my school. In fact my title was changed from Media Specialist to Library Media



Technology Specialist last year. The conveyor of my newly dubbed title, my district’s CIO,

expects me to take on the role of technology support as well as my media center duties. With

that in mind, I try to help all of my teachers find the resources they need to make their jobs

easier. However, finding just the right website or Web2.0 tool for special education teachers is

sometimes difficult. This article has provided me with a list of great resources that I will send to

my SPED teachers and other staff members. Any teacher, no matter how long they have been

teaching, needs help with finding appropriate resources to use with their students. While the

article demonstrates that there are numerous resources available online, the most important

resource for new and old teachers alike is scaffolding.

Anttiroiko, A., & Savolainen, R. (2011). Towards Library 2.0: The adoption of Web 2.0 technologies in public libraries. Libri: International Journal Of Libraries & Information Services, 61(2), 87-99. Retrieved from

http://proxygsu-ecor.galileo.usg.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=61406990&site=eds-live&scope=site

Research Article

Summary

This article describes how public libraries are embracing Web 2.0 tools in order to

promote “communication, content sharing, social networking, and crowdsourcing” (Anttiroiko &

Savolainen, 2011). These for topics are looked with the following in mind: What type of Web

2.0 tool is being used; What is the purpose of the tool; and What potential does the tool possess?

There are many examples of how public libraries across the country answering these questions

are incorporating Web 2.0 tools to help reinvigorate their services. Some libraries are

communicating with patrons via instant messaging and text messages. They are also using

online catalogs. Wikis and blogs are being used to provide up to date information to appeal to a

variety of online users while allowing them to provide feedback. For those patrons that require

more real time information, libraries have adopted the use of social media sites such as Facebook

and Twitter. Still others use crowdsourcing applications to gain “the wisdom of crowds”

(Anttiroiko & Savolainen, 2011). Some crowdsourcing applications allow users to recommend

books they like. The article states that libraries need to think about what type of Web 2.0 tool

they would need to meet their goals. The use of Web 2.0 tools has opened lines of

communication that may have never been discovered if libraries maintained their previous way

of communicating. They have opened their virtual doors to a whole new group of patrons. After

all, advertising the services your library provides is an integral part if its success.

Critique

The article contained many examples of how libraries use Web 2.0 tools, but they did not

share the results of using the tools. They also never discussed the training of staff members that

use the tools, who is responsible for monitoring the tool, or the cost of implementation. These

are three factors that need to be addressed before implementing any change. I am familiar with

the tools that were discussed, but I would not be able to use many of them in my elementary



school library. I can see high schools and secondary schools implementing these tools

successfully with their patrons. Destiny, my online catalog, allows my patrons to rate books and

make suggestions for new reading material. I will need to investigate the potential of using this

tool along with some Web 2.0 tools to enhance my library’s online appearance.

Reinhart, J. M. (2011). K-12 teachers: Technology use and the second level digital divide. Journal Of Instructional Psychology, 38(3/4), 181-193. Retrieved from

http://proxygsu-ecor.galileo.usg.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=slh&AN=76117154&site=eds-live&scope=site

Research Article

Summary

The data for the paper was gathered using an inventory given to a number of graduate

level education students that varied in age and years of experience. At the time of the study

these students worked in the suburbs, rural areas, and cities close to their graduate program. The

article explores the second level digital divide that is present in the K-12 environment. This

divide refers to the difference between how technology is used, as opposed to who has access to

the technology. The question is, why is there a divide? The paper takes into account many

factors including time, infrastructure, physical access, and socio-economic barriers. The

researchers also noted that training for pre-service and in-service teachers does not cover

integration of technology with their curriculum. They are merely shown how the technology

works. There is a need in both groups to have quality professional development. Many schools

were able to retain a technology facilitator that supports the teachers’ technology integration.

Reinhart, Thomas, and Toriskie (2011) point out that the divide is important to teachers learned

their craft in the 20th century. These teachers need to be prepared to teach students in the 21st

century. The goal is to move students from being consumers of information to becoming

produces of information. The divide, according to the research, is more prevalent in schools with

higher numbers of free and reduced lunch. These schools also had less access to technology

facilitators. The schools with technology facilitators promoted more, higher-order thinking

skills, which lessoned the divide. The study concludes, according to Reinhart et al., (2011) that

access to technology does not imply that teachers will effectively promote higher-order thinking

skills.

Critique

I can relate all too well to this article. I was a technology facilitator for six years in my

district. I spent countless hours showing teachers how to integrate technology with their

curriculum. Some teachers embraced the training and others let it fall by the wayside. The same



is true for my current school. I have four unused Promethean boards in my storeroom. Teachers

are more concerned with their 20th century dry erase boards. I forwarded the address of this

article to one of my former colleagues to share with her department, and I plan to share it with

my media committee in the fall. We could definitely use this eye opener in our school of 97%

free and reduced lunch. Maybe my administration will carve out more time for our technology

facilitator.

I did notice that the article did not seem to factor in other problems that may go along

with students from low-income families that we see in school every day. It is hard to promote

higher-order thinking skills when you are trying to teach basic life skills and foundational

reading and math skills. Many teachers struggle with maintaining order. These may also be

issues related to lack of proper professional development.

Thompson, S. (2012). Student use of library computers: Are desktop computers still relevant in today's libraries?. Information Technology & Libraries, 31(4), 20-33. Retrieved from



Summary

The library at California State University San Marcos (CSUSM) was built in 2004 as a

“teaching and learning center (Thompson, 2012). From its inception the planners and designers

envisioned a one-stop shop where students could come and work on computer based assignments

as well as use traditional library services. They “considered the entire building as a partner in the

students’ learning process” (Thompson, 2012). The staff at CSUSM conducted two computer

use studies to validate their library’s design. The goal was to see if the placement of desktop

computers, printers, seating with ample power access and other technology upgrades in key

locations prompted students to use the equipment along with the library’s other services. During

two separate two-week periods, the staff used two methods to gather data. The first was a short

quantitative survey, which asked students a variety of questions about their purpose for using the

library. The second method was a qualitative observation, an “over the shoulder” (Thompson,

2012) approach to see what the students were doing on the computers. The results from the

studies show that personal laptop use increased in areas with few desktop computers and overall

desktop usage declined since the first study the previous year. With this in mind it is important

to point out that the majority of students still prefer to use desktop computers in the library. In

fact, the students at CSUSM asked that more desktop be added to the library. According to

Thompson (2012), "the implication is clear that students using computers in the library are much

more likely to use the library’s other services".

Critique

The article has appeal to media specialists in libraries of all sizes. It makes me think of

how my own library needs to be arranged and outfitted. The idea of having a media center set up

where students and teachers have the support to complete projects from “cradle to grave”

(Thompson, 2012) appeals to me. I want my media center to be a place where students and

teachers can come to relax, read books, use technology, or a combination of the three. Of course



I am not dealing with the funding and space that CSUSM has to offer their students, but the same

reasoning persists in an elementary school media center. They had the opportunity to design a

library that supports the needs of their students. My obstacle is retrofitting a thirty-year-old

building to meet the needs of my 21st century patrons. Another drawback to the article is that the

study takes place before the iPad/tablet computer revolution. More and more people have

lightweight devices that they are willing to carry around. Will these devices cause a decrease in

the use of desktop computers in my media center? That will most likely depend on the network

policies of my district. After all, my patrons want reliable equipment that they do not have to

support and maintain. They want on demand printing, access to email, and other district

purchased software to aid them in whatever projects they may have assigned.

Kervin, L. , Verenikina, I. , Jones, P. , & Beath, O. (2013). Investigating synergies between literacy, technology and classroom practice. Australian Journal Of Language & Literacy, 36(3), 135-147. Retrieved from


Research Article

Summary

This paper is discusses Australia’s “digital revolution” (Kervin, Verenikina, Jones, &

Beath, 2013) from the perspective of teachers. The researches wanted to investigate what

technology is being used; how it is being integrated in the classroom to enhance literacy

learning; and if the technology helps teachers to attain their goals. As with any new technology

addition to the classroom there are several factors to consider. Is there time to learn how to use

it? What access will I have with it (daily – weekly)? Am I willing to use it properly? Kervin et

al., found that schooling is renowned as an institution slow to change its traditional practices.

The article points out that technology should not be the focus but rather a tool used to enhance a

lesson. The research took into account all aspects of technology use from the teacher to

administrators and from students to their families. Participants of the study either completed a

paper pencil or online questionnaire that looked at three aspects of technology access: school,

classroom, and home. Student and teacher access to technology was quite similar between home

and school. While the numbers showed a large number of teachers stating they had computer

access most of them requested more technology. The technology that is available is used

regularly for literacy-based lessons. The teachers reported using interactive activities that kept

their students engaged in the lesson. They results also show that greater comfort using

technology allows for better lessons and the ability to engage students in higher-order thinking

skills. One of the problems that teachers reported was that the technology at home and school

were not necessarily compatible. Lastly the teachers’ responses, according to Kervin et al.,

demonstrated their firm belief that literacy teaching should go first, and the technologies exist to

support it.

Critique

The last statement from the summary above reflects my views about the use of

technology. It should be used to enhance a lesson and not be the driving factor. This article is



relevant to a large portion of the teachers at my school. Many of them would like new

technology, but have a hard time finding the time to implement it properly with their prescribed

curriculum.

The researches pointed out some limitations with their survey participants. They were a

hand picked that were comfortable using technology. The study would have more significance

to me if a random sampling were used. I would be able to relate it back to my staff in a more

meaningful manner.

Quinney, K. L., Smith, S. D., & Galbraith, Q. (2010). Bridging the gap: Self-directed staff technology training. Information Technology & Libraries, 29(4), 205-213. Retrieved from



Summary

This article discusses bridging the gap between digital natives and digital immigrants in

the library at Brigham Young University. Students are using Web 2.0 tools and according to

Quinney, Smith & Galbraith (2010) to remain relevant, academic libraries need to provide the

technology that student patrons expect. To help bridge this gap the library administrators created

a technology challenge for their staff. This voluntary challenge promotes staff to explore new

technologies at least fifteen-minutes per day. This self-directed learning is designed to build life

long learners of technology. The results of the technology challenge were determined by the

data collected from a pre and post survey. The library administration provided incentives to help

motivate staff members, as well as, a way for them to track their progress online. Challenge

participants were surveyed prior to starting the challenge. The results of the pre-survey directed

administrators as to which new technologies their staff should learn. The self-directed nature of

the challenge allowed participants the flexibility to complete there fifteen minutes of daily

practice. They did notice a slight drop in productivity, but decided that it ultimately benefited

the library as a whole. The library administrators also set up small-group discussion times to

help solidify the lessons learned by their staff. Quinney et al., (2010) discovered that adult

learners are more successful when they desire and recognize a need for new knowledge or skills.

They also found focusing on personal interest was a good motivator too. All of the staff

members that participated in the technology challenge found it to be enjoyable, many of them

felt that it was too easy. The post survey showed that the goal of increasing productivity and

bridging the technology gap was accomplished. The ultimate goal of the library was met. The

goal to not only create better librarians, but also to create better people Quinney et al., (2010)

said.

Critique



I found this article to be the most relevant to my current stag in life. Working on my

Masters is a technology challenge of sorts. I am learning all sorts of new technologies that will

help me become a better media specialist. I can then take what I learn and redeliver to the staff

and students at my school and across the district. The only thing that I noticed that could be a

problem was the list of challenges used. Most of them were very simple tasks. It would have

nice to have an additional task per challenge for the staff members that want to take their

learning further. I would like to develop some type of challenge like this at my school. It would

be a great way to motivate teachers to learn new technology that they could use for themselves

and their students.

Ferriter, W., Provenzano, N. (2013). Self-directed learning . . . for teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), 16-21. Retrieved from

http://proxygsu-ecor.galileo.usg.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=fth&AN=91859497&site=eds-live&scope=site


Summary

Self-directed learning for teachers is the topic of this article. It begins with the

description of one of the authors’ first steps in to the world of blogs and Twitter. The Nerdy

Teacher, Nicholas Provenzano, in his first blog post said, “Let’s see where this thing takes us.”

From there he has amassed a huge Twitter following and was awarded the Outstanding Teacher

of the Year Award in 2013 from the International Society for Technology in Education.

Provenzano (2012) states that the connections he made in social media “make him a better

teacher and better person every day.” Establishing a electronic network of peers has allowed the

author to push himself in ways that traditional professional development has not. Professional

development at the school or district level is designed to pass along information to a group

whereas developing professional learning network help the individual get exactly what they

need. The key is to grow a network of both like-minded individuals and those with different

viewpoints as our own. This will help to prevent professional blind spots as Ferriter &

Provanzano (2013) call them. Teachers need help from other in the networks in order to prepare

students for the 21st century. Their professional learning networks can provide this training

opportunity that many districts cannot compensate for. Ferriter & Provanzano (2013) conclude

their article with the following statement: Organizational capacity increase when control over

learning is handed over to motivated learners. We only have to remember that this is true for

teachers and students alike.

Critique

This article opened my eyes to a world that I had heard existed but was unaware of

its location. Developing professional learning networks through tools like Twitter, blogs,

and unconferences broadens the field of education a hundred fold. Imagine having trouble

with a concept, posting it to a social media site, and getting tens if not hundreds of

responses. If there any educator that would not benefit from this type of self-directed



learning. One of the authors started with nothing and decided to create a blog one day.

Now he is looked to as an innovative educator. Stepping out of your comfort zone can have

a huge impact on your learning experiences. I have already made a list of administrators

and teachers that I am going to tell about this article. It has the promise to inspire those

social media-technophobes like myself to enter a new chapter of life-long learning.

Brand, S., & Dalton, E. M. (2012). Universal design for learning: Cognitive theory into practice for facilitating comprehension in early literacy. Forum On Public Policy Online, 2012(1-19). Retrieved from


Theory-into-Practice Article

Summary

The purpose of this paper is to discuss using Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to

facilitate comprehension in early literacy. Universal design began in the field of architecture to

develop buildings and structure that were accessible to everyone. UDL is designed to do the

same thing for education. UDL, according to Brand and Dalton (2012), is a teaching and

learning approach that helps to ensure that high quality literacy and learning experiences are

multi-dimensional, multi-sensory, satisfying, meaningful, and exciting for every child. Allowing

for Multiple Means of Representation and Multiple Means of Expressions allows teachers the

ability to integrate technology into their literacy plans throughout the elementary environment.

Technology allows the teachers opportunities to create centers that provide scaffolding and

enrichment to students in a one on one scenario. Teachers are able to track progress

electronically allows teachers time to focus on each child’s learning. Students, through Multiple

Means of Engagement have the freedom to choose which tools they use to show their learning

whether it is a computer or art supplies. Brand and Dalton (2012) state that providing a variety of

tools is the key ingredient for success in the UDL-rich classroom. Some of these tools include

interactive white boards and computers. One of the goals of this paper is to use UDL to instill a

lifelong love of reading for students. Students are encouraged to use a variety of means to

develop a deeper understanding of the tasks at hand. The realization of each child’s unique

literacy potential is best achieved when teachers plan a meaning-based multi-sensory curriculum

that is tailored to students; individual talent and needs Brand and Dalton (2012).

Critique

The concept of UDL is a relatively new one to me as far as in the realm of education

goes. It was introduced to me less than a year ago in one of my master’s classes. With that in

mind I am sure tat many teachers that are in the field have no idea what UDL is. This paper

provides a good foundation for learning about UDL and how to implement its principles. I



believe that all educators could benefit form learning how to design lessons with every student’s

need in mind. I only wish that the article provided more example of using technology to enhance

lessons. There are so many ways that technology can be incorporated to help teachers meet all of

their students’ needs.

Article Summaries

Documents

Transcript of Article Summaries