Mrs. Andersen's West Coast Classroom

A look inside a Kindergarten Grade 1 classroom in Canada

Tag: kindergarten grade one

The Digital Pen: A New Tool Children Will Need to Know How to Use?

October 27, 2019 / / 2 Comments

Before reading this article “Does handwriting on a tablet screen affect students’ graphomotor execution? A comparison between Grades Two and Nine” by Denis Alamargot and Marie-France Morin (2015), I had to make sure I knew exactly what ‘graphomotor’ meant. I knew it had something to do with motor skills and an output of some kind. Google brought up this definition from https://www.specialeducationalneeds.co.uk/graphomotor-skills.html

“Graphomotor Skills are a combination of cognitive, perceptual and motor skills which enable a person to write. A child with Graphomotor problems will find writing difficult because there is detachment between their thoughts and their ability to express them through writing.”

The beginning of the article reviews studies done to compare the effectiveness of keyboarding and the pros and cons of keyboarding for children. Alamargot and Morin explain how keyboarding is less efficient in three ways:

  1. it forces the participant to shift between the display and the keyboard
  2. the writer does not need to form the shape of the letter when using a keyboard and therefore “does not involve any graphomotor processing” (2015) The authors also note other studies which found the action of creating the letters “has an effect on reading as the additional motor encoding that occurs during letter formation has been shown to promote the recognition of these letters, both in kindergarten children (Longcamp, Zerbato-Poudou, & Velay. 2005) and in adults (Longcamp, Boucard, Gilhodes, & Velay. 2006).” (Alamargot and Morin. 2015)
  3. using a keyboard uses too many of the brain’s resources, by looking for the key, that the child’s writing suffers

Photo by Lucélia Ribeiro CC BY-SA 2.0

The authors go on to explain how handwriting skills are built over time and how one can see the changes as children grow and acquire the control needed to handwrite. They use other studies to establish what the brain does when handwriting. Chartrel and Vinter (2005) discovered that when visual feedback is removed, children return to their propriokinesthetic feedback (how we know or sense our body is moving without looking at the body part). This means that they pushed down harder on the writing instrument, made large letters and write the letters faster. Numerous other studies identified by Alamargot and Morin, detected the differences between proficient adults handwriting on various surfaces (high friction verses low friction) and using a variety of different pen tip types. The results of these studies show how adults have strategies in order to maintain control of the writing instrument while handwriting on different surfaces.

For the experiment, the researchers used a tablet, a Wacom InkPen with no ink and another Wacom InkPen with a ballpoint tip. They also used a piece of paper which was put on top of the tablet. They used Eye and PenĂą software to record information about the pen such as where it was and its pressure, as well as the instructions for the experiment and the writing areas. The students were not given a time limit to finish the tasks, which were writing their full name and the alphabet on the tablet and the piece of paper in top of the tablet.

The researchers found that letter legibility “was significantly lower on the screen than on paper.” (Alamargot and Morin, 2015) In all four interest areas, the researchers found that the surface played a large role in the end result. More pen pressure was used when using the plastic tipped pen in both grade two and nine students. Grade nine student applied even more pressure. The letter size increased and the distance that the pen moved was farther on the tablet. The students used the pen faster on the tablet although grade nine students used it faster than the grade two students. Finally, the pauses where greater when using the tablet. Grade two students paused longer than the grade nines. Pausing is when one stops to check the way their writing instrument is moving to correct the formation.

In 2015, this was one of the first studies of its kind. Since then, a variety of tablet pens or styluses are available. The authors suggest other studies would be useful to see if surface textures or different pen tips would benefit students. When I find out that students use a tablet at home, I often suggest they use a stylus instead of their finger. The styluses that I am thinking of are the ones with the rubber ends not the hard-plastic ones. I have never asked a parent which type they use but after reading this article and now understanding the science behind the friction involved in handwriting, I will be suggesting the rubber tipped styluses. Since this study was completed a few years ago, perhaps I will look for newer studies comparing different types of styluses.

This study has made me question my thoughts on practicing printing on the tablet. If students are using more pressure, writing letters faster, their legibility is lower, and the letters are bigger than if they were practicing on paper, is it providing enough benefits to outweigh these negatives? Maybe age is significant? This study was with grade two students who already learned letter formation; most kindergarten students are just beginning to learn letter formation. As a kindergarten teacher, I am looking for the general shape, correct pencil grip, and correct starting point compared to actual legibility. My students are encouraged to go slow for more fine motor control. By the end of kindergarten, I aim for them to know where the letters sit on the line but if they aren’t there yet, that’s okay. Now that I am also teaching grade one, the legibility and position on the line is focused on more frequently. My grade one students don’t need to practice printing on the tablet but is it a skill they will need?

As shown by other studies, adults have greater motor control and can adjust to the textures they are handwriting on. How often do we handwrite on tablet-like technology? Occasionally, I will sign my name for a credit card purchase on a tablet, but I can’t even think of another time I use a tablet to handwrite. My husband, however, uses his tablet almost every time he meets a new client. As a real estate agent, he has numerous contracts and documents that he and his clients need to sign. Before purchasing his tablet, he printed these out on paper resulting in an average use of 23 sheets of paper! Now, he uses an Apple Pencil and stores his documents digitally.

I think that yes, students will need to learn how to handwrite on a tablet or software will have to be created to decode our illegible handwriting and convert it to text. (I believe this is already available but I’m not sure of its ease of use.) Depending on your career choice, you will have more or less opportunity to use handwriting on a tablet. Tablets are engrained in our society now and are becoming more popular than laptops.  Perhaps tablet handwriting will eventually become a “basic” tool that we will need to teach regularly or perhaps we will move past handwriting and move toward voice commands, also an increasing technological tool.

References:

Alamargot, D., & Morin, M. (2015). Does handwriting on a tablet screen affect students’ graphomotor execution? A comparison between grades two and nine.Human Movement Science, 44, 32-41.

https://www.specialeducationalneeds.co.uk/graphomotor-skills.html

https://www.apple.com/ca/shop/product/MK0C2AM/A/apple-pencil-1st-generation

www.wacom.com/en-kr/products/stylus/bamboo-duo

An Occupational Therapist’s Perspective

October 23, 2019 / / 0 Comments

While researching tablet use and fine motor skills, I found my last post’s article and today I found a response to that article from an occupational therapist’s perspective. It was helpful to read that occupational therapists have the same concerns as I do in regard to scientifically proving that apps are actually beneficial not just trusting that the app creators know what they are doing.

Photo by stem.T4L on Unsplash

In “Two-dimensional Solutions in a Multi-dimensional World? A Commentary on “Effect of Touch Screen Tablet Use on Fine Motor Development of Young Children”” by Franzina Coutinho (2017), she discusses her own study (Coutinho et al., 2017) that found no differences in the conclusions between the groups using traditional methods to improve visual motor skills and the group using tablet apps (Coutinho, 2017). I appreciated that the app used was selected and supervised by the occupational therapist to meet particular goals, but we don’t know what criteria was used to select the app. The apps used where unfortunately not mentioned or put in the reference section, and thus, I can not review them myself.

However, like I have said in previous posts, she stated that “An evaluation rubric
might be a helpful tool that could help with appropriate app selection” (2017 p. 469). She also thought that “research supporting improved occupational performance when implemented appropriately by the therapist” (2017 p. 469) was necessary.

She shared an evaluation rubric created by Harry Walker which is posted on https://www.ipads4teaching.net/critical-eval-of-apps.html. (The link in the article is no longer valid and I had to do a bit of searching to find the rubric.) This rubric is not appropriate for evaluating the success of apps when supporting visual motor skills or other occupational therapies. I did a quick Google search and didn’t find much. I will be asking Alison, when she joins our class next week, if she has a tool to evaluate apps that she uses with her clients.

Similarly to teaching, Coutinho states that “we need to adapt [technologies] and tailor them to the child’s individual needs and targets” (2017 p. 469). Like I have said in previous posts, adult interaction with the child during app use “might ensure better skill development and carryover” (Coutinho, 2017) in situations outside of the tech world. Students and children don’t always make the connections on their own and need guidance from adults.

Reference:

Coutinho, F. (2017). Two-dimensional solutions in a multi-dimensional world? A commentary on “effect of touch screen tablet use on fine motor development of young children”. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 37(5), 468-470.

Getting Down to Business

October 19, 2019 / / 1 Comment

In 2016, Lin L., Cherng R., and Chen Y. completed an original research project called Effect of Touch Screen Tablet Use on Fine Motor Development of Young Children. Their goal was to explore the significance of touch screen use on fine motor development in young children.

Before beginning the 24-week home activity kit, 80 children were tested by an occupational therapist and completed a pinch strength test. All of the children’s tests found that their grip strength was within range for their age.

The touch-screen group were exposed to 24 “age-appropriate applications designed for developing fine motor skills and building strength, control, and dexterity” (2016. p. 460). These apps were chosen based on their merchandise explanations. The article did not go into any further details about how the apps were chosen or whether any of the apps had any scientific research to back up their claims. Over the 24-week study they used these apps for 20 minutes a day.

The non-touch-screen group were provided other fine motor activities such as “using scissors, drawing, construction play, play dough, threading, and lacing” (2016. p. 460). Over the 24-week study they used these activities daily for 20 minutes. There was no mention if parents were provided with a daily guide to which activities should be provided or if parents chose certain types of activities over others.

The results are what I expected. “Over the 24-week training activities, children in the non-touch-screen-tablet group made significantly greater changes in fine motor precision, fine motor integration, manual dexterity, and pinch strength than did children in the touch-screen-tablet group.” (2016. p. 462).

There are other studies available that suggest that using a touch-screen tablet often might actually hinder fine motor improvement (Mangen & Velay, 2010; Venetsanou & Kambas, 2010). Although they are older studies, I will be evaluating them next week to see if they are still relevant to our current technologies.

When students are struggling to print, I go through various tools to see if I can find the best one to help them improve. Certain surfaces provide better kinesthetic feedback to the child’s hand. Touch-screen technology doesn’t provide the same feedback which could be viewed negatively toward this type of technological intervention. However, adding styluses can help promote proper pencil grip if reinforced by an adult.

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

The studies I have read so far involve typical developing children. I’m curious to know what improvements touch-screen tablets can provide for children with other needs and the reasons why or why not they may work or not work in that environment. In the studies so far, all of these children would be assumed to develop these skills or muscle strength whether they used technology to teach them or more traditional activities. In children who have a special need, there are other reasons why they may not be developing fine motor skills or why traditional methods aren’t meeting their needs. What about touch-screen learning makes the learning connect together for them, if it does support their learning?

Personally, I would never depend on tough-screen technology to teach or improve fine motor skills. If a child was more drawn toward technology, I would incorporate it into the many other opportunities for learning available in my classroom.

References:

Lin, L., Cherng, R., & Chen, Y. (2017). Effect of touch screen tablet use on fine motor development of young children. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 37(5), 457-467. doi:10.1080/01942638.2016.1255290

Manual Dexterity and the iPad

October 12, 2019 / / 4 Comments

 

Brad Flickinger CC by 2.0

As I’ve narrowed down my inquiry question, this week I spent some time looking for some articles to read. I came across the article, Using a handwriting app leads to improvement in manual dexterity in kindergarten children by C. Bulter, R. Pimenta, J. Tommerdahl, C. Fuchs, and P. Caçola (2019).

The researchers questioned if they would see an increase in manual dexterity (MD), letter legibility (LL), number legibility (NL), and word legibility (WL) when students were taught using traditional pen to paper methods 80% of the time while using a handwriting app called ‘Letter School’ for the remaining 20% of their instruction. There was a control group and an experimental group. The control group practiced printing traditionally 5 days a week while the experimental group practiced traditionally 4 days a week and used the iPad, with a stylus, once a week. Both groups were tested before and after the research began.

The researchers discovered that the experimental group “show[ed] significant improvement in MD, while both groups improved handwriting skills with regard to both LL and NL equally” after 12 weeks of the experiment. (C. Butler, et al., p. 7, 2019). MD, as described by the researchers, “is the ability to use manual coordination to grasp and hold objects in fine motor tasks, and is significantly associated with handwriting skills.” (p. 7, 2019).

The researchers also wanted to understand why this app helped to improve MD more than traditional methods. The arrived at three possibilities but did not evaluate them:

  • Different tools – pencil verses stylus
  • Instantaneous feedback from the app compared to teacher feedback which maybe at the end of instruction
  • Overall interest in using technology and/or the apps design features

Some shortcomings from the research are that they did not take into account previous touch-screen skills, they could not randomize the children because of the classroom design, and they used a testing method developed for grade one students on students who were in kindergarten. I also questioned who was doing the teaching. The study involved 9 different classrooms suggesting that 9 different teachers were teaching. How I teach can be different from others as well as my expectations for the end product.

This study was important because, according to Dinehart and Manfra (2013), how a preschool student achieves on tasks related to MD can be related to how they perform on their grade 2 reading and math assessments.

I tested out the free version of this app. I liked that it had three different types of manuscript to choose from. I was most impressed that it included the Handwriting Without Tears (HWT) font which would match my mode of classroom instruction. I would have liked to see the letter sitting on the line so that the children also review where parts of the letters sit. This would be great for moving toward pencil and paper practice. I would perhaps use this app with children that I know are behind or do not have strong fine motor skills before we went to pencil and paper. Did I mention that the app offers practice in 12 languages? Yes, they have an app for our French Immersion teachers too! Don’t fret Grade 3 teachers, LetterSchool also offers a cursive version. Check out my son trialing the free version below.

Boy playing LetterSchool

As my son used the app, you can see how the app immediately corrects him so that he has the correct formation. It doesn’t allow him to start at the bottom and makes him return to the right place before he can move on. After the video was done, he asked to play the app using his finger instead of the stylus. If I was concerned about his fine motor skills, the stylus would be key in building those skills and muscle memory. Overall, he enjoyed the game even though he is in Grade One.

The downside to the free version was that it only provided practice with 5 letters and they weren’t in the same order of the HWT program. As a parent, purchasing this app would be expensive as it is billed annually and not a one-time purchase. However, they do offer schools a significant discount. I will be asking our Learning Support Coordinator for some money to go toward purchasing this app for my classroom iPads.

I’ve concluded that this article reinforces my theme of balance. Further research into what specific amount of time provides the most improvement in MD is needed. I’m a firm believer in using technology to serve a purpose and to use many different tools available to practice necessary skills.

 

References:

Butler, C., Pimenta, R., Tommerdahl, J., Fuchs, C. T., & Caçola, P. (2019). Using a handwriting app leads to improvement in manual dexterity in kindergarten children. Research in Learning Technology, 27, 1-10. doi:10.25304/rlt.v27.2135

LetterSchool: Learn to Read and Write. https://www.letterschool.org

SAMR Tool: Evaluating How Teachers Use Technology in The Classroom

October 6, 2019 / / 2 Comments

Hamilton, Rosenburg, Akcaoglu, reviewed the Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model and wrote suggestions for its use. However, the first questions that came to mind as I read this article were: why do I need to evaluate how I am using technology in the classroom, what is the purpose of this model?

It seems that the main purpose is to look at the technology used in the classroom, classify it under one of the four headings, and then review how the teacher uses technology. Once the information is classified, the teacher can use the information to perhaps try to use technology in an improved way (ex. moving a lesson from the Augmentation stage to the Modification stage). Connecting this to the TPACK Model, which looks at teacher’s technology skills as well at their pedagogical knowledge and teaching ability, is also used to better inform teaching.

All teachers should, if they don’t regularly, reflect on their teaching practices, evaluate the tools they are using, and make improvements as necessary.

After evaluating my own classroom, I came to the conclusion that the majority of my technology use falls under the substitution heading. Is this a bad thing? Should I be trying to move my students toward Redefinition? I don’t think so. My job as a K/1 teacher is to provide instruction and build the foundation in which the students will build their knowledge from for the rest of their life. I believe that students need to have the skills to use the technology available to them before they can begin to experiment with it.

For example, my child in grade three has been talking about building a robot for 3 years. He can’t just jump in and start building a robot. Hence why he is still talking about it! He has many skills to learn: math, circuits, computer language, welding, etc. before he can put all those pieces together to create his robot. It starts with the bare bone basics.

As a teacher, I am modelling the use of technology, which in time, builds their prior knowledge to create new things. I select specific tools, evaluating them, based on the learning outcomes I have. Reading the Meyer article, provided some great insights into how students learn with digital materials. I will use this information to further gauge the value of the digital tool I am using with my students in order to provide the most optimal learning environment.

While reading the Hamilton, et al, article, I was struck by how two images seemed very familiar to me.

Created by Jaclyn Stevens

This is the image that they reminded me of:

 

From Trevor Mackenzie’s Book Dive into Inquiry

Like the SAMR swimming pool analogy, inquiry-based learning involves the process of beginning together, testing the waters but still together, trying a bit on your own but with supports, and then doing it independently. All of this is dependent on the student’s abilities and skills which returns us to the basics. Teachers continually are swimming laps, trying new things, and building on.

Like any tool teachers are introduced to, we must evaluate the effectiveness of that tool before investing our time and energy into it. While I appreciate the benefits of this tool, I agree with the authors of the article, it is missing context, has a rigid structure, and the product verses process dilemma. I also feel that this is not relevant to the specific grade I am teaching at this time. If I was to teach middle school or high school, perhaps I could use it, but again, I am most often looking for the learning process instead of the product.

As I grow as an educator, I will continue to evaluate tools and technology making sure there is a purpose to the technology , whether it be to introduce students to the tool of technology or to build their knowledge using technology.

 

Mayer, R. E. (2017). Using multimedia for e‐learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(5), 403-423.

Learning Goals for EDCI 567

September 18, 2019 / / 0 Comments

Interactive and Multimedia Theories – sounds interesting! I am most interested in learning about the theories behind using technology to broaden the educational experiences for the children we are fortunate enough to spend our days with. There is always a hesitancy with technology. Does technology decrease or increase our learning capabilities? Does technology take away from hands on experiences or provide opportunities that we would otherwise not encounter? Does technology engage our children more, less, or in equal amounts? Is there a possibility of too much technology?

I am looking forward to increasing my own technology skills with Twitter and creating this blog. I am also looking forward to learning about new tools that I can use with my students. In my current classroom we use smart board technology daily. We also have iPads and chrome books available to us. I use my personal phone to take many photos and videos of the students learning, for student learning, and to document their learning journey.

In this course, I am hoping to explore reasons for and against technology in the classroom in order to better inform parents and educators. Currently, I believe multimodal teaching strategies are best practice for reaching learners, which includes using technology daily. I don’t believe that technology can be a substitute for hands on learning, but I do believe that there are many platforms such as youtube, vooks, go noodle,  and epic!, that can enhance the learning experience. After reading and exploring interactive and multimedia theories, will I be persuaded differently?

 

April 2024
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

© 2024 Mrs. Andersen's West Coast Classroom

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑