Mrs. Andersen's West Coast Classroom

A look inside a Kindergarten Grade 1 classroom in Canada

Tag: technology

Discussions with an Occupational Therapist

October 30, 2019 / / 1 Comment

This past Monday, I invited Alison Stewart from Aspire! Occupational Therapy & Coaching LTD to our class video chat. I’ve known Alison for 5+ years and she has been instrumental in growing my knowledge base about developing the muscle strength necessary to print in kindergarten aged students. She went above and beyond answering our questions about fine motor skills while providing us with practical tools and apps available to use in the classroom.

She started with a list of reasons why a student could be struggling with printing. These include lack of physical strength or coordination, a visual perception problem, the fear of failure, or an individual disorder such as FASD, ADD, or ASD, along with others. She made it clear that very few apps actually help improve motor skills but rather improve visual perception and spatial motor skills.

A few of my colleagues, including megc, are evaluating various apps to use in the classroom. Without spending hours completing individual research, we have come together to evaluate apps to recommend to each other. Alison was able to provide us with steps to better appraise printing apps. She stated that apps should have the opportunity for repetition of at least 10 times, with an increasing level of difficulty while paying attention to accuracy, complexity, and speed. The app should have the opportunity for the child to view the letter, number, or shape being created. It should have the ability for the child to imitate the letter using manipulatives. Then the child should trace the letter. While looking at a model, the child can then copy it. Finally, the child can print the letter, number, or shape independently. This is good practice for traditional non-tech related activities as well.

She listed a few apps including Osmo. I have Osmo at my school and in a recent PLC meeting, I have been able to arrange getting one Osmo set for my classroom. I am looking forward to trying this out as after listening to Alison, I think this app could support many learning outcomes in my K/1 classroom. Alison agreed that LetterSchool was the most universal app for teaching printing. I have recently begun using this app with one particular student in my class. Like Alison suggested, he uses a stylus with a pencil grip. I am hoping to see an improvement in his skills. I have asked my LSC to order a few of the stylus’ that Alison recommended as well. Some videos about other apps she spoke about are: Dexteria or Dexteria Jr., Button Board, Cut the Buttons, and Bugs and Buttons.

Although we are a participating in a technology class, Alison reminded us of the things apps cannot provide our students and what our students are lacking when they enter kindergarten. She finds that children have a harder time moving objects from one end of their hand to the tips of their fingers. Touch screen technology does not provide an opportunity to use tactile discrimination as the child is only touching a smooth piece of glass. Apps cannot provide the users with the experience of moving 3D objects while moving their fingers individually.

The most interesting part of our discussion for me was the concern about lack of hand dominance in children entering kindergarten. I have usually not worried about this and assured parents that usually by the end of kindergarten, their child would have picked a dominant hand. I was unaware that children usually pick a dominant hand by the time they are 3 years old. In my experience, the children who have not picked a dominate hand usually end up being left-handed. However, Alison noted that there could be other issues such as a coordination problem or an inability to cross the midline of the body, highlighting a more significant issue of the two brain hemispheres not communicating with each other. Or perhaps it is because of the less concerning reason and is due to lack of experience manipulating objects in their hands. Over the years, Alison has given me various ideas to help children cross their midline. These include dancing, touching opposite sides of the body in different spots, making figures 8s with paint on a vertical board or paint easel, or group passing games like hot potato. I have not yet taught the capital letter I or T, but when I do, I will be paying extra attention to those who cannot make the line straight across as this is an excellent example of a deficit in crossing the midline.

I am looking forward to reading some of the articles Alison shared and reviewing the Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire from DCDQ.ca.  You can find the questionnaire and administration manual for free of charge on their website. Unfortunately, the Little DCDQ (designed for 3-4 year old children) is not free.

I was very pleased with the knowledge Alison shared and felt her presentation was useful to classroom teachers and early childhood educators. She was able to provide research-based information and practical tools to support the fine motor need of children today.

References:

Alison Stewart, Aspire! Occupational Therapy & Coaching LTD

https://www.letterschool.org

https://www.playosmo.com/en-ca/

www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq8Vxkt__Qo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzAe2MQNMGw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyTNJ-K2__w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoHG-XRptE0

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJJx08WKo1w

https://www.dcdq.ca

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 ↑