Advertisement

The Urban Review

, Volume 48, Issue 2, pp 311–332 | Cite as

Web 2.0 Technologies and Parent Involvement of ELL Students: An Ecological Perspective

  • Dong-shin Shin
  • Wendy Seger
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This study explores how ELL students’ parents participated in a blog-mediated English language arts curriculum in a second grade classroom at a U.S. urban school, and how they supported their children’s learning of school-based writing. Adopting ecological perspectives on technological affordances, this study views digital literacy as discursive practices that are shaped by one’s social, cultural, and political access, as well as material access. The findings indicate that parents used blogging to support their children’s academic and social goals, bringing expanded audiences and meaningful purposes to school writing. However, their linguistic and cultural capital related to Web 2.0 technologies generated different levels of participation and affordances. The study contends that parental involvement through Web 2.0 technologies needs to be critically examined, in consideration of discursive factors operating in the contexts in which those technologies are used.

Keywords

Parent involvement Web 2.0 technologies English language learners Ecological perspective 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Attewell, P. (2001). Comment: The first and second digital divides. Sociology of Education, 74(3), 252–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Attewell, P. (2003). Beyond the digital divide. In P. Attewell & N. Seel (Eds.), Disadvantaged teens and computer technologies (pp. 15–34). Munster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  3. Auerbach, S. (2002). “Why do they give the good classes to some and not to others?” Latino parent narratives of struggle in a college access program. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1369–1392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, H. J. (2000). Who’s wired and who’s not: Children’s access to and use of computer technology. The Future of Children: Children and Computer Technology, 10(2), 44–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. (Ed.). (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carreon, G. P., Drake, C., & Barton, A. C. (2005). The importance of presence: Immigrant parents’ school engagement experiences. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 465–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, K. (2005). Serving underserved communities with instructional technologies giving them what they need, not what you want. Urban Education, 40(4), 430–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darder, A. (1991). Culture and power in the classroom: A critical foundation for bicultural education. Westport, CN: Bergin & Garvey.Google Scholar
  11. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2003). The landscape of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Dodge, A., Husain, N., & Duke, N. (2011). Connected kids? K–2 children’s use and understanding of the Internet. Language Arts, 89(2), 86–98.Google Scholar
  13. Dorner, L., Orellana, M., & Li-Grining, C. (2007). “I helped my mom”, and it helped me: Translating the skills of language brokers into improved standardized test scores. American Journal of Education, 113(3), 451–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dyson, A. (1993). Social worlds of children learning to write. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  15. Feez, S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. Sydney: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research (NCELTR).Google Scholar
  16. Fleming, N. (2012). Schools are using social networking to involve parents. Education Week, 32(11), 16–17.Google Scholar
  17. Gallant, L., Irizarry, C., Boone, G., & Ruiz-Gordon, B. (2010). Spanish content on hospital websites: An analysis of U.S. hospitals’ in concentrated Latino communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15, 552–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Garcia, A., Seglem, R., & Share, J. (2013). Transforming teaching and learning through critical media literacy pedagogy. LEARNing Landscapes, 6(2), 109–123.Google Scholar
  19. García-Sánchez, I., Orella, M., & Hopkins, M. (2011). Facilitating intercultural communication in parent–teacher conferences: Lessons from child translators. Multicultural Perspectives, 13(3), 148–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gebhard, M., Shin, D., & Seger, W. (2011). Blogging, systemic functional linguistics, and L2 academic literacies in an urban elementary school. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 278–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gebhard, M., & Willett, J. (2008). Supporting teacher learning and the academic literacy development of ELLs in changing times. The Journal of Staff Development, 29(1), 41–45.Google Scholar
  22. Gebhard, M., Willett, J., Jimenez, J., & Piedra, A. (2010). Systemic functional linguistics, teachers’ professional development, and ELLs’ academic literacy practices. In T. Lucas (Ed.), Preparing all teachers to teach English language learners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Gibbs, M., Dosen, A., & Guerrero, R. (2009). Bridging the digital divide changing the technological landscape of inner-city Catholic schools. Urban Education, 44(1), 11–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gorski, P. (2009). Insisting on digital equity reframing the dominant discourse on multicultural education and technology. Urban Education, 44(3), 348–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haymann, S. J., & Earle, A. (2000). Low-income parents: How do working conditions affect their opportunity to help school-age children risk? American Educational Research Journal, 37, 833–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hill, N. E., & Taylor, L. C. (2004). Parental school involvement and children’s academic achievement—Pragmatics and issues. Current Directions in Psychological Sciences, 13, 161–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1995). Parent involvement in children’s education: Why does it a make a difference? Teachers College Record, 97, 310–331.Google Scholar
  28. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Whitaker, M. (2010). The parent involvement process: Implications for literacy. In K. Dunsmore & D. Fisher (Eds.), Bringing literacy home (pp. 53–82). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  30. Jackson, L., Samona, R., Moomaw, J., Ramsay, L., Murray, C., Smith, A., & Murray, L. (2007). What children do on the Internet: Domains visited and their relationship to sociodemographic characteristics and academic performance. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10(2), 182–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jasis, P., & Ordoñes-Jasis, R. (2012). Latino parent involvement: Examining commitment and empower in schools. Urban Education, 47(1), 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, M., Robison, A., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. In D. John & T. Catherine (Eds.), An occasional paper on digital media and learning. Chicago, IL: MacArthur Foundation.Google Scholar
  33. Johnson, O. (2008). Ecology in educational theory: Thoughts on stratification, social mobility & proximal capital. The Urban Review, 40(3), 227–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Judge, S., Puckett, K., & Bell, S. M. (2006). Closing the digital divide: Update from the early childhood longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Research, 100(1), 52–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Judge, S., Puckett, K., & Cabuk, B. (2004). Digital equity: New findings from the early childhood longitudinal study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(4), 383–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jung, J. Y. (2008). Internet connectedness and its social origins: An ecological approach to postaccess digital divides. Communication Studies, 59(4), 322–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kahne, J., Lee, N., & Feezell, J. (2012). Digital media literacy education and online civic and political participation. International Journal of Communication, 6, 1–24.Google Scholar
  38. Kao, G. (2004). Parental influences on the educational outcomes of immigrant youth. International Migration Review, 38, 427–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2008). Introduction: digital literacies—concepts, policies and practices. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.), Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices (pp. 1–16). New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  40. Lareau, A. (1994). Parent involvement in schooling: A dissenting view. In C. Fagnano & W. Werber (Eds.), School family and community interaction: A view from the firing lines (pp. 61–73). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lareau, A. (2001). Linking Bourdieu’s concept of capital to the broader field: The case study of family–school relationships. In B. J. Biddle (Ed.), Social class, poverty, and education: Policy and practice (pp. 77–100). New York: Routlege/Falmer.Google Scholar
  42. Lawson, M. A. (2003). School–family relations in context: Parent and teacher perceptions of parent involvement. Urban Education, 38, 77–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lee, N. (2010). Fostering reflective writing and interactive exchange through blogging in an advanced language course. ReCALL, 22(2), 212–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lee, J., & Bowen, N. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement gap in elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 193–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Madden, M. (2013). Data to live by: Understanding the social media and technology landscape. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.Google Scholar
  46. Marshall, M. (2006). Parent involvement and educational outcomes for Latino students. Review of Policy Research, 23(5), 1053–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McNeal, R. B, Jr. (1999). Parental involvement as social capital. Differential effectiveness on science achievement, truancy, and dropping out. Social Forces, 78(1), 117–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: The Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  49. Morrell, E. (2008). Critical literacy and urban youth: Pedagogies of access, dissent, and liberation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Myers, G. (2010). The discourse of blogs and wikis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  51. National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012). Number and Internet access of instructional computers and rooms in public schools: 1995–2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  52. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social features. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2008). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education (5th ed.). New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  54. Ortiz, R., Green, T., & Lim, H. (2011). Families and home computer use: Exploring parent perceptions of the importance of current technology. Urban Education, 46(2), 202–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pena, C. C. (2000). Parent involvement: Influencing factors and implications. Journal of Educational Research, 94, 42–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Peterson, S. S., & Ladky, M. (2007). A survey of teachers’ and principals’ practices and challenges in fostering new immigrant parent involvement. Canadian Journal of Education, 30(3), 881–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rainie, L., & Spooner, T. (2001). Hispanics and the Internet. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.Google Scholar
  58. Ramirez, A. Y. (2003). Dismay and disappointment: Parental involvement of Latino immigrant parents. The Urban Review, 35(2), 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Reich, J., Murnane, R., & Willett, J. (2012). The state of wiki usage in U.S. K-12 schools: Leveraging Web 2.0 data warehouses to assess quality and equality in online learning environments. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rhodes, J. A., & Robnolt, V. J. (2009). Digital literacies in the classroom. In L. Christenbury, R. Boomer, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent literacy research (pp. 153–169). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  61. Schaller, A., & Rocha, L. (2007). Maternal attitudes and parent education: How immigrant mothers support their child’s education despite their own low levels of education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(5), 351–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  63. Shin, D. (2006). ESL students’ computer-mediated communication practices: Context configuration. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 65–84.Google Scholar
  64. Shin, D. (2014). Web 2.0 tools and academic literacy development in a U.S. urban school: A case study of a second grade English language learner. Language and Education, 28(1), 68–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shin, D., & Cimasko, T. (2008). Multimodal design and second language composition: New tools, traditional norms. Computers and Composition, 25(4), 373–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sobel, A., & Kugler, E. G. (2007). Building partnerships with immigrant parents. Educational Leadership, 64(4), 62–66.Google Scholar
  67. Stewart, M. (2014). Social networking, workplace, and entertainment literacies: The out-of-school literate lives of newcomer adolescent immigrants. Literacy Research and Instruction, 53, 347–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  69. Stylianides, A., & Stylianides, G. (2011). A type of parental involvement with an isomorphic effect on urban children’s mathematics, reading, science, and social studies achievement at kindergarten entry. Urban Education, 46(3), 408–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. The Children’s Partnership. (2003). Online content for low-income and underserved Americans. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  71. Turney, K., & Kao, G. (2009). Barriers to school involvement: Are immigrant parents disadvantaged? The Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordances: Social interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 133–153). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. van Lier, L. (2002). Ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  74. Walker, J., Wilkins, A., Dallaire, J., Sander, H., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. (2005). Parental involvement: Model revision through scale development. The Elementary School Journal, 106(2), 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Warschauer, M. (1999). Electronic literacies: Language, culture, and power in online education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  76. Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Watkins, C. (2009). The young and the digital: What the migration to social network sites, games, and anytime, anywhere media means for our future. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  78. Watkins, C. (2011). Digital divide: Navigating the digital edge. International Journal of Learning and Media, 3(2), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Willett, J., Harman, R., Lozano, M. E., Hogan, A., & Rubeck, J. (2007). Generative routines: Using the everyday to create dynamic learning communities for English language learners. In L. Verplaetse & N. Migliacci (Eds.), Inclusive pedagogy for English language learners: Research informed practices (pp. 33–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  80. Zickhur, K., & Smith, A. (2012). Digital differences. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American life project.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Literacy and Second Language Studies Program, School of EducationUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA
  2. 2.Center for the Collaborative ClassroomEmeryvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options