Advertisement

Journal of Formative Design in Learning

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 82–101 | Cite as

Embracing the Power of Digital in Literacy Education: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Digital Activities

  • Michele Garabedian StorkEmail author
  • Honey Goode
  • Richard Jeter
  • Jingshun Zhang
Article

Abstract

This mixed methods program evaluation explores the perceptions of students and teachers who participated in digital activities at a university-sponsored literacy festival. The goal of the digital activities was to introduce a diverse student population to digital tools that may be used to assist in understanding, evaluating, and creating literature. Thoughtfully planned and executed digital activities have the potential to increase student motivation, collaboration, and creativity, which may lead to an improvement in student achievement. Incorporating technology in instruction empowers students and promotes opportunities for authentic learning. The purpose of this evaluation was to examine the efficacy of the digital activities to provide formative feedback to guide enhancements of the digital workshop at future annual literacy festivals and contribute to the discussion of digital learning activities on student literacy achievement.

Keywords

Technology Integration Digital activities Literacy Motivation Student achievement 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 3Doodler the world’s first and best 3D pen. (2018). Retrieved from http://the3doodler.com/.
  2. Argelagós, E., & Pifarré, M. (2017). Unravelling secondary students’ challenges in digital literacy: a gender perspective. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(1), 42–55.  https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5i1.1517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biancarosa, G., & Griffiths, G. G. (2012). Technology tools to support reading in the digital age. The Future of Children, 22(2), 139–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Creswell, J. W. (2013a). Steps in conducting a scholarly mixed methods study. DBER Speaker Series, 48. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=dberspeakers).
  6. English, J. A. (2016). A digital literacy initiative in honors: perceptions of students and instructors about its impact on learning and pedagogy. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 17(2), 125–155.Google Scholar
  7. Florida Department of Education. (2017). Florida Standards Assessments Results. Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/accountability/assessments/k-12-student-assessment/results/2017.stml.
  8. Hanson, K. (2013). Promoting the benefits of digital literacy [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2013/promoting-benefits-digital-literacy.
  9. Jose, K. (2016). Digital literacy matters: Increasing workforce productivity through blended English language programs. Higher Learning Research Communication, 6(4).Google Scholar
  10. Kena, G., Hussar, W., & McFarland, J. (2016). The condition of education 2016 (NCES 2016-144). Retrieved from National Center for Education Statistics website: http://nces.ed.gov/.
  11. Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2017). New literacies: a dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. Journal of Education, 197(2), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. LeVasseur, J. J. (2003). The problem of bracketing in phenomenology. Qualitative Health Research, 13(3), 408–420.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732302250337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lieberman, D. A., Bates, C. H., & So, J. (2009). Young children’s learning with digital media. Computers in the Schools, 26(4), 271–283.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07380560903360194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liu, F., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. E. (2017). Explaining technology integration in K-12 classrooms: a multilevel path analysis model. Education Technology Research Development, 65(4), 795–813.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9487-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McClintock, C. (1984). Toward a theory of formative program evaluation. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1984(24), 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McGovern, E. F., Cuauhtemoc, L., & Baruca, A. (2017). Utilizing mobile devices to enrich the learning style of students. Journal of Education for Business, 92(2), 89–95.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2017/1281213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Murnane, R., Sawhill, I., & Snow, C. (2012). Literacy challenges for the twenty-first century: introducing the issue. The Future of Children, 22(2), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Quiver 3D augmented reality coloring apps. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.quivervision.com/.
  19. Reardon, S. F., Valentino, R. A., & Shores, K. A. (2012). Patterns of literacy among U.S. students. The Future of Children, 22(2), 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Sarkar, N., Ford, W., & Manzo, C. (2017). Engaging digital natives through social learning. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 15(2), 1–4.Google Scholar
  22. Sawang, S., O’Connor, P., & Ali, M. (2017). Using technology to enhance students’ engagement in a large classroom. Journal of Learning Design, 10(1), 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Seechaliao, T. (2017). Instructional strategies to support creativity and innovation in education. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(4), 201–207.  https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n4p201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tingir, S., Cavlazoglu, B., Caliskan, O., Koklu, O., & Intepe-Tingir, S. (2017). Effects of mobile devices on K-12 students’ achievement: a meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33, 355–369.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. U.S. Department of Education, National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: the imperative for educational reform: a report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education (Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O. distributor).Google Scholar
  26. Virtanen, S., Räikkönen, E., & Ikonen, P. (2014). Gender-based motivational differences in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(2), 197–211.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9278-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Visser, M. (2012). Digital literacy definition. Retrieved from American Library Association website: http://connect.ala.org/node/181197.
  28. Warner-Griffin, C., Liu, H., Tadler, C., Herget, D., & Dalton, B. (2017). Reading achievement of US fourth-grade students in an international context: first look at the progress in international reading literacy study (PIRLS) 2016 and ePIRLS 2016 (NCES 2018-017). Retrieved from National Center for Education Statistics website: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp.
  29. Warschauer, M. (2006). Laptops and literacy: learning in the wireless classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  30. Zehra, R., & Bilwani, A. (2016). Perceptions of teachers regarding technology integration in classrooms: a comparative analysis of elite and mediocre schools. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 3(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Florida Gulf Coast UniversityFort MyersUSA

Personalised recommendations