This study uses international data to investigate computer use situations in elementary school reading classes and the impacts of computer usage on students' reading performance across 15 countries. The study compares and reveals computer use levels in reading classes, frequencies of teachers having students use computers, times and places of students' computer usage, computer activities of male and female students, and effects of computer usage on students' reading interests and achievement by country. The results provide worldwide summary views of computer use in elementary school reading classes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbilockD. (2005). Focus on the user. Knowledge Quest, 33(3), 6–7.
2.
BalajthyE.ReuberK., & RobinsonC. (2001). Teachers' use of technology in a reading clinic. Reading Online, 5, 3.
3.
Bannan-RitlandB.EgertonE.PageJ., & BehrmannM. (2000). Literacy explorer: A performance support tool for novice reading facilitators. Performance Improvement, 39(6), 47–54.
4.
BorgiaL., & CheekE. H. (2005). The impact of the AACTE-Microsoft grant on elementary reading & writing. T.H.E. Journal, 32(7), 12–18.
5.
CarrollM. (2001). Internet surfing in an elementary classroom: Students and teachers negotiate the waves. Reading Online, 5, 2.
6.
DaudN. M., & HusinZ. (2004). Developing critical thinking in computer-aided extended reading classes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 477–487.
7.
DermodyM., & SpeakerR. (2002). Multimedia literacy in the urban classroom and the reading methods courses. Journal of Reading education, 28(1), 24–31.
8.
FisherH. (2001). Achieving the best: Gender and the literacy hour. British Journal of Special Education, 28(1), 30–34.
9.
GrantJ. (2004). Are electronic books effective in teaching young children reading and comprehension?International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(3), 303–308.
10.
KarchmerR. A. (2000). Understanding teachers' perspectives of Internet use in the classroom: Implications for teacher education and staff development. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 16(1), 81–85.
11.
KarchmerR. A. (2001). Gaining a new, wider audience: Publishing student work on the Internet. Reading Online, 4, 10.
12.
KrashenS., & NewmanM. (2004). A comment on the accelerated reader debate: The pot calls the kettle black. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(6), 444–446.
13.
LabboL. D.LeuD. J.KinzerC.TealeW. H.CammackD.Kara-SoteriouJ., & SannyR. (2003). Teacher wisdom stories: Cautions and recommendations for using computer-related technologies for literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 57(3), 300–304.
MartindaleT.PearsonC.CurdaL. K., & PilcherJ. (2005). Effects of an online instructional application on reading and mathematics standardized test scores. Journal of Research on Technology in Education.37(4), 349–360.
16.
MeltonC. M.SmothersB. C.AndersonE.FultonR.ReplogleW. H., & ThomasL. (2004). A study of the effects on the accelerated reader program on fifth grade students' reading achievement growth. Reading Improvement, 41(1), 18–23.
17.
MillerD. T., & BalesD. W. (2001). Using research literature to guide programming decisions: The case of the Eldora building academic and social skills program. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences: From Research to Practice, 95(5), 50–53.
18.
MolebashP., & FisherD. (2003). Teaching and learning literacy with technology. Reading Improvement, 40(2), 63–70.
19.
PipkinG.GadberryE.PotterM., & MoreyL. (2003). Librarians' and teachers' perspectives on accelerated reader. Journal of Children's Literature, 29(2), 46–49.
20.
RogersL. (2003). Computerized reading management software: An effective component of a successful reading program. Journal of Children's Literature, 29(2), 9–15.
21.
ShakeshaftC.MannD.BackerJ., & SweeneyK. (2002). Choosing the right technology. School Administrator, 59(1), 34–37.
22.
StevensonJ. M., & CamarataJ. W. (2000). Imposters in whole language clothing: Undressing the accelerated reader program. Talking Points, 11(2), 8–11.
23.
Sutherland-SmithW. (2002). Weaving the literacy web: Changes in reading from page to screen. Reading Teacher, 55(7), 662–669.
24.
TroiaG. A. (2004). Migrant students with limited English Proficiency. Remedial and Special Education, 25(6), 353–366.
25.
UnsworthL. (2004). Comparing school science explanations in books and computer-based formats: The role of images, image/text relations and hyperlinks. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(3), 283–301.
26.
WeikleB., & HadadianA. (2003). Can assistive technology help us to not leave any child behind?Preventing School Failure, 47(4), 181–186.
27.
WepnerS. B., & CotterM. (2002). When do computer graphics contribute to early literacy learning?Reading Online, 5, 6.
28.
WiseB. W.RingJ., & OlsonR. K. (2000). Individual differences in gains from computer-assisted remedial reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77(3), 197–235.
