The purpose of this study was to analyze the effects of the Internet as a research tool on elementary students' quality of writing, their perceptions of effort expended, and their resource media preference in writing an expository paper. We gathered data from 56 upper-elementary students as they wrote expository papers using print resources, electronic resources via the Internet, or both types of resources. We noted no significant differences among the quality of writing that could be attributed to the resources used or grade in school. However, students liked using the Internet more than traditional print resources for doing research. In addition, fifth-grade students perceived that they put forth more effort when using the Internet for this writing task.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbdullaM. H. (2003). The impact of electronic communication on writing: ERIC Digest. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED477614.)
2.
AngeliC., & ValanidesN. (2004). The effect of electronic scaffolding for technology integration on perceived task effort and confidence of primary student teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(1), 29–43.
3.
BackerJ. (1998). Computers, the Internet, and student writing. English Teachers' Journal, 52, 30–32.
4.
Bangert-DrownsR. L. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 69–93.
5.
Bangert-DrownsR. L., & PykeC. (2001). A taxonomy of student engagement with educational software: An exploration of literate thinking with electronic text. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(3), 213–234.
6.
BerginD. A.FordM. E., & HessR. D. (1993). Patterns of motivation and social behavior associated with microcomputer use of young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 437–445.
7.
BialoE. R., & Sivin-KachalaJ. (1996). The effectiveness of technology in schools: A summary of recent research. School Library Media Quarterly, 25(1).
8.
BuchananM. (1995). Can the Internet be used for K-5 students: The answer is elementary!Technology Connection, 2(4), 20, 22.
9.
CastellaniJ., & JeffsT. (2001). Emerging reading and writing strategies using technology. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(5), 60–67.
10.
ChristieA. (1998). Using technology to enhance literacy in elementary school children. Proceedings of the National Educating Computing Conference, San Diego, CA (Vol. ED 419 495).
11.
Cochran-SmithM. (1991). Word processing and writing in elementary classrooms: A critical review of related literature. Review of Educational Research, 61(1), 107–155.
12.
EnglertC. S.WuX., & ZhaoY. (2005). Cognitive tools for writing: Scaffolding the performance of students through technology. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20(3), 184–198.
13.
HoferB. (2001). “How do I know what to believe?” Learning online: epistemological awareness and Internet searching. Paper presented at the AERA Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA.
14.
JansenB. A. (1996). Reading for information: The trash-'n-treasure method of teaching notetaking. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 12(6), T15–T18.
15.
KramarskiB., & FeldmanY. (2000): Internet in the classroom: Effects on reading comprehension, motivation, and metacognitive awareness. Educational Media International, 37(3), 149–155.
16.
KrendlK. A., & FredinE. S. (1985–86). The effects of instructional design characteristics: An examination of two communication systems. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 14(1), 75–86.
17.
KulikC.-L. C., & KulikJ. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7(1–2), 75–94.
18.
KuoF.-Y.ChuT.-H.HsuM.-H., & HsiehH.-S. (2004). An investigation of effort-accuracy trade-off and the impact of self-efficacy on Web searching behaviors. Decision Support Systems, 37, 331–342.
19.
LargeA.BeheshtiJ., & MoukdadH. (1999). Information seeking on the Web: Navigational skills of grade-six primary school students. In WoodsL. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 62nd ASIS Annual Meeting (Vol. 36, pp. 84–97). Medford, NJ: American Society for Information Science.
20.
LewisR. B.AshtonT. M.HaapaB.KieleyC. L., & FieldenC. (1998/1999). Improving writing skills of students with learning disabilities: Are word processors with spelling and grammar checkers useful?Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(3), 87–98.
21.
LewisR. B.GravesA. W.AshtonT. M., & KieleyC. L. (1998). Word processing tools for students with learning disabilities: A comparison of strategies to increase text entry speed. Learning Disabilities Practice, 13(2), 95–108.
22.
MacArthurC., & GrahamS. (1993). Integrating strategy instruction and word processing into a process approach to writing instruction. School Psychology Review, 22, 671–681.
23.
MacArthurC.GrahamS.SchwartzS. S., & SchaferW. D. (1995). Evaluation of a writing instruction model that integrated a process approach, strategy instruction, and word processing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 278–291.
24.
MatthewK. (1997). A comparison of the influence of interactive CD-ROM storybooks and traditional print storybooks on reading comprehension. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29, 263–275.
25.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994–2002 (No. NCES 2004–011): U.S. Department of Education.
26.
NicholsL. M. (1996). Pencil and paper versus word processing: A comparative study of creative writing in the elementary school. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 29, 159–166.
27.
PritchardA., & CartwrightV. (2004). Transforming what they read: Helping eleven-year-olds engage with Internet information. Literacy, 38(1), 26–31.
28.
ReedW. M. (1996). Assessing the impact of computer-based writing instruction. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28, 418–437.
29.
RevelleG.DruinA.PlatnerM.BedersonB.HourcadeJ. P., & ShermanL. (2002). A visual search tool for early elementary science students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(1), 49–57.
30.
SchacterJ.ChungG. K. W. K., & DorrA. (1998). Children's Internet searching on complex patterns: Performance and process analyses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49, 840–849.
31.
SchuhK. L., & ChapmanM. J. (2004, April). Deconstructing text: Note-taking strategies of upper elementary students who use print and electronic resources. Paper presented to the National Consortium for Instruction and Cognition at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
32.
ShawE. L.Jr.NaumanA. K., & BursonD. (1994). Comparisons of spontaneous and word processed composition in elementary classrooms: A three-year study. Journal of Computing in Children Education, 5(3/4), 319–327.
33.
TarpleyT. (2001). Children, the Internet, and other new technologies. In SingerD. G. & SingerJ. L. (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 547–556). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
34.
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Teachers' tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers' use of technology.Jessup, MD: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
35.
WalbergH. J. (1984). Improving the productivity of America's schools. Educational Leadership, 41(8), 19–27.
