Integrating Technology to Assist English 101

Students with Their Essays

Introduction

Effective technology integration occurs when teachers “develop technology-enriched

learning environments that enable all students to pursue their individual curiosities and become
active participants in setting their own educational goals, managing their own learning, and
assessing their own progress.” – National Educational Technology Standards for Teachers,
International Society for Technology in Education (2008)

When designing integration strategies, Roblyer (2006) suggests using technology that has
the power to improve teaching and learning needs; however, before any technology is
implemented, the tool must be examined to determine how it will be beneficial for teachers and
students. Web-based activities, such as Google Docs, have the potential to enhance teaching and
learning, but the implementation of the tool can be time consuming for the teacher. Moreover,
there are three actions that are required of students. In accordance with the technology
integration framework, teachers have to introduce students to technology integration, help
students plan for technology integration, and provide students many opportunities to practice
technology integration skills (Roblyer, 2006).

The focus of this capstone project is to determine if technology, when used to collaborate,
can help English 101 students become better writers. Specifically, if the students use Google
Docs to provide and to receive peer feedback, will there be any improvement in their college-
level writing? Some teachers and professors of English might wonder why not use the traditional
method of peer review. With the traditional method, a teacher is responsible for collecting the
papers, distributing them to other students in the class, and collecting them at the end of the
process. There is nothing wrong with the traditional method of peer review, but, when
technology and peer review are used jointly and correctly, two major things are likely to occur.
First, the teacher is no longer solely responsible for providing all of the feedback, and, second,
students are more likely to become better critical readers and writers.

Instructional Integration Strategies

An instructional strategy is a method used to get students involved in teaching and

learning activities. Examples of instructional strategies used in English 101 include – discussion,
demonstration, presentation, peer review, multiple intelligences, think-pair-share, graphic
organizers, self-reflection, independent study, and written products. The instructional strategies
that are used to address and meet the needs of English 101 students are based upon the following
objectives:
Students will able to

a. apply graphic organizers based on an organizational pattern (descriptive, compare and

contrast, cause and effect, and argumentative) to capture and organize ideas for their
essays and to develop working theses to further organize generated ideas.

b. relate notes written on graphic organizers to identify sources of relevant information for
specific audiences and purposes.

c. plan rough drafts using a specific graphic organizer.

d. provide peer review feedback using Google Docs.

e. evaluate peer review and use feedback to edit and revise their rough drafts.

f. apply a rubric to help them write and publish essays for specific audiences with intended
purpose that develop a thesis with relevant material and that follow a logical pattern of
development.

g. use self-reflections to recall, explain, and defend their writing experiences.

Content Approach

Taking into consideration instructional methods, a content approach must be deliberated.

Based on the aforementioned objectives, English 101 is approached as a single-subject taught
using teacher-centered and learner-centered strategies. According to Smaldino, Lowther, and
Russell (2008), teacher-centered strategies are activities that an instructor uses to organize,
promote, and maintain an engaging learner-centered environment. Likewise, learner-centered
instructional styles focus on individual students and such things as their academic needs,
interests, background knowledge, personalities, and capacities with emphasis on the most
effective teaching strategies that will involve the students in active learning (Barrett, Bower, &
Donovan 2007). Palloff and Pratt (2007) write, “…the learner-centered instructor focuses
attention on the learning process: what is the student learning, how is the student learning, under
what conditions is learning occurring, is the student retaining and applying the knowledge, and
does current learning prepare the student for future learning.”

Within the English 101 class, content is not just simply covered; it serves as a passage for
the development of skills (communication and critical thinking), values (social and educational),
culture, and technology integration. Google Docs is a collaborative technology that can
accommodate students as they become of aware of their strengths and weaknesses when writing
various essays. Furthermore, students will use their strengths in collaborative efforts to assist
others, who might be weaker in certain aspects of the writing process.
Grouping Approach

All of the English 101 students are expected to enhance their current writing abilities and
make academic gains while doing so. Based on the students’ participation and responses during
the discussion of assigned readings, it became obvious that the traditional lecture did not work
well. Therefore, deviation from the norm and differentiation were implemented to meet the
academic needs, interests, background knowledge, personalities, and capacities of the students
(Patterson, Connolly, & Ritter, 2009). Differentiation is defined as the practice of creating
lessons and activities to accommodate the diverse needs of students in a class. Landrum and
McDuffie (2010) listed Carol Ann Tomlinson’s suggestions for differentiation – rigor,
scaffolding, and grouping. In the words of Carol Ann Tomlinson (2001), “In a differentiated
classroom, commonalities are acknowledged and built upon, and student differences become
important elements in teaching and learning.”

Further analysis of the English 101 students’ academic needs, learning styles, and
motivations proved that grouping was the most effective differentiation tool because students are
continuously afforded opportunities to become engaged in activities in a whole-class, alone,
pairs, or with a small group. Since the students have varying academic levels, grouping has
encouraged students to learn to work independently and cooperatively; helped students
strengthen their weaknesses and/or weaknesses; and is seen as a combination of teacher-assigned
and student choice selections (Chapman & King, 2008). Below is a table detailing how
differentiation and grouping are being used in the English 101 class.

Grouping Instructional Arrangements

Grouping Approach Instructional Strategies Teacher-centered Learner-centered

Whole class Discussion
Demonstration X
Presentation
Small group and pairs Discussion
Peer review X
Presentation
Multiple intelligences
Think-pair-share
Individual Graphic organizers
Self-reflection X
Drill-and-practice
Independent study
Multiple intelligences
Written products

Diverse Learners

Using the multiple intelligence model based on the work of Howard Gardner instruction
is implemented to meet the diverse needs of each student. The intelligences are visual/spatial,
logical/mathematical, verbal/linguistic, music/rhythmic, bodily/kinesthetic, interpersonal,
intrapersonal, naturalist, and existentialist (Smaldino, Lowther, & Russell 2008). The multiple
intelligences recognize the diversity of students and maintain that students have many different
learning styles. None of the students has a 504 or an IEP. Four of the nine multiple intelligences
are addressed in each class meeting, and the other intelligences are infused as needed.
Differentiated strategies are in place to meet the varied needs of all learners based on the
following intelligences:

a. Visual/Spatial learners – Graphic organizers allow students to see the organizational

pattern (descriptive, compare and contrast, cause and effect, and argumentative) of each
essay. Students read the peer review feedback provided by a classmate or classmate using
Google Docs.

b. Verbal/Linguistic learners – Pairs and small groups generate ideas for presentations,
discussions, peer review, and think-pair-share activities. Individually, each student is
scheduled to conference with the instructor after the completion of each essay.

c. Bodily/Kinesthetic learners – Students move about the classroom to make presentations

to other peers.

d. Intrapersonal – Students work independently to write the required essays, fill in graphic
organizers, and reflect on their writing strengths and weaknesses with each essay.

Technology Integration

Technology has changed the way people communicate and work. Moreover, technology
has caused a shift in the decision-making and communication responsibilities to workers
(Sweeney, 2010). The changes require workers to have certain skills (critical thinking,
collaboration, accessing and analyzing information, and oral and written communication).
Writing skills are one of the most difficult communication abilities to teach students. Effective
communication of ideas through speaking and writing is essential. When the writing process is
taught, peer review is often under-utilized or not used at all. Students are quite capable of
providing peer review when they are taught to do so. In the words of Van Horn (2010), “…, peer
review can provide students with critical feedback and an authentic collaborative writing process
before their final drafts are completed.” Lending further support to skills of communication and
collaboration is the National Educational Technology Standards for Students, International
Society for Technology in Education (2007), which reads, “Students interact, collaborate, and
publish with peers, experts, or others employing a variety of digital environments and media.”

Computer technologies can help students become better writers, but when considering
which technology to use, the instructor must examine the tool to determine if it is effective for
the students and the writing tasks. Additionally, before introducing and integrating technologies
to aid with the writing process, instructors and students must fully understand that technology
integration is more than having access; it is a tool for improving teaching and learning.
 In the case involving English 101 students, there is a need for online word processing
applications for collaboration and peer review. When students work in small groups or pairs,
they learn to help one another master concepts. Of the leading online word processing
applications, Google Docs, is the best because it is free, and it allows students to collaborate –
both synchronously and asynchronously. During the writing process, students need and want
immediate feedback. On the other hand, traditional feedback using pen and paper is extremely
time consuming. As an example, Google Docs provides students with feedback from more than
one person, and this feedback has proven to be more beneficial than traditional peer review.
When students post their essays to Google Docs, the audience is no longer just the teacher. The
audience grows to include the many class members, who help the author consider effectiveness,
writing strengths and/or weaknesses, and a better understanding of audience.

Student Preparation

The English 101 students are anxious to earn their first college degrees, which will lead
to new careers and/or career advances. The students were not resistant to using technology and
learning new technology. So, the introduction of Google Docs was met with open arms. On the
downside, since writing is a difficult skill to teach and master, some students are still not
comfortable with peer review because they are shy about giving peers constructive criticizing
because they assume that feelings will be hurt. And, since use of peer review is optional, some
students have decided to disregard the peer review provided. On a positive note, one student
takes advantage of Skype for peer review questions and concerns. She uses Skype to speak with
others about her reviews (given and received). Ultimately, it is not about the technology; it is
about the learning and the application of knowledge.

Approval

The timeline was reviewed and approved by Mrs. Betty Holton, Chair of the English
Department.
Timeline

Date Focus
February 3 Collaborating and Peer Editing with Google Docs

Practice using Google Docs.

• Watch Sharing in Google Docs (Google, 2010).

• Create a new document (Who Am I).
• Upload the document to Google Docs.
• Share the document to receive peer review.
• Edit the shared document (Who Am I).

February 4 – Collaborating and Peer Editing with Google Docs

February 5
Practice using Google Docs.

• Draft a diagnostic essay. Use MLA format. Name the document

Diagnostic Essay. Save the document in a folder.
• Upload the diagnostic essay to Google Docs.
• Share the document to receive peer review.
• Edit the shared document (diagnostic essay).

Submission: Turnitin.com

• Submit final copy of diagnostic essay using Turnitin.com (due

02/05/2011).

February 10 – Recalling a Person, Place, or Thing

February 19
Draft a descriptive essay.

• Read the requirements for the essay.

• Read the rubric.
• Complete the descriptive essay graphic organizer (due 02/11/2011).
• Submit descriptive essay rough draft (due 02/13/2011).
• Complete peer review using Google Docs (due 02/15/2011).
• Submit final copy of descriptive essay via Turnitin.com (due
02/19/2011).
• Discuss self-reflection via Skype with instructor (due 02/19/2011).
February 24 – Comparing and Contrasting
March 5
Draft a compare and contrast essay.

• Read the requirements for the essay.

• Read the rubric.
• Complete the compare and contrast graphic organizer (due 02/25/2011).
• Submit compare and contrast essay rough draft (due 02/27/2011).
• Complete peer review using Google Docs (due 03/01/2011).
• Submit final copy compare and contrast essay via Turnitin.com (due
03/05/2011).
• Discuss self-reflection via Skype with instructor (due 03/05/2011).

March 10 – Explaining Causes and Effects

March 19
Draft a cause-effect essay.

• Read the requirements for the essay.

• Read the rubric.
• Complete the cause and effect graphic organizer (due 03/11/2011).
• Submit cause-effect essay rough draft (due 03/13/2011).
• Complete peer review using Google Docs (due 03/15/2011).
• Submit final copy of cause-effect essay via Turnitin.com (due
03/19/2011).
• Discuss self-reflection via Skype with instructor (due 03/19/2011).

March 24 – Taking a Stand

April 2
Draft an argumentative essay.

• Read the requirements for the essay.

• Read the rubric.
• Complete the argumentative essay graphic organizer (due 03/25/2011).
• Submit an argumentative essay rough draft (due 03/27/2011).
• Complete peer review using Google Docs (due 03/29/2011).
• Submit final copy of argumentative essay via Turnitin.com (due
04/02/2011).
• Discuss self-reflection via Skype with instructor (due 04/02/2011).
Focus and Objectives Table

Dates Objectives Focus

February 10 – • Students will be able to
February 19 apply graphic organizers
based on an organizational
pattern (descriptive,
compare and contrast,
cause and effect, and
argumentative) to capture
and organize ideas for their
essays and to develop
working theses to further
organize generated ideas.
• Students will be able to
relate notes written on
graphic organizers to
identify sources of relevant
information for specific
audiences and purposes.
• Students will be able to
plan rough drafts using a
specific graphic organizer.
Recalling a Person, Place, or Thing
Draft a descriptive essay.
• Read the requirements for the
essay.
• Read the rubric.
• Complete the descriptive essay
graphic organizer (due
02/11/2011).
• Submit descriptive essay rough
draft (due 02/13/2011).
• Complete peer review using
Google Docs (due 02/15/2011).
• Submit final copy of descriptive
essay via Turnitin.com (due
02/19/2011).
• Discuss self-reflection via Skype
with instructor (due 02/19/2011).

• Students will be able to

provide peer review
feedback using Google
Docs.

• Students will be able to

evaluate peer review and
use feedback to edit and
revise their rough drafts.

• Students will be able to

apply a rubric to help them
write and publish essays
for specific audiences with
intended purpose that
develop a thesis with
relevant material and that
follow a logical pattern of
development.
 • Students will be able to use
self-reflections to recall,
explain, and defend their
writing experiences.

• (The self-reflections will

be discussed with the
instructor using Skype.)

February 24 – • Students will be able to Comparing and Contrasting

March 5 apply graphic organizers
based on an organizational
pattern (descriptive,
compare and contrast,
cause and effect, and
argumentative) to capture
and organize ideas for their
essays and to develop
working theses to further
organize generated ideas.
• Students will be able to
relate notes written on
graphic organizers to
identify sources of relevant
information for specific
audiences and purposes.
• Students will be able to
plan rough drafts using a
specific graphic organizer.
Draft a compare and contrast essay.
• Read the requirements for the
essay.
• Read the rubric.
• Complete the compare and
contrast graphic organizer (due
02/25/2011).
• Submit compare and contrast essay
rough draft (due 02/27/2011).
• Complete peer review using
Google Docs (due 03/01/2011).
• Submit final copy compare and
contrast essay via Turnitin.com
(due 03/05/2011).
• Discuss self-reflection via Skype
with instructor (due 03/05/2011).

• Students will be able to

provide peer review
feedback using Google
Docs.

• Students will be able to

evaluate peer review and
use feedback to edit and
revise their rough drafts.

• Students will be able to

 apply a rubric to help them
write and publish essays
for specific audiences with
intended purpose that
develop a thesis with
relevant material and that
follow a logical pattern of
development.

• Students will be able to use

self-reflections to recall,
explain, and defend their
writing experiences.

• (The self-reflections will

be discussed with the
instructor using Skype.)

March 10 – • Students will be able to Explaining Causes and Effects

March 19 apply graphic organizers
based on an organizational
pattern (descriptive,
compare and contrast,
cause and effect, and
argumentative) to capture
and organize ideas for their
essays and to develop
working theses to further
organize generated ideas.
• Students will be able to
relate notes written on
graphic organizers to
identify sources of relevant
information for specific
audiences and purposes.
• Students will be able to
plan rough drafts using a
specific graphic organizer.
Draft a cause-effect essay.
• Read the requirements for the
essay.
• Read the rubric.
• Complete the cause and effect
graphic organizer (due
03/11/2011).
• Submit cause-effect essay rough
draft (due 03/13/2011).
• Complete peer review using
Google Docs (due 03/15/2011).
• Submit final copy of cause-effect
essay via Turnitin.com (due
03/19/2011).
• Discuss self-reflection via Skype
with instructor (due 03/19/2011).

• Students will be able to

provide peer review
feedback using Google
Docs.
 • Students will be able to
evaluate peer review and
use feedback to edit and
revise their rough drafts.

• Students will be able to

apply a rubric to help them
write and publish essays
for specific audiences with
intended purpose that
develop a thesis with
relevant material and that
follow a logical pattern of
development.

• Students will be able to use

self-reflections to recall,
explain, and defend their
writing experiences.

• (The self-reflections will

be discussed with the
instructor using Skype.)

March 24 – • Students will be able to Taking a Stand

April 2 apply graphic organizers
based on an organizational
pattern (descriptive,
compare and contrast,
cause and effect, and
argumentative) to capture
and organize ideas for their
essays and to develop
working theses to further
organize generated ideas.
• Students will be able to
relate notes written on
graphic organizers to
identify sources of relevant
information for specific
audiences and purposes.
Draft an argumentative essay.
• Read the requirements for the
essay.
• Read the rubric.
• Complete the argumentative essay
graphic organizer (due
03/25/2011).
• Submit an argumentative essay
rough draft (due 03/27/2011).
• Complete peer review using
Google Docs (due 03/29/2011).
• Submit final copy of
argumentative essay via
Turnitin.com (due 04/02/2011).
• Discuss self-reflection via Skype
with instructor (due 04/02/2011).
• Students will be able to
plan rough drafts using a
specific graphic organizer.

• Students will be able to

provide peer review
feedback using Google
Docs.

• Students will be able to

evaluate peer review and
use feedback to edit and
revise their rough drafts.

• Students will be able to

apply a rubric to help them
write and publish essays
for specific audiences with
intended purpose that
develop a thesis with
relevant material and that
follow a logical pattern of
development.

• Students will be able to use

self-reflections to recall,
explain, and defend their
writing experiences.

• (The self-reflections will

be discussed with the
instructor using Skype.)
Reflections

Landrum, T. J., & McDuffie, K. A. (2010). Learning styles in the age of differentiated

instruction. Exceptionality, 18(1), 6-17. doi:10.1080/09362830903462441

In this present day and time, many confuse individualized instruction with differentiated
instruction. Each form of instruction makes it known that students have different learning styles,
and all students deserve to be met where they are educationally. However, that is the only
similarity shared between individualized instruction and differentiated instruction and
individualized instruction. As with its namesake, individualized instruction forces a teacher to
develop something different for each student. On the other hand, differentiated instruction makes
the case for grouping because the teacher has to work with the whole class, sometimes with
small groups, and sometimes one-on-one with individuals. Subsequently, teachers can truly
differentiate instruction by adjusting content, process, and/or products based on students’
academic needs and learning styles (Rock et al., 2008).

Rock, M. L., Gregg, M., Ellis, E., & Gable, R. A. (2008). REACH: A framework for

differentiating classroom instruction. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 31-47. Retrieved

from EBSCOhost.

According to Barrett, Bower, & Donovan (2007), learner-centered instructional styles

focus on individual students and such things as their academic needs, interests, background
knowledge, personalities, and capacities with emphasis on the most effective teaching strategies
that will involve the students in active learning. Differentiated instruction supports learner-
centered instructional strategies; however, a major obstacle to student-centered instruction and
activities is the practice of “teaching to the middle.” The act of “teaching to the middle” negates
the needs and learning styles of advanced and basic students. Differentiated instruction practices:
(a) focus on essential ideas and skills, (b) respond to individual student differences, (c) integrate
assessment and instruction, and (d) continuously adjust content, process, and/or products to meet
individual students’ intelligences and learning styles. Overall, differentiated instruction is a
proven method to engage students with diverse learning backgrounds in the teaching and
learning process.
 References

Barrett, K. R., Bower, B. L., & Donovan, N. C. (2007). Teaching styles of community college

instructors. American Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 37-49.

doi:10.1080/08923640701298738

Chapman, C. & King, R. (2008). Managing grouping strategies. Differentiated instructional

management: Work smarter, not harder (p. 83). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Google. (Producer). (2010). Sharing in google docs [Video]. Available from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POIR37Hmydg

ISTE. (2007). The ISTE nets and performance indicators for teachers (NETS.T). Retrieved from

http://www.iste.org/Libraries/PDFs/NETS_for_Student_2007_EN.sflb.ashx

ISTE. (2008). The ISTE nets and performance indicators for teachers (NETS.T). Retrieved from

http://www.iste.org/Libraries/PDFs/NETS_for_Teachers_2008_EN.sflb.ashx

Palloff, R. M. & Pratt, K. (2007). Moving teaching and learning online. Building online learning

communities (pp. 105-106). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Patterson, J. L., Connolly, M. C., & Ritter, S. A. (2009). Restructuring the inclusion classroom

to facilitate differentiated instruction. Middle School Journal, 41(1), 46-52. Retrieved

from EBSCOhost.

Roblyer, M. D. (2006). Preface. Integrating educational technology into teaching (4th ed.) Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Rock, M. L., Gregg, M., Ellis, E., & Gable, R. A. (2008). REACH: A framework for

differentiating classroom instruction. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 31-47. Retrieved

from EBSCOhost.
Smaldino, S. E., Lowther, D. L. & Russell, J. D. (2008). Instructional strategies: Integrating

technology and media. Instructional technology and media for learning (9th ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Smaldino, S. E., Lowther, D. L. & Russell, J. D. (2008). The ASSURE model: Creating the

learning experience. Instructional technology and media for learning (9th ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Sweeny, S. M. (2010). Writing for the instant messaging and text messaging generation: Using

new literacies to support writing instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,

54(2), 121-130.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). What differentiated instruction is – and isn’t. How to differentiate

instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). What differentiated instruction is not. How to differentiate instruction

in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.