Enhancing the writing development of English language learners: teacher perceptions of common technology in project-based learning.

Foulger, Teresa S. ; Jimenez-Silva, Margarita

Abstract. Results from this study suggest teachers believe technology may provide English language learners (ELLs) an advantage in developing writing skills. Using a theoretical framework by Hadaway, Vardell, and Young (2002) citing seven teacher practices that support the writing of ELL students when writing processes are embedded in real-world activities, this research sought to isolate technology supports within the framework. Practices include: time and opportunity to write, a reason for writing, a genuine audience, access to role models, a safe environment, useful feedback, and a sense of community. Fourteen K-8 classroom teachers reflected on specific classroom events whereby technology was used to support activities in which ELLs wrote within a project-based environment. Using a collective case study approach, the yearlong investigation used qualitative analyses of impressions from the teachers and the professional developer who supported these teachers. The study concluded

that the Hadaway, Vardell, and Young (2002) framework could be strengthened by integrating technology. Results suggested that expanding the seven teacher practices to include specific student uses of common technology within each category would be even more beneficial to the development of ELLs' writing skills. In addition to being supportive to teachers of ELLs, these findings may apply to teachers and administrators of other student populations who want to amplify learning opportunities.

**********

A decade ago, Tapscott (1998) brought the term "digital divide" to the attention of educators by focusing on the distinct social division between those who had access and were involved with technology and those who were not. Since that time, educators have made solid attempts to integrate technology in education, yet the digital divide still remains an educational barrier for some students--but not for reasons of sheer access, as first noted by Tapscott. Today, the digital divide is perhaps one of the greatest inequities within the U.S. education system (Paige, Hickok, & Patrick, 2004).

Concerned educators who focus on obvious contributing factors to the digital divide, such as outdated equipment and inefficient Internet service, may be blinded to the underlying circumstances that contribute more profusely to the inequities. Gender (Cooper & Weaver, 2003), race (Papadakis, 2000), and social attitudes and beliefs (Latimer, 2001; Warschauer, Knobel, & Stone, 2004) may be larger, more detrimental, and more complicated problems to address, as these social influences unknowingly contribute to the different uses of technology that teachers provide to their students (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology, 2003).

The disparity involving the digital divide also is evident with respect to English language learners (ELLs). Butler-Pascoe and Wiburg (2003) suggest that although access to technology is important to students attempting to learn a second language, of greater concern for these students are the ways technology is used. While commercially available language learning software packages make good use of multimedia to support the development of vocabulary and grammar skills necessary to become fluent English speakers, other instructional uses of technology exist that are more student-centered (Waxman & Huang, 1996). Technological tools may also enhance the higher level processes required for productivity, expression/visualization, research, communications, simulated experiences, and problem-solving skills (North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 2004). Unfortunately, these authentic uses of technology are often dismissed as being too difficult by those who believe that students with limited English language abilities must first demonstrate basic language capabilities before they can learn more sophisticated material (Waxman, Padron, & Knight, 1991). Chamot and O'Malley (1994) argue that it is a disservice to ELLs not to allow them to become fully engaged with learning through activities that require them to be problem-solvers and investigators. This study examines how 14 classroom teachers helped their K-8 ELLs to work at higher levels of thinking through authentic, project-based activities that relied on writing. The addition of technology tools to these classrooms prompted this investigation.

Literature Review

Project-Based Learning

Moss (1998) describes project-based learning as an instructional approach that contextualizes learning by presenting students with products to develop or problems to solve. Projects are complex tasks that involve students in design, problem-solving, investigative activities, or decision-making tasks. Such approaches give students the opportunity to work relatively autonomously over longer periods of time and result in realistic products or presentations (Jones, Rasmussen, & Moffitt, 1997; Thomas, Mergendoller, & Michaelson, 1999). Project-based learning relies on the embedded combination of complex communication skills ranging from receptive skills (listening and reading) and productive skills (speaking and writing), to processing skills (critical and creative thinking), usually in authentic or simulated situations.

Various studies document the potential for project-based learning to meet the diverse needs of students that exist within a classroom (Thomas, 2000). Indeed, one of the special learning needs project-based curriculum might support, and the focus of this study, is the writing development of ELLs. Diaz-Rico (2004) emphasizes the need for ELLs to be involved in projects that offer long-term and meaningful learning.

ELLs may benefit greatly from authentic project-based learning, because such opportunities promote academic skills, help students feel more integrated into the classroom community, and increase motivation, thereby connecting them to the realities of life outside the classroom. Within this complex environment, writing may be one of the most difficult tasks for ELLs because of the variety of coordinated efforts that are needed to produce good writing (Samway, 2006). Complex tasks sometimes cause frustration, as students must pay attention to topic organization, grammatical correctness, vocabulary and word choice, genre principles, and sentence variety, all at the same time.

A review of literature on project-based learning and the application of technology to instruction and learning revealed that technology is often used as a cognitive tool. Incorporating computer hardware and programs into project-based learning can be used as extensions of, and models for, student capabilities (Thomas, 2000). Furthermore, using technology with project-based learning may help learners become aware of the knowledge construction process (Brown & Campione, 1996). Using technology as a cognitive tool to develop students' critical thinking may benefit all students and especially ELLs, who frequently face the multilayered challenges of learning new processes and content in a new language.

Creating an Environment Conducive to the Development of Writers

Hadaway, Vardell, and Young (2002) suggest using several teacher practices to support the development of writing skills for ELLs within an environment that incorporates "authentic instructional activities" (p. 138). These activities use writing to support language proficiency and personal expression and allow students to feel productive and challenged. Based on a review of research, those authors recommend teachers support ELLs by adopting seven instructional design techniques meant to increase the risk-taking behavior needed to become good writers: time and opportunity to write, a real reason for writing, a genuine audience, access to role models, a safe environment, useful feedback, and a sense of community.

Time and Opportunity To Write. First, ELLs need regular and considerable practice in writing to develop writing fluency (Hadaway, Vardell, & Young, 2002). Just as with any complex skill, learning to write requires learners to be involved with the task. Writing should begin as soon as ELLs enter the classroom. It is erroneous to wait for students to be speaking and reading fluently in English before having them write (Peregoy & Boyle, 2005).

The Real Reason for Writing. Second, it is imperative that ELLs write for a real reason. When students are provided the opportunity to write for real, personally significant reasons, they are more motivated and eager to engage in the writing process. It is also important to provide choices for students when writing in order to provide students with increased ownership of their writing. English learners benefit from writing activities that are authentic and have personal value (Peregoy & Boyle, 2005).

Genuine Audience. Working with ELLs, Urzua (1987) found that when students have a genuine audience for whom to write, they learn to take the needs of their audience into account, develop a sense of voice, and acquire language that enhances their writing. Academic language, which is critical to the academic success of ELLs (Cummins, 1980), is best developed through purposeful activities. ELLs should be provided a wide range of writing experiences targeting a number of different audiences.

Access to Role Models. "When we set out to learn to do anything, we look to others who are expert at what we are trying to learn to do. Learning to write is no different. In teaching our students to be good writers, one of the first things we want them to be able to do is to anchor themselves to authors and texts they admire" (Davis & Hill, 2003, p. 10). Hadaway, Vardell, and Young (2002) describe two types of opportunities for ELLs to develop their writing skills using role models: finished text models and models of writers at work.

ELLs benefit greatly from "modeling via rich and continuous reading experiences, using both published literature of acknowledged merit and the work of peers and instructors" (Hadaway, Vardell, & Young, 2002, p. 139). As teachers expose students to diverse texts, they interact with numerous types of writing styles, word choices, and sentence patterns. Teachers who use model examples of various types of writing support ELLs to develop academic language that may be specific to content areas or genres (Butler-Pascoe & Wiberg, 2003). Classrooms that are literacy-rich with print support this practice of modeling (McGee & Morrow, 2005).

A Safe Environment. Students are motivated to improve their writing by the social context in which the writing takes place (Diaz-Rico, 2004). Peregoy and Boyle (2005) emphasize the importance of teachers building a classroom environment in which students' social and emotional needs, as well as their academic needs, are met. Teachers who set the tone, model behavior that supports learning, and help create a feeling of safety enable students to take risks. These risk-taking behaviors support ELLs in the language-learning processes needed for good writers, including the ability to verbalize ideas for their writing and share their writing at various levels of development.

Useful Feedback. Hadaway, Vardell, and Young (2002) argue that helpful feedback is very specific and flexible, regards the cumulative writing effort, and encourages revision. Feedback on students' writing should respond to various levels, from spelling and grammar to larger meaning-related issues (Nystrand, 1990). Although getting feedback is an important part of becoming a good writer, the learner's interest in receiving and applying that feedback is helpful to the creation of a student's identity as a writer, to his or her ability to focus more on writing and less on mechanics, and to the creation of a classroom culture (Brown & Duguid, 2000) that focuses on writing.

Sense of Community. The teacher can help establish a "supportive environment in which students are acknowledged as writers, encouraged to take risks, and engaged in creating meaning" (Zamel, 1987, p. 697). By providing context and relationships as the central focus (Henton, 1996), the emergence of "learning communities" enables process-driven groups to help individuals see themselves more clearly as they work together to support one another in ways that are noncompetitive, collaborative, and productive, while simultaneously allowing students to become more independent from the teacher and more reliant on one another (Brown & Campione, 1996; Graves, 1992; Whitcomb, 2004). When students work together, they learn to listen, validate, and provide feedback for each other.

Methods

A collective case study approach was used to look at the possibility of technology-related enhancements to the seven teacher practices thought to support ELLs' writing development. In this way, researchers hoped this study would "lead to a better understanding, perhaps better theorizing about a still larger collection of cases" (Stake, 1994, p. 237). Fourteen teachers documented their classroom activities and provided evidence on how technology tools added support to the writing needs of ELLs within their project-based environment. Throughout a yearlong process, this study aimed to:

* Explore student writing opportunities as teachers added technology to project-based curriculum

* Investigate teacher perceptions about common technology tools and their benefits to the development of writing skills for ELLs

* Isolate teacher practices and environmental factors specific to technology use that might enhance ELLs' writing development.

The Situation at Hand

The classroom experiences under investigation were located in an urban K-8 school district in the southwestern region of the United States, consisting of nine schools. Approximately 75 percent of the students received free- or reduced-price lunch; 84 percent of the students were of Hispanic origin. Throughout a one-year period, the researcher in the study worked as a professional developer with the 14 teachers who volunteered for the study. All teachers served ELLs within their inclusive classrooms.

For purposes of this study, the professional developer established a partnership approach to learning, mostly by working one-on-one with each teacher to co-create at least one major project-based unit of study incorporating technology during the year; model teach or co-teach in other curricular areas that could integrate technology; and collaborate in debriefings and refinements with project-based learning in mind. Throughout the year, the professional developer also conducted on-site and district technology training sessions (which were offered to all of the teachers in the district), and facilitated collaborative meetings with the project teachers to help them share new understandings and learn needed technology skills. Specific training needed for classroom instruction also occurred through one-on-one and small-group sessions. At three points throughout the yearlong project, reflective writings were collected from these teachers, who were given time to write during project meetings.

Prior to the study, the use of technology for these teachers' students was limited to computer lab access (a 1:1 ratio), for approximately one hour per week, using a single classroom computer. The project provided the teachers in the study with classroom-based technology consisting of five multimedia, Internet-connected student computers (a 1:5 ratio), and one teacher station connected to a presentation system. All computers were equipped with common computer technology, such as word processing, KidPix (a basic drawing and multimedia productivity tool for young children), a spreadsheet program, PowerPoint, and connection to the Internet. The participating teachers at each site shared digital cameras, video cameras, scanners, and networked laser printers.

The students in this study served by teacher participants were taught the unit of study created by their teacher. Additionally, other daily technology use was common to their yearlong experience through in-class and lab-based access. The professional developer visited each classroom weekly and served to meet needs as defined by the teacher.

Participants and Data Sources

Thirteen of the 14 participants in the study represented a mix of veteran and novice teachers. Five of the 13 teachers had one to three years of prior classroom teaching experience. All of the teachers worked with ELLs in general education classrooms. All of the classroom teachers had functional technology skills, while three of the 13 teachers were more or less independent users of technology. The professional developer served as a participant-observer in the study. She held a broad understanding of the student population, school culture, and administrative concerns, and an in-depth understanding of each of the individual teachers' philosophies, talents, and knowledge base. The professional developer conducted project meetings with the teachers at three points throughout the year, when their perceptions were documented through reflective writing.

Specific prompts helped teachers focus their reflections on students' technology use and on the insights they were gaining about teaching and learning. Writing topics included room arrangement and classroom management, goals, changes teachers saw in themselves and their students, and enhancements to student learning, all with a focus on how writing development for ELLs was supported. Anecdotal stories were the foundation of these writing experiences. These data provided 34 written reflections from the teacher participants, with each written response ranging from one to three single-spaced pages.

In addition to the 13 teachers mentioned above, the professional developer also worked in a more focused way with a fourteenth teacher. This teacher was bilingual, taught a grades 3/4-combination class, and had two years of teaching experience prior to the study. This particular classroom teacher volunteered after the professional developer approached her with the idea of working together more extensively. She was approached because of her fluency in using technology. This factor was important, as having strong technology skills allowed for the professional developer and the classroom teacher to work more extensively on curriculum design. The professional developer spent more time with this particular teacher than with the other teachers; for approximately 2 to 3 hours per week over the course of a year, they co-created curriculum, frequently co-taught in the classroom and in the computer lab, and participated in debriefing and reflective conversations related to the ELL focus of the study. The in-depth focus between this teacher and the researcher served to provide depth of understanding and represents what Stake (1994) refers to as "sampling within the case." In addition to the requirements asked of each teacher in the study, this classroom teacher documented cumulative understandings at the end of the study and wrote detailed thoughts about philosophical underpinnings of technology use with ELLs, specifically in support of reading and writing for ELLs. These writings (33 pages of text) also were included in the data that was analyzed.

Data Analysis

The theoretical framework discussed by Hadaway, Vardell, and Young (2002) pertaining to the seven classroom factors that teachers should use to support English language writers has the potential to improve teacher practices. This framework may be significantly strengthened by the purposeful integration of technology. To this end, these seven factors were used to help pinpoint and categorize the enhancements that technology provided to support writing development of ELLs by teachers in this study, with the intention of expanding the framework to include technology enhancements.

To increase validity for the study, data from teachers were collected three times over the course of the one year. Validity also was increased by using multiple data sources to triangulate the study (Yin, 2003) and to create valid pictures of participant understandings related to technology's role in assisting ELLs with their writing development. Additionally, the cumulative understandings written by the fourteenth teacher were distributed to the other teachers in the study, thus serving as a member check process to increase the credibility of the findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Triangulation of this sort allowed researchers to "clarify meaning by verifying the repeatability of an observation or interpretation" (Stake, 1994, p. 148).

These data were read line-by-line and categorized using a priori codes from the work of Hadaway, Vardell, and Young (2002) pertaining to the seven techniques that teachers use to support English language writers within a project-based environment. The two researchers worked together to form a consensus on the data allocated to each category. Some data segments were placed in more than one category. Category-based responses were then reread to determine any minor themes per category pertaining to the ways technology supported each of the seven practices. Frequencies were generated for each code. The researchers reviewed the final percentages of codes within each category contributed by the focus teacher and concluded that her contributions did not skew the findings in any particular category. From this process, technology enhancements emerged depicting the similarities, as well as unique experiences, among teacher participants (Znaniecki, 1934).

Findings

The following findings are based on teachers' written reflections, and are reported using the lens of the aforementioned seven teacher practices thought to support the development of ELL writing skills (Hadaway, Vardell, & Young, 2002) but expanded to include technology enhancements. The frequency for which coded data fell within each category is noted, although this figure should not be interpreted as an indication of significance toward student learning, as the data from this study did not allow for that type of measure. Findings are reported from highest frequency to lowest frequency: sense of community, 29 percent; genuine audience, 23 percent; safe environment, 15 percent; a real reason for writing, 12 percent; useful feedback, 9 percent; access to role models, 8 percent; and time and opportunity to write, 4 percent.

Sense of Community

The teachers in this study did not view writing as a mechanical process; rather, they embedded it into natural settings that helped create increased levels of interdependency among students. Sense of community accounted for 29 percent of the data coded. Three themes emerged with respect to teachers' perceptions of how technology enhanced this teacher practice.

Technology Use Required Foresight About Collaborative Opportunities. Due to the fact that the five classroom computers needed to be connected to the Internet and an electrical power source, permanent decisions needed to be made by teachers about the potential types of uses for the machines. The teachers shared ideas, but each teacher made individual decisions. In addition to considering placement of furniture and the positioning of computers so the teacher could see monitors from most locations in the room, teachers also considered potential student interactions. Issues considered included group seating for demonstrations and presentations, mobility of existing furniture, and location of existing Internet drops and electrical outlets. However, the most prevalent concern was the number of students who might need to use a given computer at a given time.

Technology Allowed Authentic Communication Among Peers. In this study, teachers helped students of varying levels of English language proficiency to work in small groups and collaborate on many different writing projects. This encouraged communication among students of varying linguistic abilities, including those who were English proficient. Pairing ELLs with bilingual students and English-proficient students to work together on the computer allowed curriculum-related conversations. Students had opportunities to become language models and language brokers with their peers, relying on each other for help in revising and polishing. Ultimately, the teachers believed that collaboration helped individual students become more self-sufficient and independent. One teacher said:

I have noticed that my students are becoming very adept at problem solving and have learned to rely on each other and to work collaboratively. There is a great sense of student-to-student mentoring. They are eager to teach each other new tricks and to share ideas for improving their projects.

One teacher encouraged student-to-student mentoring related to technology skills and troubleshooting. During lunch, he trained six students on software and troubleshooting skills, as well as the importance of being patient and polite, with specifics about how to help others without taking over their computers.

Technology Expanded Communities Across Geographic Boundaries. Two teachers in this study wrote about how e-mail communications supported ELLs to make connections with students across the country. The teachers believed that students took bigger risks when writing e-mail. One teacher noted that students might not have otherwise considered themselves as writers:

We have been deluged by exciting letters from [keypals] who want to keep a friendly e-mail conversation going with our class. I started by just making a little announcement that I had these students from out of state who wanted to have a keypal.... I was glad to see that even though it was on a purely voluntary basis, there were more kids who showed interest than there were keypals to give out.... I see these students reaching out to others that they normally would never have interest in otherwise, or just would never have imagined. Since the students that the kids are writing to have a little bit of a different culture surrounding them, I have found it interesting to see what is talked about--hobbies, what there is to do during spare time, and how they behave in class. It has been a great addition to the class writing activities.

Genuine Audience

Several teacher participants recognized that when their students wrote text for a real audience besides the classroom teacher, they were more motivated and engaged in all writing processes. Teachers believed that technology-based publishing opportunities directed to real audiences "made students think through steps like organization, research, writing, and reading." Genuine audience accounted for 23 percent of the data coded. Three themes emerged with respect to how teachers' beliefs about how technology enhanced this teacher practice.

Multimedia Publishing. Computer applications, such as Kid Pix, PowerPoint, iMovie, etc., allowed students to create multimedia presentations of their work. In the process, teachers felt students were better able to "see through new eyes" as they enhanced their written text with graphics, their own drawings, sound, voice, and even video. Teachers also reported that multimedia publishing helped ELLs to better organize and structure their presentations.

A Wider Range of Audience Possibilities. Teachers reported an enhanced sense of motivation to perfect their presentations, because the Internet allowed for digital communication to those beyond the school. A kindergarten teacher discussed at length what she discovered about the involvement of peers from another continent. Her classroom participated in a global learning project through I'EARN called the Teddy Bear Project, with the aim to team pairs of schools globally through the exchange of a teddy bear. The bear would send home descriptions of his adventures through a diary posted on the Internet.

Our class was paired with a class in Mooroolbark, Australia. We sent them an ASU Teddy Bear named "Sun Angel" and they sent us a Koala Bear named "Koala Lou" (named after the Mem Fox story by the same name). The teachers communicated over the Internet.... Along with the teddies, we sent each other maps of our countries, travel books, and pictures. In the classroom, we prepared for Koala Lou's arrival. We read ... made a gum tree in the classroom ... students ventured out into the library on their own for more books on koalas that they could take home. When Koala Lou arrived, the students grew more and more attached to her. Koala Lou joined us in our daily classroom activities.... Students took Koala Lou home to visit their homes and families. Her overnight backpack included pajamas, a book, a camera (to take pictures with the families), and a journal so that students could include their adventures with Koala Lou in her journal. Messages to Australia continued over this time.

As students composed their journal entries, they understood that children in another classroom they had never encountered would be reading Koala Lou's adventures. Because of the distant audience, students worked diligently to include details about the places Koala Lou had been and specific descriptions of what the teddy bear had seen. Through this journal-writing project, the audience in Australia became even more genuine when a student from Australia who had read of Koala Lou's adventures in Arizona came to visit:

Then came word that one of the students from Australia would be coming to the States and would be visiting our class with his family. The students were very excited as they prepared for the visit. This made me realize how small the world is becoming. The "kinders" didn't realize how far the family had to travel; all they fully understood was that Koala Lou's friends from Australia would be coming and that they would finally get to meet in person our new friends.... The Australian family shared with my students information about Australia. The kinders were also sharing with them information they had learned on their own about koalas and Australia. I was surprised by how clearly they relayed their facts and how willing they were to share about themselves. All students participated in our group discussion. I believe that this project expanded the students' sense of the world and their place in it. They also found out that students on the other side of the world are just like them and they are all special. As an educator, I believe this is a life experience that will stay with them, and it taught them life lessons that reading a book or using a CD-ROM alone couldn't accomplish.

Publishing on the Internet. Teachers were impressed with how the Internet offered an extended audience for children's writing to be shared. Several Internet sites that accept writing and art submissions from children, such as poetry, news stories, nonfiction reports, opinions, stories, and jokes, were used as publishing avenues. In this way, non-local audiences could read, view, and even respond to student work. One teacher who created a class website viewed the opportunity of publishing to the Web as a way of increasing parental awareness of their child's schoolwork. This grade 4/5 teacher had students work in pairs for research and publishing:

When I first introduced the idea to my class, they were amazed. The thought of creating their own web pages was so exciting for the students, and they immediately wanted to start the research process. As a class, we developed a list of important elements that each web page must contain. Our list included: factual information about the topic, drawings created by the students, relevant graphics, links to other websites with information, and most importantly, an e-mail link so that others who viewed the site could contact the students and offer feedback. We also talked about issues, such as the importance of including accurate information, making the site easy to navigate and understand, and writing the text in both Spanish and English. These issues arose as we talked about the students' prior experiences with websites on the Internet, and about what made a site helpful or not helpful to them.

Publishing to the Internet motivated students to create final projects that were "professional" and "made them appear as experts." Their writing also needed to appeal to the readers so that they would want to read their writings. These students had never met their audience:

The students' final products were incredible! They spent entire class periods discussing how they wanted to organize the information on the website, which graphics would complement the text, and how they could incorporate both languages to make the site accessible to a wider audience. Their continual awareness of the "audience" really made a difference. They knew that people all over the world would have access to their projects, and they wanted to make sure they presented the best project possible. They were particularly sensitive to an audience of other bilingual students, and tried to create websites that would help them learn about space and flight. Many students were so invested in their web pages that they even stayed after school several days in a row to work on the design and the content of their pages before they went "on-line." Some asked me why we couldn't create web pages for all of our class projects. To celebrate the students' efforts, we invited parents and other community members into our classroom to browse their websites on-line. The students beamed with pride as they gave brief tours of their sites, and then allowed others to explore. The next morning, some students already had e-mail messages from parents and friends who had enjoyed their sites. They felt so important and proud of their accomplishment.

A Safe Environment

In this case, feeling safe was interpreted to mean a sense of empowerment for students, as well as students' increased abilities to take risks and experiment with language. Comments relevant to enthusiasm and motivation were coded to this category as well. A safe environment accounted for 15 percent of the data coded. Three themes emerged with respect to how teachers felt technology enhanced this teacher practice.

Technology Lowered the Affective Filter. Krashen's (1981) affective filter hypothesis states that the most important affective variable that helps students in the process of learning English is being part of a low-anxiety learning environment. One teacher reported how technology helped create a classroom environment that was less threatening by scaffolding content and aiding comprehension through visuals as well as support from peers:

Half of my students are non-English speakers. It has been phenomenal to see technology bridge the gap between non-English speakers and the content. The language isn't a problem anymore. They are no longer afraid to make a mistake. With totally visual presentation, and the ability to work with the computer alone or in a group, it seems to have transcended the language barrier. This has happened more than once. I would like to know what I'm doing that makes it work. I have presented this same material before and have not been as successful. With technology, they have reached much higher conceptual levels.

Although technology can benefit all students, teachers felt it is especially important for ELLs to have access to all the available tools to assist them with language and content learning, because access to those language learning opportunities needs to be maximized in their school experiences (Chamot & O'Malley, 1994).

Technology Increased Motivation. Teachers noted that multimedia and telecommunications captured student interest by offering more opportunities for collaboration and interaction among students, allowing for multiple modes of input and expression, and providing a professional look for presentations. In this study, several teachers reported that working with the computers motivated students to go beyond what was required of them. One teacher commented:

The integration of technology has had a very positive effect on student learning. My students are very extremely enthusiastic and very motivated to work on projects. They are always totally engaged and eager to master the next task or projects.... The students often look at various learning tasks through the potential they hold, technologically.

As seen from this teacher's report, motivation for learning increased when technology became part of the social and academic context in the classroom, woven into their repertoire of learning strategies.

Technology Increased Self-confidence and Self-esteem. Technology provided a means for teachers to support the self-confidence and self-esteem of ELLs, both in terms of their language learning as well as in mastery of content.

As I meet with students to write narratives and I ask them how they are feeling about their learning, they express to me a great deal of excitement over the growth of their knowledge.

As one teacher explained, students also developed self-confidence in their abilities to use the technology itself:

The use of technology in my classroom allows the students to freely explore and apply their existing talents as well as an opportunity to share their technical knowledge with peers.... Students gain confidence in their abilities by producing worthwhile products.

A Real Reason for Writing

Teachers discovered ways to incorporate authentic research opportunities and instances in which published products served a communication purpose. Both local and distant audiences served as focal points for ELLs, who created printed text, multimedia, or such electronic communications as e-mail, chat rooms, or student-created websites. Having a real reason for writing accounted for 12 percent of the data coded. Two themes emerged with respect to how teachers felt technology enhanced this teacher practice.

Technology Allowed Opportunities for Multicultural Experiences. Teachers reported that Internet communications allowed them to promote cultural diversity and understanding by linking their students to other students and adults from across the United States and around the world. E-mail and Internet research were used to explore, share, and receive information from individuals outside the classroom, including pen-pal exchanges, country research, and chat-based interviews with adult professionals. One teacher was able to bring firsthand experiences to the classroom through pen-pals in Spain who shared customs associated with Holy Week. In turn, her students wrote about and communicated about the native peoples of their region.

My students made connections with kids across the world living in very different settings. They realized that they had many things in common and they learned to appreciate their similarities AND differences.

Through projects like this pen-pal exchange, ELLs can talk about their own backgrounds and traditions within a larger discussion of diversity that is not limited by the experiences of their teachers or school communities. Similarities and differences can be addressed as points of learning opportunities, instead of being ignored, which can lead to students feeling ostracized (Banks & Banks, 2007).

Technology Allowed Multimedia Publishing. Such programs as PowerPoint, Word, Kid Pix, and Web authoring software not only allowed students to draft, revise, edit, and publish with ease, but also allowed them to add meaning to their text by complementing it with graphics, student drawings, sound, voice, and even video. These different modes of communication allowed those with limited English language abilities to present their understanding of content in a more complete manner by using visual and auditory additions. Through multimedia publishing, teachers felt that students were able to present information at a higher level than they would have been able to do with just text; likewise, students who were on the receiving end of these written communications were able to comprehend at higher levels. This teacher wrote about her experience in summer school teaching 3rd-grade ELLs, and about one particular boy she had been observing:

We had read lots of silly stories and sad stories about dogs. All of [this one student's] stories had a moral and the characters always learned how to be better. This year, we began the year with the computer mini-labs in our classroom. I noticed that he took the publishing of his stories to a different place. His story has a dedication page, an "about the author" page, and a color digital photo of the author. His exposure and accessibility to computers impacted his finished pieces. I noticed that whereas before he had struggled with planning and working on drafts, with the computers in our room, it became an art to rework drafts, not a chore.... By the time the story reached the publishing stage, he had reworked it many times. I have noticed that this has been the case with several of my other writers. It seemed that the computer was just the tool needed to get the children to be more self-motivated.

Useful Feedback

In several instances in this study, teachers reported that useful feedback was not only provided to students by the teacher, but also through other means stimulated by the addition of technology tools to the writing process. They reported that students in the technology-enriched classrooms were more receptive to the feedback. Useful feedback accounted for nine percent of the data coded. Two themes emerged with respect to how teachers felt technology enhanced this teacher practice.

Social Feedback. Feedback to ELLs that was initiated by either the teacher or by peers was welcome when working in digital environments. One teacher attributed this result to the "ease of the revising process, (which) motivates students to take risks in their writing, and make changes in content and mechanics." The teacher who worked most extensively with the professional developer in this study believed that the motivational factors increased for ELLs, due to working in a low-risk environment. Working in groups or pairs helped create an environment in which social feedback was invited.

I have placed the computers together in a group with the students working together in groups of two. I use the computers as a center.... I encourage the children to ask each other questions and try to solve their own problems.

Technology Feedback. Teachers in this study were encouraged to show students how to effectively use such computer writing tools as spellchecker, grammar check, and a thesaurus. These tools were a novelty to students at first, but the teacher increasingly adopted this method to help ELLs focus on the message while simultaneously pointing out mechanical issues. Teachers reported that technology feedback helped ELLs focus on the communicative outcome of their written work, due to the "ease of revising, even when students thought their projects were finished." Said one teacher,

Students are working on letter writing and in doing it on the computer, they are becoming more cognizant of spelling and usage--maybe because they're looking more critically at their own work.

In most cases, the students used editing tools throughout the draft and publication stages of the writing process. Sometimes these tools were used for prewriting, but teachers did report that keyboarding for younger students was definitely problematic during composition stages. One insightful teacher noted that "student progress through the writing process is not easily documented. (I) need to make arrangements for copies to be printed throughout the process." After this insight was gained, this teacher used printouts to see the progression of revisions, instead of only the latest draft or the final product.

Access to Role Models

Some of the teachers in this study reported how the variety of technology tools and Internet-based texts supported their efforts to surround students with possible models for their writing. They felt this was accomplished without creating a dependency upon these role models (Behymer, 2003), as students were responsible for gaining firsthand information. Access to role models accounted for eight percent of the data coded. Three themes emerged with respect to how teachers felt technology enhanced this practice.

Access to Local Models. Teachers discovered ways to use technology to promote students being reliant upon and supported by peer role models for specific aspects of the writing process. In classrooms where students were either asked or encouraged to work together during their writing, teachers felt they more easily "became language models and language brokers with their peers, relying on each other to gather information, discuss ideas, and solve problems."

Access to Distance Models. In addition to working together, teachers used the Internet to provide communication models other than professionally edited books. Additionally, Web publishing and informal communications, such as e-mail, chat, and discussion boards, allowed ELLs to informally exchange information. Students used Internet-based communications for exchanges with those at a distance (e.g., other students, teachers, and scientists).

The following story by a 5th-grade teacher illustrates her technique to coordinate collaboration between two of her ELLs with content experts via the Internet and e-mail. This opportunity provided the students with access to information and viewpoints not otherwise available to this classroom:

Two 5th-grade girls, Vianey and Jocelyn, sit around a computer, intently discussing the text of the e-mail message they are composing. Both girls are native Spanish speakers, and while Vianey has been writing in English for several years, Jocelyn has just begun to write short passages in her second language. This particular message must be written in English, as they are seeking assistance and information from a scientist who answers questions in English.

As part of a class study of flight, the girls are studying Charles Lindbergh and his historic flight across the Atlantic. They have come across a website devoted to the accomplishments of this aviator and found a link to send a message to the scientist who created the page. As the girls read the information on the web page to learn more about his flight, they used pictures, sound recordings, and their prior knowledge to make sense of the fairly difficult English text. They also called upon another classmate to read the text with them and talk with them about the meaning of the passage. Their friend became so interested in the topic that she often chose to sit with them as they collected information. I was amazed at the dialogue that occurred as the three girls read and interacted with the pictures and animations on the web page. They questioned each other about what they were reading, and talked about how Lindbergh must have felt before, during, and after the flight. When they discovered that they could send some of their questions to the author of the web page, they were thrilled. They immediately began to plan in their notebook what they would write and how they would phrase their questions. They debated back and forth which questions were "good questions" and which they thought the scientist would answer. They spent an entire language arts period drafting their questions and consulting classmates to help them with word choice and spelling. They then composed the message using e-mail, and sent the questions off, anxiously awaiting the scientist's response.

Becoming a Role Model. Through technology use, two aspects of publishing not otherwise available emerged. First of all, such authoring tools as PowerPoint, web page editing, or Kid Pix enabled students to create professional-looking final products, no matter how many times they revised and edited. These types of publications were often presented to larger audiences using computer projection, or printed and shared with peers. When teachers published student pieces on the Internet, the idea of being a role model to the extended community emerged as a factor that created a great deal of commitment to a polished presentation. One teacher recognized the motivational power of publishing to peers:

My classroom instruction and planning has been a great deal more integrated because of the need for everything to come together for a "final" piece. I find that the students are a lot more willing to work at things, revise and polish. They are experiencing another way to look at the art of publishing.

Time and Opportunity To Write

Teachers reported that technology tools were used for all stages of daily writing processes and that it enhanced all steps of student writing, including brainstorming, drafting, and final publishing. Teachers believed they could use word-processing tools to continually refine students' work by promoting multiple attempts within each phase of the process. Time and opportunity to write accounted for four percent of the data coded. One minor theme emerged with respect to how technology enhanced this teacher practice.

Technology Helped Students Commit to Their Writing. Teachers felt that students were more motivated to experiment with their writing because revising was simple, quick, and did not look messy afterwards. Even products that were thought to be finished could be reworked, adapted, reformatted, merged with other documents, or republished at any time. This idea of revisiting writing for extended periods of time over multiple sessions was apparent to one teacher, who wrote, "Technology allows more time to write and compose, because students think the effort spent on revising and recopying is greatly reduced." For ELLs, the technology aided their ability to continually rework their writing until their intended message was clear. Even with informal writing, students tended to ponder over their choices. Several of the teachers commented that students were willing to commit free time to writing with technology. As one teacher wrote, "Students are eager to come in before and after school to learn about their interests. Recently, a group of seven students researched and wrote a skit for President's Day at lunchtime."

Limitations

It should be noted that all the instructional units formally created and taught by each of the teachers in this study involved the use of technology for writing within a project-based environment. Additionally, many of the other instructional processes that teachers wrote about involved projects. Teachers clearly wrote about technology's impact on ELLs' writing development, but the project-based learning approach also could have played a role in teachers' positive perceptions. These findings may not readily apply to classrooms with other prominent modes of instruction. It should also be noted that this study measured the number of reported situations in which teachers felt ELLs were supported through technology in their classrooms; however, it did not allow researchers to gain empirical evidence about the level of impact that technology had on the writing development of ELLs within each of the seven teacher practices. Additionally, the small sample size may be considered a limitation to this study.

Implications and Conclusions

The teachers in this investigation created and taught in-depth units of study surrounding topics or issues to which they felt their students would naturally relate. Project-based classrooms integrated technology within an environment where writing development was of concern. Overall, the teachers felt that in their classrooms, many of the teaching practices recommended by Hadaway, Vardell, and Young (2002) as important for the development of ELLs' writing skills were further enhanced through technology. Although some practices were reported as being used more frequently than others, this is not to say that those practices provided more significant impact on the writing development of ELLs, as this study did not address student achievement factors. Knowing that teachers believe that technology enhances their work with ELLs might, however, provide a foundation for further studies related to the impact on student achievement on any of the seven teacher practices.

Furthermore, this study does not promote the idea that more writing automatically leads to better writing. It does suggest, however, that technology may be used effectively as a tool to enhance that process. Environments that provide ELLs with rich opportunities to write in meaningful ways acknowledge the language support that is necessary for them to succeed academically. Paradigm shifts in the beliefs about the education of ELLs suggesting their abilities to engage at higher levels of thinking with more complex curriculum, in their non-native language, might feel counterintuitive at first, but could provide better results in the long run. However, teachers with a vision for this type of complex teaching cannot sustain the intense efforts required in isolation. They must be supported through partnerships and collaborative efforts with other teachers, school support staff, and school and district administrators. Extensive funding to support technology tools and training, time and resources for planning, and collaboration with other teachers and experts are all crucial.

This study specifically asked teachers to isolate the parts of their practice that supported closing the digital divide that exists for ELLs by using technology to support higher levels of learning. To that end, creating and sustaining an atmosphere throughout an educational system will not likely rely on teacher skills as much as capturing the attitudes and beliefs of the teachers who know how to create effective learning environments in which technology enhances the possibilities. In turn, growing a system-wide culture in which learning is escalated for its teachers as well as its students is something all practitioners seek. When this ideal is instigated, expanded, and eventually amplified, high levels of student performance might surprise us all.

References

Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. (2007). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (6th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Behymer, A. (2003). Kindergarten writing workshop. The Reading Teacher, 57(1), 85-88.

Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovation in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289-325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Butler-Pascoe, M. E., & Wiburg, K. M. (2003). Technology and teaching English language learners. New York: Pearson Education.

Chamot, A., & O'Malley, J. (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic language learning approach. Boston: Addison-Wesley.

Cooper, J., & Weaver, K. D. (2003). Gender and computers: Understanding the digital divide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Ehrlbaum.

Cummins, J. (1980). The construct of language proficiency in bilingual education. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University roundtable on languages and linguistics (pp. 76-93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Davis, J., & Hill, S. (2003). The no-nonsense guide to teaching writing: Strategies, structures, and solutions. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Diaz-Rico, L. T. (2004). Teaching English learners: Strategies and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Graves, L. (1992). Cooperative learning communities: Context for a new vision of education and society. Journal of Education, 174(2), 57-79.

Hadaway, N., Vardell, S., & Young, T. (2002). Literature-based instruction with English language learners, K-12. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Henton, M. (1996). Adventure in the classroom: Using adventure to strengthen learning and build a community of lifelong learners. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Jones, B. F., Rasmussen, C. M., & Moffitt, M. C. (1997). Real-life problem solving: A collaborative approach to interdisciplinary learning. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Krashen, S. (1981). Bilingual education and second language acquisition theory. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. Los Angeles: Evaluation Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University.

Latimer, C. P. (2001). The digital divide: Understanding and addressing the challenge. New York State Forum for Information Resource Management Government information focus. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from www.nysforum. org/documents/html/whitepapers/nysfirmdigital_divide.htm

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

McGee, L. M., & Morrow, L. M. (2005). Teaching literacy in kindergarten. New York: Guilford Press.

Moss, D. (1998). Project-based learning and assessment: A resource manual for teachers. Arlington, VA: The Arlington Education and Employment Program.

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (2004). Indicator: Range of use. Retrieved May 14, 2004, from www.ncrel.org/engauge/ framewk/efp/range/efpranin.htm

Nystrand, M. (1990). Writing as a verb. In G. Hawisher & A. O. Soter (Eds.), Issues in English education (pp. 144-158). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Paige, R., Hickok, E., & Patrick, S. (2004). Toward a new golden age in American education-How the Internet, the law and today's students are revolutionizing expectations. National education technology plan 2004. Retrieved December 2, 2004, from www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/ plan/2004/index.html

Papadakis, M. C. (2000). Complex picture of computer use in the home emerges (Issue Brief NSF 00-134). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

Peregoy, S., & Boyle, O. (2005). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL: A resource book for K-12 teachers (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Samway, K. D. (2006). When English language learners write: Connecting research to practice, K-8. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 236-247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Thomas, J. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Retrieved July 29, 2004, from www.bie.org/tmp/research/researchreviewPBL.pdf

Thomas, J. W., Mergendoller, J. R., & Michaelson, A. (1999). Project-based learning: A handbook for middle and high school teachers. Novato, CA: The Buck Institute for Education.

Urzua, C. (1987). "You stopped too soon": Second language children composing and revising. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 279-304.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2003). Digital divide projects. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from www. ed.gov/Technology/digdiv_projects.html

Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004). Technology and equity in schooling: Deconstructing the digital divide. Educational Policy, 18(4), 562-588.

Waxman, H. C., & Huang, S. L. (1996). Classroom instruction differences by level of technology use in middle school mathematics. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(2), 147-159.

Waxman, H. C., Padr6n, Y. N., & Knight, S. L. (1991). Risks associated with students' limited cognitive mastery. In M. C. Wang, M. C. Reynolds, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of special education: Research and practice: Vol. 4. Emerging programs (pp. 235-254). Oxford, England: Pergamon.

Whitcomb, J. (2004). Dilemmas of design and predicaments of practice: Adapting the "Fostering a Community of Learners" model in secondary school English language arts classrooms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 183-206.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zamel, V. (1987). Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 697-715.

Znaniecki, F. (1934). The method of sociology. New York: Rinehard.

Teresa S. Foulger

Margarita Jimenez-Silva

Arizona State University