This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library]On: 13 November 2014, At: 17:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

The Teacher EducatorPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utte20

Preparing preserviceteachers to use computerseffectively in elementaryschoolsPatricia Clark a , Linda Martin a & Valerie Hall aa Department of Elementary Education , BallState University ,Published online: 20 Jan 2010.

To cite this article: Patricia Clark , Linda Martin & Valerie Hall (2000) Preparingpreservice teachers to use computers effectively in elementary schools, TheTeacher Educator, 36:2, 102-114, DOI: 10.1080/08878730009555256

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08878730009555256

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

17:

56 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

PREPARING PRESERVICE TEACHERSTO USE COMPUTERS EFFECTIVELY

IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Patricia Clark, Linda Martin, and Valerie HallDepartment of Elementary Education, Ball State University

Abstract

Computers and computer software have become integral componentsof the elementary school curriculum. Classroom teachers often expressconcern about the inadequate training they receive in the use oftechnology in the classroom. To meet the needs of future teachers, threeuniversity professors added issues related to using technology with youngchildren to existing courses for elementary education majors. In addition,they introduced criteria for evaluating software and gave studentsopportunities to select software for instruction. After completing thecourses, students were more comfortable with using computers, felt morecompetent about reviewing software, and were more aware of the issuesrelated to using technology for instruction.

Computers, as well as other forms of technology, are commonplace intoday's classrooms. As a result, teachers must make decisions aboutthese various technologies for classroom use, especially computersand software for instruction. The need to make appropriate decisionsabout different instruction technologies has spurred teachers andresearchers to develop a variety of methods for implementingtechnology in preschools and elementary schools (Balajthy, 1989;Butler & Cox, 1992; Downes & Fatouros, 1996; Mulligan & Gore,1992; "Wepner, 1992, 1993).

Nevertheless, teachers have some concerns about using sometechnologies for instruction. For example, teachers are interestedin using software in their classrooms but are concerned about itsappropriateness to the developmental needs of the students and thevarious curricular goals of the teacher (Haugland & Shade, 1994;National Association for the Education of Young Children[NAEYC], 1996). In addition, teachers often express a concernabout the inadequate training they receive in the use of technologyin the classroom. Most schools already incorporate various formsof technology, and teachers are expected to be competent in usingcomputers for instruction. As a result, it is important to preparefuture teachers to use the technology already present in most schools,

102

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

17:

56 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

to adapt to new technology, and to critically examine technology forinstruction.

This paper describes the efforts of three university professors toincorporate into existing undergraduate courses issues of technologyuse in elementary classrooms. The focus was on discussing issuesrelated to using technology with young children and selectingappropriate educational software.

The Role of Teacher EducationThe authors, three university professors in elementary education,

decided to make a concerted effort to prepare their undergraduateelementary education students to use technology in their classrooms.Although one author taught an early childhood course and the othertwo taught reading, they shared common concerns about preserviceteachers. Students need to be aware of the technologies currently inuse in schools, understand the issues related to the use of technology,and develop skills for evaluating computer software. Because of thecurrent influx of numerous CD-ROMs into the schools, reviewinginteractive software was an authentic task that might be expected ofstudents in the future.

Researchers (DeLaurentis, 1993; Henniger, 1994; Shade, 1996)have developed lists of criteria for evaluating software and evaluationreview forms to organize the criteria. In addition, suggestions forimproving the process of software evaluation, as well as the issuesthat need to be considered, have been described (Collura, 1995;DeLaurentis, 1993; Henniger, 1994; Shade, 1996; Sivin & Bialo,1992). Many of the software review forms contained criteria thatwere too general for practical application. Others were toocomplicated and detailed for easy use in evaluating software.

In addition, commercial reviews are widely available intechnology publications and on-line. Even though these reviewsprovide useful information, classroom teachers need to examinesoftware themselves and consider the particular needs of theirstudents and curricula as they determine the appropriateness of anypiece of software. For these reasons, software review forms that arerelevant to the content of the courses taught and easy to use weredeveloped.

Development of InstructionThese review forms were developed based on criteria reported in

the literature and on individual concerns (see Appendixes A and B).In considering how to implement the software review forms in class,the authors developed a basic outline that each followed in her

103

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

17:

56 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

separate sections. Although the courses were different, thecollaborative effort helped the authors develop useful plans forinstruction. Considering the value of technology in education, it wasimportant to model its use. Therefore, the method for demonstratingthe review forms was as important as the practice in which thepreservice teachers would be engaged. In addition, students learnfrom each other as they discuss various issues. Therefore, numerousopportunities for whole class and small group discussions wereprovided. The following describes the approaches used to implementinstruction in evaluating educational software.

Instruction in reading courses. Two of the authors worked togetherto develop a review form appropriate for use in their reading classes.To generate the criteria for the form, they reviewed the literature onsoftware selection and utilized criteria commonly considered whenmaking decisions about other instructional materials such astextbooks. As a result, the criteria generated were related to issuessuch as (a) specific objectives, (b) age-appropriate activities,(c) graphics and text support, (d) feedback, (e) student control,and (f) diverse populations. Refer to Appendix A for a descriptionof the criteria and the review form. Descriptions of the instructionalmethods used follow.

One professor introduced the topic of educational software toher students after several days of examining and evaluating readingbasais. Following the lessons on software, students reviewed contentarea textbooks and then literature. The students were told thatsoftware was another text that needed to be critically evaluated just asany materials used in the classroom. The students met in a computerlab equipped with an overhead projector and LCD panel connectedto a desktop computer. Students sat in groups of four at eachcomputer.

The students were given the review form with a list of definitionsfor the criteria that were listed on the form (see Appendix C). Theprofessor began by projecting a CD-ROM onto the screen throughthe LCD panel. She proceeded through parts of the CD, thinkingaloud about the review form and her evaluation of the software.After modeling the review process with several criteria on the list,she asked students to assist through the remainder of the form. Afterobserving the professor making critical remarks about the lack ofstudent control on an attractive literature-based CD, students feltcomfortable expressing their beliefs about the value of the CD. Manystudents were surprised that they did not enjoy that particular pieceof software although it was based on a popular picture book.

104

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

17:

56 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Through this process, students practiced a method for reviewingsoftware that they would follow on additional programs later in theclass. It was essential that students understood that the ranking theygave each criterion or the overall critique of a particular piece ofsoftware was not as important as the process of thinking aboutinstruction with software and talking with others to make decisionsabout teaching materials.

Following the modeling and directed practice, students weregiven a variety of CD-ROMs to evaluate. They worked in groups,following the CD instructions and discussing the value of eachprogram as they completed the form for three CDs. Studentsparticipated enthusiastically in the activities on the CDs as well asin the heated discussions concerning the appropriateness of theactivities. Each student was later graded on the completion of thereview form, on review group participation in evaluating thesoftware, and on the short narrative of the reviews and justificationsfor the students decisions.

As a result of their work, preservice teachers determined thatmany programs were difficult to control. They felt that childrenwould be frustrated with the inability to escape certain screens ormove to a different activity. The preservice teachers found that theycould not predict the appropriateness of a CD until they actuallyworked with it. They found that if they were going to use educationalsoftware in their classrooms, they must examine the programs todetermine those they considered most beneficial.

In her reading class, the second author read her college students abeautiful picture book. Listening and responding to stories hadbecome a natural way to begin class. After finishing the story, thestudents freely discussed their feelings about the story and itsappropriateness for classroom use.

The professor summarized the discussion by having the studentsreflect on the different types of texts (basais, content area texts, andliterature) that they had learned to assess critically for use withchildren this semester. The students were then asked to considersoftware as another form of text. In this discussion, the studentsrecognized the value of analyzing software because the public schoolswere very busy preparing for computers.

To guide the students' understanding of the importance ofevaluating software for classroom use, a lesson was developed thatsimulated an assignment that teachers are often asked to complete.The students were to play the part of second-grade teachers who hadbeen asked by the superintendent of their school district to evaluate

105

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

17:

56 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

the utility of software examples that had been sent by differentcompanies. The teachers' expertise was needed in order to invest inthe best software for the second-grade students.

To add to the authenticity of the activity, the professor alsoparticipated as one of the second-grade teachers who was asked bythe superintendent to lead the group activity. This gave her theopportunity to guide the students' decisions while they viewed thesoftware. To focus the students' attention on each piece of software,she thought out loud about different aspects of the process. Thestudents arranged themselves in teams of three to four, as teachersmany times do to make decisions. The following is a description ofthe role-playing activity involving the students as "teachers" and theprofessor as the "teacher-leader."

The acting teacher-leader explained their purpose for viewingsoftware for the district. She guided the students' attention to theCD-ROM examples and described the content and age range foreach.

The first CD was projected on a screen using a data projectorconnected to the computer and CD-ROM player. This disc providedthree options for reading a story. The child could choose to listen tothe entire story, to listen to the scene of his or her choice, or to listento one page at a time and select moving forward or backwardat the end of each page. For the demonstration, the page-by-pageoption was selected. As the story began, the students realizedimmediately that there appeared to be some problems. Severalstudents noted that the story was slow. One asked if there was anyway to escape from a scene in the story. With a list of criteria forreviewing software, the students discussed in their groups the utilityof this CD for classroom use, then all the students proceeded throughthe criteria together. The consensus was that this CD was not the bestinvestment for the district and the schools. It could not be operatedeasily by adults, so children would definitely need assistance. Onestudent commented that the recommended age range wasinappropriate. He said, "Obviously, there is a big difference betweenthree-year-olds and eight-year-olds." Another student spoke up andsuggested that maybe some stories, such as this one, should not beput on CDs.

The group viewed a second CD about dinosaurs, a populartheme in the early elementary grades. As the disc on dinosaursbegan, the professor noted that the instructions for using the discwere explained very concretely for adults and children. The studentscommented that the story offered many choices for children. These

106

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

17:

56 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

included repeating words in context if the participant needed to hearthem again, reviewing vocabulary words in various creative activities,and listening to the story in two different ways. There was even aspelling activity allowing the children choices in selecting words.The story activities also offered ways to monitor progress with eachactivity. The illustrations were interactive, moving and talking whenthey were activated. A student noted the ease with which childrencould change scenes, choose activities, or escape from the program.Another student commented, "I can see young children notonly enjoying it, but learning from it." The students discussed theutility of this particular CD and decided that this was an excellentinvestment for the second-grade classrooms in the school district.

After practicing as a group, the students were to use theknowledge they gained about reviewing software to examineadditional CDs. Each group would assess several CDs for classroomuse. They were asked to complete a review form and justify theirdecisions.

At the end of this college classroom activity, the studentssummarized the importance of considering software as anotherform of text. Hence, making decisions about the selection andimplementation of software is as important as decisions about anyother texts or materials. One of the last comments was, "Well, I guessyou can't tell a book by its cover."

Instruction in early childhood course. The third author involved inincorporating a technology component into her course taught anearly childhood class that focused on creative expression and learningthrough play. This author felt that it was important for students toconsider the issues related to the use of technology with youngchildren. She assigned her students readings to be completed beforethe first class session on technology. These included the NationalAssociation for the Education of Young Children's (1996) positionstatement on technology and a short article outlining some cautionsto be considered when using technology with young children(Elkind, 1996).

Students in the class were divided into small groups and eachgroup was asked to consider at least one issue concerning the use oftechnology with young children that was presented in their readings.As the groups each identified the issues, the professor typed theminto the computer that was connected to a data projector andprojected onto a screen. The issues raised by students were compiledto form the following general questions: (a) Is there a place fortechnology in a developmentally appropriate learning environment

107

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

17:

56 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

for young children? (b) How should technology be incorporated intothe early childhood learning environment? (c) What cautions do earlychildhood educators need to take into consideration when usingtechnology with young children? and (d) When used appropriately,what benefits can technology have in teaching young children? Theclass as a whole then discussed these questions.

For the second class, students were asked to read a chapter from abook on technology and young children that dealt with evaluation ofsoftware (Haugland & Shade, 1994). This article provides a sampleform to use when evaluating software for young children. The teacheremphasized the need to adapt such forms to fit the purpose for whichthey are intended. Because the students were in a class on creativityand play, the teacher provided a software evaluation form thatfocused on encouraging creativity and creative expression in youngchildren. Refer to Appendix B. This evaluation form includedsections on age appropriateness and technical features, as well as onencouraging creativity. The creativity section of the evaluation formasked students to rate the software on the following: (a) divergentthinking is encouraged, (b) open-ended questions are provided,(c) experimentation is possible, and (d) process, not product, is thefocus. These criteria related to what students had learned earlier inthe course about creative thinking and creativity in young children.

After reviewing and discussing the software evaluation form andworking again in small groups, the students viewed a CD-ROMprogram and used the form to evaluate it. This program wasspecifically designed for use with preschoolers, and students watchedas it was projected on a screen using an LCD panel. The groupsdiscussed various features of the CD-ROM as the teacher proceededthrough different parts of the program. They evaluated technicalfeatures and made judgments about whether or not the program wasage appropriate. In addition, they considered whether or not theprogram allowed for creativity on the part of the child. If they didnot feel that the program encouraged creativity, they were asked toconsider what young children might gain from the program. Thesmall groups then compared their evaluation results and explainedtheir ratings.

Students were then given their assignments: each student was toobserve a young child using a software program and to evaluate theprogram using the evaluation form. In this way, students would beable to not only view the software program, but see how a childresponded to it.

As a result of their examination and review of software, manystudents were impressed with the software they found for young

108

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

17:

56 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

children, although few found programs that they felt encouragedcreativity. In most cases, students found the young children wereinterested and engaged in the programs they were using. Some of theprograms, however, were difficult for young children to useindependently, despite advertising that targeted a preschool audience.Overall, students felt that there was a place for computer software inan early childhood program if it was carefully selected andincorporated in appropriate ways.

Technology Integration: What Students LearnedFrom the classroom discussions and the students' review of

software, three major areas were covered that extended theirknowledge of technology: (a) comfort with computer use,(b) competency in reviewing software, and (c) awareness of the issues.Each of these areas is described briefly below.

Comfort with computer use. Preservice teachers who participatedin the activities noted that they felt much more comfortable usingtechnology and planning instruction for children with technology.One student commented, "This is fun, even for adults." Anotherstudent stated, "Doing this assignment forced me to become familiarwith the computers and the new programs that are being producedfor children. I will not hesitate to sit down at a computer and workwith children to learn."

Competency in reviewing software. Preservice teachers becameaware of the wide variety of software products and the need to becritical when examining software for instruction. One student stated,"The criteria for this project provided me with different ways to lookat software that I had not thought of before. I now feel I candetermine what software would be appropriate to use in myclassroom someday." Students also understood how softwareevaluation needs relate to the goals of instruction. After reviewingsoftware, many students were impressed with the quality of theprograms. However, they found that the programs did not alwaysmeet the instructional objectives as presented on the software reviewform. For example, the early childhood software review form listedcriteria for promoting creativity. The early childhood students foundthat even though other criteria were met, most of the softwareprograms did not meet the criteria for encouraging creativity.Although this assignment focused on creativity as an instructionalgoal, students understood that creativity is not always the focus forinstruction. They concluded that the software they reviewed mightbe appropriate for other instructional goals.

109

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

17:

56 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Awareness of the issues. Making decisions that are appropriate andreflect good practice was also an area in which students began to feelmore competent. Students in the early childhood class discussedissues related to technology and developmentally appropriatepractice. They concluded that technology must be incorporated in away that is meaningful to children and that it should not replacehands-on, real-life activities. They also stated that teachers need tochoose software that addresses a broad range of areas important fordevelopment and learning, not simply skill and drill. In addition,these students saw the benefits of making children comfortable withtechnology because it will be an integral part of children's lives. Astudent from the reading class stated, "The criteria for this projectprovided me with different ways to look at software that I had notthought of before. I now feel I can determine what software would beappropriate to use in my classroom someday."

ConclusionTechnology is an important component in planning for

children's learning. Therefore, future teachers should be preparedto make appropriate decisions about the use of technology withchildren. As technology is incorporated into undergraduate courses,various methods are needed to introduce students to importantissues. In the current study, students were interested in and opento learning about technology and recognized the need to beknowledgeable about its use in schools. After participating in thesecourses, the students felt more comfortable and more prepared to usetechnology in elementary classrooms. It is important that teachereducation programs explore ways to prepare preservice teachers to usetechnology effectively.

References

Balajthy, E. (1989). Computers and reading: Lessons from the past and thetechnologies of the future. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Butler, S., & Cox, B. (1992). Discovery: Writing with a computer in gradeone: A study in collaboration. Language Arts, 65(8), 633-640.

Clark, P., & Stroud, J. (1998, April). Young children and technology: Whatis appropriate? Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwest Association for theEducation of Young Children, Toledo, OH.

Collura, K. (1995). Shopping for software. Momentum, 26(4), 33-35.DeLaurentis, E. C. (1993). How to recognize excellent educational software.

(ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 355 932)

110

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

17:

56 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Downes, T., & Fatouros, C. (1996). Learning in an electronic world:Computers and the language arts classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Elkind, D. (1996). Young children and technology: A cautionary note.Young Children, 51(6), 22-23.

Hall, V. G., & Martin, L. E. (1999). Making decisions about software forclassroom use. Reading Research and Instruction, 38(3), 187-196.

Haugland, S. W., & Shade, D. D. (1994). Early childhood computersoftware. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 5(1), 83-92.

Henniger, M. L. (1994). Software for the early childhood classroom: Whatshould it look like? Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 5(1),167-175.

Mulligan, P. A., & Gore, K. (1992). Discovery telecommunication:Education's missing link? Language Arts, 69(5), 379-384.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1996).Position statement: Technology and young children—ages three through eight.Young Children, 51(6), 11-16.

Shade, D. D. (1996). Software evaluation. Young Children, 51(6), 17-21.Sivin, J. P., & Bialo, E. R. (1992). Ethical use of information technologies in

education: Important issues for Americas schools. (ERIC Document ReproductionNo. ED 348 989)

Wepner, S. B. (1992). Technology links to literature: Using technologywith content area units. The Reading Teacher, 45(8), 644-646.

Wepner, S. B. (1993). Technology links to literature: Technology andthematic units: An elementary example on Japan. The Reading Teacher, 46(5),442-445.

I l l

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

17:

56 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Appendix AEDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE REVIEW FORM

1. Write the names of software you select for review and the intended age for each.2. Under each criterion, circle the number that best describes your review with

0 indicating lowest & 5 highest quality.3. Refer to the sheet "Definitions of criteria for Review Form" for more information.

Name & Age

Clear Objectives0 1 2 3 4 5

Implied Objectives0 1 2 3 4 5

Age Appropriate0 1 2 3 4 5

Supportive Graphics0 1 2 3 4 5

Supportive Text0 1 2 3 4 5

Immediate Feedback0 1 2 3 4 5

Cooperative Learning0 1 2 3 4 5

Critical Thinking0 1 2 3 4 5

Authentic Scenarios0 1 2 3 4 5

Ease of Integration0 1 2 3 4 5

Student Control0 1 2 3 4 5

Assessment0 1 2 3 4 5

Special Populations0 1 2 3 4 5

Diverse Society0 1 2 3 4 5

Overall Evaluation0 1 2 3 4 5

Other Related Sources

Comments

Note. From "Making Decisions About Software for Classroom Use," by V. J. Halland L. E. Martin, 1999, Reading Research and Instruction, 38{3), 187-196.Copyright 1999 by the College Reading Association. Reprinted by permission.

112

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

17:

56 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Appendix BCHECKLIST FOR EVALUATING SOFTWARE

FOR YOUNG CHILDREN

Title of Software:

Publisher:

Available on Mac/PC/Both

Age Range Indicated:

Developmentally AppropriateEmphasizes Active LearningContent is Age AppropriateChildren Set Pace/Can Stop AnytimeChildren Use IndependentlyEngages Children's InterestVerbal InstructionsSimple Directions

Diversity/Social ValuesAvailable in Languages other than EnglishReflects Racial/Cultural DiversityReflects Diversity in AgeReflects Diversity in AbilityReflects Gender EquityDoes not Contain Violence

Creative Thinking/Problem SolvingEncourages Divergent ThinkingOpen-EndedEmphasizes Process not Product

Technical FeaturesRealistic GraphicsRealistic Sound EffectsClear SpeechMinimum of Waiting

Additional Comments:

yesyesyesyesyesyesyes

yesyesyesyesyesyes

yesyesyes

yesyesyesyes

somewhatsomewhatsomewhatsomewhatsomewhatsomewhatsomewhat

somewhatsomewhatsomewhatsomewhatsomewhatsomewhat

somewhatsomewhatsomewhat

somewhatsomewhatsomewhatsomewhat

nonononononono

nononononono

nonono

nononono

Note. From "Young Children and Technology: What Is Appropriate," byP. Clark, and J. Stroud, 1998, a paper presented at the meeting of the MidwestAssociation for the Education of Young Children, Toledo, Ohio. Reprinted bypermission of the author.

113

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

17:

56 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Appendix CDEFINITIONS OF CRITERIA FOR THE REVIEW FORM

Clear ObjectivesThe objectives for using the software are clearly written.

Implied ObjectivesAlthough not specifically stated, the objectives or purpose are clearlyunderstood.

Age AppropriateRecommendations for the age/s most appropriate for instructional use,i.e., prekindergarten, kindergarten, primary, intermediate, is clearly labeled.

Supportive GraphicsThe software graphics aid the students' understanding of the text andsupport the objectives.

Supportive TextThe software text is easy to read and understand and supports the objectives.

Immediate FeedbackStudents receive immediate and encouraging feedback.

Cooperative LearningThe software activities encourage students to work together.

Critical ThinkingThe software activities guide students through various levels of thinkingprocesses, from literal in-the-text types of questions to evaluation wherestudents use the text for personal interpretations.

Authentic ScenariosThe software activities use authentic themes and examples so studentsconnect text information to real world situations.

Ease of Integration/Thematic UnitsThe software makes natural connections between different disciplines,e.g., social studies, science, health.

Student ControlThe software and accompanying manual are written so children can easilyfollow directions with limited assistance.

AssessmentThe software activities involve students in monitoring their own learningand include records, tests, remediation materials to monitor students'progress.

Special PopulationsThe software activities are accessible to special populations such as studentsin special education and students with limited English.

Diverse RepresentationThe software graphics and text represent children from a diverse Americansociety.

114

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

17:

56 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014