1. Secondary Writing Instruction and
Assessment Since NCLB: A Review of
the Literature as it Relates to
Technology
Matthew U. Blankenship, M.Ed.
Erin E. Margarella , M.Ed., M.A.
Jenifer J. Schneider, Ph.D.

2. Why technology is
important; a case study of
relevance…Twitter in the Classroom

3. Objectives
Determine how technology has influenced writing
instruction in the secondary classroom since the
implementation of NCLB in 2002.
Determine how technology has influenced writing
assessment in the secondary classroom since
the implementation of NCLB in 2002.

4. Methods
Database search
ERIC
Education Full Text
Hand Search
Written Communication
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Education
Delimitations:
Only student writing and technology
Only studies conducted in the US
Only middle and high school students
Search cut off 2002 NCLB- March 2012
Research in Peer Reviewed Journals

5. Data Sources
Mean
s
Search Terms # of Hits
# of
Usable
Hits
Why Eliminated?
DatabaseSearchof
EducationFullText
“Writing + assessment + technology +
secondary”
1 1 N/A
“Writing + assessment + technology + high
school”
4 0
1 repeat, other three focused on
behavior
“Writing + assessment + technology + middle
school”
0 0 N/A
“Writing + Instruction+ technology + secondary” 11 7
Countries outside of US,
elementary studies
“Writing + Instruction+ technology + high
school”
13 8
Repeat studies, countries outside
of US
“Writing + instruction+ technology + middle
school”
10 5 Repeat articles
DatabasesearchofERIC
“Writing + assessment + technology +
secondary”
24 11
Outside of US, secondary research
questions, teacher writing,
professional development.
“Writing + assessment + technology + high
school”
10 1
1 repeat, outside US, college
students, in service teachers
“Writing + assessment + technology + middle
school”
3 2 Teacher focused
“Writing + Instruction+ technology + secondary” 19 4
Outside US, Teacher focus,
elementary
“Writing + Instruction+ technology + high
school”
1 0 Pre-service teachers

6. Data Sources Cont.
Mean
s
Focused Key Terms Year # of Articles
HandSearchof
“WrittenCommunication”
Writing instruction+technology + secondary OR
high school OR middle school
20-02 – 2006 0
2007 1
2008 4
2009 0
2010 2
2011 – 2012 0
Writing + assessment+ technology + secondary
OR
high school OR middle school
2002 – 2012 0*
* Going to revisit for closer look
46 total articles reviewed

7. Framework for Article
Examination

8. Tenets of Writing to Learn
Writing is a social act; talk is part of the process
Writing is a process; there are many writing processes
We get better at writing by writing
To invest in writing, students need choice, response, and time
Clear, logical writing reflects clear, logical thinking. Because students think in
all content areas, it follows that students should write in all content areas
Writing is communication; the ability to communicate is essential
Fluency must be developed before clarity; clarity (control) must be developed
before accuracy and correctness (precision). Writers need to get it down
before they worry about getting it right.
(Graves, 1994)

9. Tenets of Technology Use
to Support Learning
Classroom instruction and information management
can be strengthened through the efficient use of
technology
Technology can support student learning
The information explosion requires that appropriate
changes in curriculum and instructional delivery take
place
Students need to know how to access and select
from the avalanche of information to help them solve
problems
Technology can and should facilitate the rethinking
and the restructuring of what takes place in the
classroom
(Nicolini, 2007)

10. Instructional Results

11. Technology
Use to
Support
Writing
Blogs
Movie
making
Share
d
writing
Interactive
feedback
Wiki
Webpage
design
Organizing
ideas
Promote
pos self
esteem
Multimedi
a projects
Information
and
Communica
tion
Technology
Connecting
students from
various
backgrounds
Digital book
talks

12. Instructional Results
3 Main Themes
Technology can improve writing and overall
student expertise
Technology can support writing through social
interaction and increase levels of motivation
Technology can promote a deeper level of
understanding and discourse within and among
students

13. Instructional Results
Technology can improve writing and overall student
expertise
Unmediated Primary Source Examination (Harris,
2002)
Access has traditionally been very limited
Helps support, but not rely on the textbook
Analytic writing is supported (Fasulo, Girardet,
&Pontecorvo, 1998)
Expert vs. Novice paradigm (Wineburg, 1991)
“Teachers can help create environments where
students can be researchers and creators of products
for reports, becoming experts in certain subjects”
(Wissick, 1996).

14. Instructional Results
Multimedia Support of Writing Through Social
Interaction
Social construction of learning through community
and collaboration (Vygotsky, 1962, Graves, 1994)
Students gain a sense of independence and remain
motivated to engage in the writing process as they
work in a multimedia environment (Faux, 2005)
Multimedia  pictures, sound, and text
Aural interaction (Rao, Dowrick, Yuen, 2009)

15. Instructional Results
Crossing Boundaries
When students cross borders to collaborate, they
pool their expertise and knowledge, generating new
knowledge and developing more complex
understandings of their topic of study (Moje et al,
2004)
Strengthening social connections
3rd Space (Bhabaha, 2004)
Transdiscplinarity
Bringing “out-of-school” literacy into school (Tarasiuk,
2010)

16. Assessment Results

17. Assessment Results
Technology is infused in special education writing
assessment and embedded within instruction (Rao,
Dowrick, Yuen &Boisvery, 2009; Lee, 2008).
Technology is found to be a motivator for students to
complete work and improve work (Dikli, 2006;
Gibbons, 2010; Kinzer, 2010; Wolsey & Grisham,
2007).
Technology can provide efficient means to provide
feedback to students (Grimes &Warschauer, 2010;
Horkay, Bennett, Allen, Kaplan & Yan, 2006; Krucli,
2004; Landauer, Lochbaum& Dooley, 2008).

18. Technology Infused with varying populations
“Computers, and their multimedia functions in particular,
allow students to access and interact with information …
with their area of strength” (Rao, Dowrick, Yuen &Boisvery,
2009, p. 29).
“As stated in the teacher interviews, teams in general
learned to write with more clarity and meaning” as
measured by a rubric (Rao, Dowrick, Yuen &Boisvery,
2009, p. 36).
Greater learning occurs when technology infused with
directed vocabulary instruction through extended writing,
as much as a 90% increase (Lee, 2008)
“Two teachers noted in interviews that it is easier to see
benefits with students at the lower end of the grade
spectrum (ELL and special education students) than with
honors students (Grimes &Warschauer, 2010, pg. 24)

19. Technology as a Motivator
“Provides immediate scoring and diagnostic feedback …
that motivates them to continue writing on the topic to
improve” (Dikli, 2006, p. 18).
Assessments can incorporate a real audience to increase
motivation through technology (Gibbons, 2010). In
addition, technology affords the opportunity to “post their
best work because it would be read by so many people
across the World Wide Web and not just a few people in
their classroom (Gibbons, 2010, pg. 37).
“It also appears that online activities are highly motivating
and compete favorably with required work assigned by
schools” (Kinzer, 2010, pg. 54). However, Kinzer (2010)
warns of overuse in the classroom will eliminate the
motivating assessment effect.

20. Efficient Means for
Feedback
“Automated writing evaluation (AWE) software has been
promoted as a way to remove the bottleneck” and partially
succeeds at accomplishing this goal (Grimes
&Warschauer, 2010, pg. 4).
“Auto text function gives [the teacher] the ability to prewrite
my most frequently used feedback comments and then
copy and save them for future use” (Krucli, 2004, pg. 48).
Also offers quick and timely delivery of information to
students (Krucli, 2004).
“Advances in assessment technologies are affording
teachers and students new ways to efficiently assess and
track achievement” (Landauer, Lochbaum& Dooley, 2008,
pg. 44).

21. Implications and
Significance

22. Significance for Classroom
Teachers
Technology can be used to support a variety of
writing activities, but must be well supported by
the teacher (Harris, 2002)
Technology use for instruction must serve a clear
purpose for learning (Inman, 2006, Jeffs,
Morrison, Messenheimer, Rizza, and Banister,
2003)
Social construction of new knowledge. Peers and
teachers work as coaches in the ZPD.

23. Significance Researchers
and Policy Makers
For researchers
More systematic study is needed in multiple
contexts. Majority of the assessment research is
qualitative in nature except when looking at
computerized programs and human comparisons.
For policy makers
More money is needed to supply schools and
teachers with appropriate technology and
sustained professional development.

24. Comments
Mublanke@usf.edu
erinmargarel@usf.edu
jschneid@usf.edu

25. References
Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruction in
middle schools and high schools. English Journal, 100(6), 14-27.
Barbetta, P. M., & Spears-Bunton, L. A. (2007). Learning to Write: Technology
for Students with Disabilities in Secondary Inclusive Classrooms. English
Journal, 96(4), 86-93.
Cramer, S. R., & Smith, A. (2002). Technology's impact on student writing at
the middle school level. Journal Of Instructional Psychology, 29(1), 3-14.
Dikli, S. (2006). An overview of automated scoring of essays. Journal of
Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 5(1), 1-36.
Gibbons, S. (2010). Collaborating like never before: Reading and writing
through a wiki. English Journal, 99(5), 35-39.
Grimes, D., &Warschauer, M. (2008). Learning with Laptops: A Multi-Method
Case Study. Journal Of Educational Computing Research, 38(3), 305-332.
Grimes, D., &Warschauer, M. (2010). Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case
study of automate. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8(6), 1-
42.

26. References
Harris, F. (2002). “There was a great collision in the stock market”: middle school students, online primary
sources, and historical sense making {computer file}. School Library Media Research, 5
Hetzroni, O. E., &Shrieber, B. (2004). Word Processing as an Assistive Technology Tool for Enhancing
Academic Outcomes of Students with Writing Disabilities in the General Classroom. Journal Of Learning
Disabilities, 37(2), 143-154.
Horkay, N., Bennett, R. E., Allen, N., Kaplan, B., & Yan, F. (2006). Does it matter if I take my writing test on
compus? An empirical study of mode effects in NAEP. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment,
5(2), XXXX-XXXX.
Inman, J. A. (2006). Technologies and the Secondary School Writing Center. Clearing House, 80(2), 74-76.
inzer, C. K. (2010). Considering literacy and policy in the context of digital environments. Language Arts,
88(1), 51-61.
Krucli, T. E. (2004). Making assessment matter: Using the computer to create interactive feedback. English
Journal, 94(1), 47-52.
andauer, T., Lochbaum, K., & Dooley, S. (2008). A new formative assessment technology for reading and
writing. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 44-52. doi: 10.1080/00405840802577593
Lee, S. (2008). Beyond reading and proficiency assessment: The rational cloze procedure as stimulus for
integrated reading, writing, and vocabulary instruction and teacher–student interaction in ESL. System,
36(4), 642-660. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2008.04.002

27. References
Montelongo, J. A., & Herter, R. J. (2010). Using Technology to Support Expository Reading
and Writing in Science Classes. Science Activities, 47(3), 89-102.
Nicolini, M. B. (2006). Making Thinking Visible: Writing in the Center. Clearing House,
80(2), 66-69.
Olson, M. R., &Truxaw, M. P. (2009). Preservice Science and Mathematics Teachers and
Discursive Metaknowledge of Text. Journal Of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(5), 422-
431.
Pederson, P. V. (2007). What is measured is treasured: The impact of the no child left
behind act on nonassessed subjects. The Clearing House, 80(6), 287-291. doi:
10.3200/TCHS.80.6.287-291
Peng, H., Fitzgerald, G., &Ko Park, M. (2006). Producing Multimedia Stories with ESL
Children: A Partnership Approach. Journal Of Educational Multimedia And Hypermedia,
15(3), 261-284.
Perry, B., &Smithmier, M. (2005). Peer Editing with Technology: Using the Computer to
Create Interactive Feedback. English Journal, 94(6), 23-24.
Powers, R. A., Craviotto, C., &Grassl, R. M. (2010). Impact of proof validation on proof
writing in abstract algebra. International Journal Of Mathematical Education In Science And
Technology, 41(4), 501-514.
Rao, K., Dowrick, P. W., Yuen, J. W., &Boisvery, P. C. (2009). Writing in a multimedia
environment: Pilot outcomes for high school student in special education. Journal of
Special Education Technology, 24(1), 27-38.

28. References
Schillinger, T. (2011). Blurring Boundaries: Two Groups of Girls Collaborate on a Wiki.
Journal Of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(6), 403-413.
Seely Flint, A., &TroppLaman, T. (2012). Where Poems Hide: Finding Reflective, Critical
Spaces Inside Writing Workshop. Theory Into Practice, 51(1), 12-19.
Strassman, B. K., &D'Amore, M. (2002). The write technology. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 34(6), 28-31.
Tarasiuk, T. J. (2010). Combining Traditional and Contemporary Texts: Moving My English
Class to the Computer Lab. Journal Of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(7), 543-552.
Weber, D., &Smithmier, M. (2008). Death of the 3″ x 5″ Note Cards. English Journal, 98(2),
37-39.
Witte, S. (2007). “That's online writing, not boring school writing”: Writing with blogs and
the Talkback Project. Journal Of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(2), 92-96.
Wilson, E. K., Wright, V. H., Inman, C. T., &Matherson, L. H. (2011). Retooling the Social
Studies Classroom for the Current Generation. The Social Studies (Washington, D.C.),
102(2), 65-72.
Wolsey, T. D., & Grisham, D. L. (2007). Adolescents and the new literacies: Writing
engagement. Action in Teacher Education, 29(2), 29-38.