Johnathan Wright

Technology and the Struggling

Student
Like art, a struggling student is hard to define, but teachers know them when they see
them. They are students who are unable to get the most out of classroom activities due
to one or more learning difficulties. Whether they are mentally challenged, suffer a
learning disability, or simply have experienced hardships in their early life that leave
them unskilled in a particular scholastic ability, some students will find themselves
unable to perform up to the expectations set by state standards or to the abilities of their
peers. The very individuality of each struggling student’s condition precludes easy
definition, and it requires trained professionals to pinpoint specific areas wherein these
students need support.

Yet in the English classroom these students are required by state and local mandate to
read some of the most complicated works ever written: the plays of William
Shakespeare. There is no way to avoid this challenge, and many teachers would
consider it a crime against the student and against society to not give their students a
sense of the grandeur of the Bard’s work. But if teachers and states are going to require
this of their students then it is their responsibility to support these struggling students in
every way possible.

In this paper I will argue that technology can be used in a progressive classroom to aid
the struggling student through the plays of Shakespeare. I will demonstrate how the
philosophy of John Dewey coincides with my personal professional theory and how
technology makes it possible for teachers to achieve at least part of Dewey’s dream of a
democratic classroom. As my criteria for an “A” I will analyze a number of existing kinds
of software that can help support the struggling student.

The Big Question

Over the past year, while also looking for full-time teaching work, I have reflected on my
love of Shakespeare and how I can help students to feel a part of that themselves.
These two pursuits merged as I was driving to a job interview in Marin. While
considering which questions I may be asked in the interview I asked myself, “If you are
studying technology in the classroom, what can technology do to help ELD and
struggling students deal with Shakespeare?” To my shock I had no answer, and I knew
that I needed to have one. A fundamental belief of mine is the need for differentiated
instruction. I have already had students feel they were not being challenged enough in
class, and have considered ways of providing enrichment activities in my class. But the
needs of struggling students are very different.
 Johnathan Wright

This “big question” then will be one of the foci of my curriculum thesis, and I have made
it the focus of my research for this semester. This reading has included an overview as
to the many varied reasons that students struggle with reading, as well as the
affordances and limitations of various technologies designed or adapted to help them.
This is my first attempt to put this research together in a cohesive whole.

Why do Students Struggle, and What can be Done?

In the early days of a child’s reading they focus on meaning and pronunciation of words,
a fairly arbitrary task of memorization. They move on to associating sounds with letters,
usually beginning and ending sounds. Problems at this stage usually involve problems
with recoding words quickly and accurately. More advanced readers use letters to
decode words they do not understand, leading to the ability to recognize words
automatically. Once a student no longer has to expend energy decoding, they are free
to focus on comprehension. Students who struggle at reading never get to the
comprehension stage, and thus get very little understanding out of their reading.

Hasselbring and Goin (2004) summarize the reasons why struggling (as opposed to
learning disabled) students have problems studying: insufficient word recognition,
leading to difficulties in decoding texts; difficulties in the extraction of complex ideas;
failing to identify relevant context clues; problems with prefixes and suffixes; poor short-
term memory. Many of these problems can be solved through a combination of
classroom interaction and reading practice.

Technology in a Progressive Classroom

To excite students about Shakespeare it is necessary to merge the lessons with their
own interests. This practice is related to the philosophy of progressivism: the idea that
students should have the power to motivate classroom activities. It is a Democratic
teaching style that empowers the students to engage in cooperative activities and to
develop a sense of self-discipline. Because the “real world” needs people to deal with
problems that are not taught in class, the focus is to teach students to think critically,
rather than giving them information that may not be relevant five years later. Ornstein
put it succinctly: Progressives place “emphasis on how to think, not what to think.” (p.
38) In researching student use of technology, the Digital Youth Project found that this
progressive idea meshes perfectly with the ways youth culture is interacting with the
internet.

Four years ago the MacArthur foundation launched the Digital Youth Project, a research
program designed to “determine how digital media are changing the way young people
learn, play, socialize, and participate in civic life.” (Ito, et al., 2008, p. I) What they found
was that most students use technology in a casual manner, to “hang out” with friends
and acquaintances. Texting and social networking sites are just another way of
 Johnathan Wright

connecting with their circle of friends. But some use these online communities to further
their own interests, creating or joining “interest-driven” communities of like-minded
individuals, all seeking to better their skills and understanding of the activities they love.
The key to incorporating technology into a progressive classroom is to find those
activities that already interest the students and adapt them to the lessons that must be
taught.

English teachers are not so different from their students. Their lessons on and attitude
towards Shakespeare are driven by an abiding interest in the language and lessons of
the Bard. Teachers have said that not exposing a student to Shakespeare in high
school would be tantamount to child abuse. Winton Marsalis said in the documentary
“Jazz” that art and artists will not come out to meet a person; one must go to the artist
and be exposed to the art in order to gain an appreciation of it. (Burns, 2000) This
makes it the teacher’s responsibility to engage student interest and direct it towards the
work of Shakespeare, making it accessible to the struggling reader whenever
necessary. In the educational gumbo created through the incorporation of student
interest and technology into the instruction of Shakespeare, a truly progressive
classroom can emerge.

My Personal Professional Theory in a Progressive

Classroom
Last year I developed a personal professional theory based on the three principals of
social knowledge construction, critical thinking, and differentiated instruction. Each of
these principals fit easily into a progressive classroom, and each will enrich the
education of the struggling student. Differentiated forms of instruction form the
cornerstone for helping struggling students. Also developing critical thinking skills is a
basic tenant of progressivism, and the foundation for the progressive classroom is a
democratic student body that works together to find their own meaning in their lessons.

John Dewey (as cited in Flinders & Thornton, 2009) himself comments on these ideas in
his “Pedagogic Creed”. The best lessons are those that authentically arise out of social
situations, such as interest-driven internet groups or in-class study groups with the
freedom to explore their own ideas. Even a struggling student who may not have read
an entire passage will benefit from these social interactions, and will have something to
add to the group’s meaning-making.

Although all students can benefit from these social groupings, many will require different
support in order to succeed in class. Teachers have a responsibility to teach all
students, and the only way to know what teaching method will work for each student is
to know that student, their capabilities and their interests. Dewey observed that action
precedes thought for a child, which suggests that the way to know what a student is
 Johnathan Wright

thinking is to observe their actions. Only then will a teacher know which tools in their
instructional arsenal will work.

Regardless of the methods used, the goal for every student is the same: that they learn
to use their own abilities to the utmost – that they learn to think as clearly and as
critically as possible. Though his use of pronouns shows the gender bias of the age,
Dewey’s vision of a student fully prepared to meet the world is inspiring. It can easily be
adapted to apply to students of both genders – a student adaptation that Dewey would
no doubt approve of:

To prepare [students] for the future life means to give [them] command of
[themselves]; it means so to train [them] that [they] will have the full and ready use of
all [their] capacities that [their] eye and ear and hand may be tools ready to
command, that [their] judgment may be capable of grasping the conditions under
which it has to work, and the executive forces be trained to act economically and
efficiently. (p. 35)

This is the vision I have for each one of my students. That I know I will be unable to
succeed with every student does not deter me from trying. For some the struggle is just
too great, and it is these students that I believe can be best helped through the use of
technology used to provide differentiated learning opportunities.

Technology and the Struggling Student

The struggling student’s problems are two-fold: first they have specific skill deficiencies
that make it difficult to gain comprehension of what they read; because of that they have
little interest in reading a complex text like a Shakespearean play or sonnet. A
comprehensive technology-based reading program can help with the first problem, and
conscientious use of the internet can help with the second.

Hasselbring and Goin (2004) lay out the necessities of any reading program that hopes
to deal with skills-based deficiencies in students. It must first focus on meaningful and
practical activities that, in the best progressive sense, are relevant and intrinsically
motivating. Adolescents need to see the value in what they do. Next it must respect the
students discomfort at showing a lack of skill before their peers, keeping their limitations
hidden from view. The program must provide some control for the students over their
own learning, empowering them to study what interests them. And finally it must build
on student strengths rather than weaknesses, on success rather than failure. Students
are unlikely to spend more time on tasks they have already tried and failed, and in order
to gain confidence in their skills they must both read and succeed at reading.

The Peabody Literacy Lab (PLL), developed in part by Hasselbring and Goin, is one
piece of software that helps to deal with these problems. It establishes the context of the
 Johnathan Wright

reading passages through video introductions. Readings are based on topics interesting
to young adults. Automated “tutors” read to students and a built-in dictionary helps
students to immediately define unknown words. It then helps build comprehension
through a variety of reading activities. Word and spelling labs then help with phonetic
and word comprehension difficulties.

Though not student chosen, PLL reading selections claim to be interesting and relevant
to students. They are designed to build reading comfort and confidence, both necessary
steps towards comprehension. The program constantly monitors the students progress
and modifies the lessons based on their ability. Though not the truly qualitative degree
of observation necessary for a truly progressive classroom, such a software program
could be an effective form of differentiated instruction for the struggling student.

Though struggling students can benefit from technology, Karchmer (2004) warns that
they must be supported when they try and use it just as much as if they are trying to
read. Although “reading difficulties, limited keyboarding capabilities, and poor
navigational skills” (pg.331) will prevent the struggling student from getting the most out
of internet activities, practice programs like PLL can assist with these basic skills.
However, one thing they can’t help with is the knowledge a student has to apply to their
comprehension of the reading.

A limitation of the struggling student that cannot be dealt with through simle skills
practice is a lack of background knowledge. According to Karchmer and others, learning
best occurs when students can relate new information to what they already know. Due
to their ongoing reading difficulties, struggling students lack a great deal of prior
knowledge, which limits their relational learning, leaving them unmotivated to learn. The
internet can become the student’s window, filling in the blanks in their background
knowledge.

Teachers can lead students into the themes of a complicated reading, like a
Shakespearean sonnet, by carefully crafting internet activities, such as historical
analyses, visuals of the imagery found there, and audio recordings of other sonnets to
demonstrate how punctuation affects the reading. Once struggling students have the
necessary background knowledge further internet activities can help them through the
text with actor readings and interpretations of the text.

For years teachers have used technology to help students go beyond the text and
demonstrate their comprehension of Shakespeare’s work. Audio and video recordings
of student scene interpretations and presentations have long been a part of
Shakespearean curriculum in the classroom. The internet can be used to augment that
experience by creating an authentic audience for student work. Through the use of a
wiki, an online bulletin board that can be edited by anyone who is a member, the
 Johnathan Wright

teacher can create what Ito (2008) calls a “networked public, [a] public culture that is
supported by online networks.” (p. 10) This wiki becomes the public forum for all student
work in the class, and a way of both sharing the work being done and helping others to
do theirs.

Rather than consuming media already found online, the students create new media as a
response to the lessons they are learning from the text. Scenes from Shakespeare’s
plays can be enacted and recorded, then posted to the wiki and commented on. Artistic
projects can be scanned, and the creation process even recorded to show the amount
of effort it took to create the work. Such a networked public inspires all students,
including those who struggle, to explore ideas in a self-motivated way, empowered by
“youth observing and communicating with people engaged in the same interests, and in
the same struggles for status and recognition, as they are.” (Ito, p.10) Networked
publics support the progressive notions of lessons motivated by student interest and of
socially constructed knowledge.

Limitations of Technology
Although the technology and the internet hold much promise for the struggling student,
its efficacy comes down to how it is used by the teacher. Even the best self-contained
computer programs can only do what they are designed to do. The Peabody Literacy
Lab, for all its claims to be interesting and relevant to students, is just another packaged
program. It cannot add new readings to itself that may be of greater interest to students.
This does not invalidate the student problems identified by the program: teachers could
use the PLL as a model for their own lessons and uses of technology.

This points to the most important discovery of Slavin (2008), who statistically analyzed
the results of dozens of research reports on various programs designed to help
struggling English students. After studying research on 145 reading programs, used by
over 35,000 students, Slavin found that only four of them, all of which offered
modifications to the teaching process as well as technological affordances, were even
moderately successful. None of the curriculum-only programs had a sufficient affect on
the struggling student to qualify for their analysis. Slavin’s research would seem to
suggest that the teacher and the classroom environment have more to do with the
success of the struggling student than the technology used.

Some may view these results and say that the millions of school dollars spent on the
programs were wasted, and would be better used in buying new books. An argument
could be made that the focus should turn back to the essential texts rather than trying to
follow the latest technology, which is bound by its very nature to be out of date in a few
short years. When considering this question one should keep in mind the pragmatists
attitude as summarized by Ornstein (1988): “The method is more important than the
 Johnathan Wright

subject matter.” (p. 30) The balance point is that there is nothing in that proviso that
says you can’t use essential texts in a pragmatic or progressive classroom – and there
are no more essential texts in English literature than Shakespeare. The important thing
is that the teaching methods used must take the nature of the students into account.

Progressivism asks that we look to the actions of the student to determine their
thoughts. There is another teaching method that also looks to the actions of the
students, but from an entirely opposite direction. Both progressivism and behaviorism
arose from a denial of old-school teaching methods, what Skinner (1987) describes as
“aversive” methods. When they misbehaved students were punished, what Skinner
called “negative reinforcement”. If the students wished to avert this punishment then
they behaved the way the teacher wanted them to. Although the method worked, it was
crude and harmful to students.

It also provoked negative feelings towards the controller, in this case the teacher.
Students resented the control exerted by the teacher, who became a figure to be
feared. The control exerted by teachers became something to rebel against, to try and
throw off. This, according to Skinner, is a simple biological imperative, an evolutionary
safeguard meant to protect the organism from harm. Aversive control is threatening,
and when confronted with a threat it is natural for an organism, even a human, to either
fight the threat or flee from its presence.

Thanks to his research, Skinner creates the science of Behaviorism, based on the idea
that the use of nonaversive control would achieve the same results as aversive, without
the subsequent rebellion. “Positive reinforcement” rewards desirable behavior rather
than punishing or threatening to punish the undesirable. Without a feeling of being
threatened the controlled organism – whether a dog or a human – feels no need to rebel
against the controller. For over 40 years behaviorism has been the hallmark of the
American classroom for one very simple reason: behaviorism works.

If a teacher wishes to see students behaving in a particular way they make that
behavior clear, then reward it when it occurs. Whether it uses praise, points, or
presents, a behavioristic discipline plan focuses on the external actions of the student,
without considering what is happening inside. In essence behaviorism is a secret form
of control, one that does not feel like control because the student is getting what they
want. The very secret nature of this control begs the question, “Is it enough that
Skinner’s methods work?” Behaviorism touches on ideas of respect and democracy that
are critical to networked publics and fundamental to the progressive attitude towards
teaching.

Students use self-regulated networked publics to explore their own interests with the
help of peer-based interactions. (Ito, 2008, p. 10) Students commit to these groups of
 Johnathan Wright

their own accord, creating or joining them intentionally, rather than grouping up based
on a chance proximity to a peer during class. Respect is a core value for these youth,
who seek out knowledgeable others for help with their hobbies and interests.
Behaviorism has little place in a democratic network where young and old are judged by
their knowledge instead of their age.

At its core behaviorism is innately undemocratic. As Rogers (1987) puts it, the very idea
of behaviorism flies in the face of the ages-old idea that man is and should be free. If a
person’s actions can be surreptitiously controlled then that person cannot be said to be
free. This takes away the concept of personal commitment to an act, the kind of
commitment that can push a person to seek out a network of peers, or overcome years
of psychological trauma and choose to live a healthier life. Giving an individual the
implicit choice to behave in a positive manner, without fear of punishment, is to free
them from the control of the behaviorist.

Extending that to the classroom, however, may seem to some to be a terrifying thought.
Visions of children running about class uncontrolled without fear of punishment
seemingly threaten the very foundation of modern learning. Yet the reason why
students would want to run around wild is that they do not want to do what the teacher
wants them to. When it comes to reading difficult texts, like Shakespeare, these
rebellions would become epics worthy of the bard, with the white-rose students revolting
against the red roses of the teachers.

Progressivism turns this story on its ear by giving students the freedom to choose their
actions, to take a hand in deciding how they will learn. It respects the desires and
abilities of the student by making their interests and talents the center of the class.
Artists can learn the vocabulary of the stage by creating virtual sets and costumes. Pop
culture fans can work their way through the plays by casting them with the latest stars
and creating soundtrack playlists for their mp3 players. When students are able to learn
what they need to by doing what they want to, there will be no need for the external
motivations found in behaviorism.

On a personal note, I have a keen reason for wishing to move past behaviorism and to
try something more student-centered. I have had the experience of teaching a class
where behaviorism did not work, where I failed to reach three students, and where I
believe the use of technology in a progressive environment would have.

The Troika
My second year at Napa High I was teaching a strategic English class – students who
had struggled through Freshmen year and were in danger of failing both their second
year of English and the California High School Exit Exam. The small 20-student class
met for two class periods, the goal being to focus on both the required texts and support
 Johnathan Wright

materials designed to help them succeed. Three of these students had a particularly
hard time: The Artist, the Rebel, and the Dumb Smart Kid. The Artist had no interest in
class at all, often coming in late or missing first period, and taking all his class time filling
his notebook with drawings. The Rebel had suffered from a difficult home life and
trouble with the law, making him the classic disruptive presence in class. The Dumb
Smart Kid could have done the work, but acted like he couldn’t – to the point where he
was in danger of failing almost all his classes.

I taught the class using behaviorism and the off-the-shelf grammar texts the district had
purchased. The Artist was having none of it, and blithely took an F in both periods,
despite my trying to work with his parents. The Dumb Smart Kid did just enough work to
pass both periods, though he easily could have aced the classes. The Rebel is the one I
think about still. I tried to work one-on-one with him, but the rest of the class was
incapable of working without direct instruction. The reason, of course, was that they had
never been taught to be self-motivated, and I was unable to make the time the Rebel
needed to succeed. He was sent to juvenile hall and I never saw him again.

I do not know if a technologically robust progressive classroom would have helped

these three students, but I do know that the classic education system did not. There are
numerous avenues that the Artist could pursue in mastering the skills of class. He could
have studied the parts of a story by creating a comic, or memorized vocabulary words
by making them into graffiti tags. By differentiating the lessons available to the Dumb
Smart Kid he could have found something that would motivate him to push further. And
with a more independent classroom I may have had the time to build the kind of raport
with the Rebel that could get inside his defenses so I could give him the help he so
desperately needed.

The New Shape of Class

From this brief review of ideas I begin to see the shape of the class I want to teach. I
have learned more about the limitations of struggling students, and some ways of
possibly overcoming and adapting to them. I’ve also learned about the affordances and
restrictions of software designed to help the struggling student. I will now look at some
popular kinds of software with an eye towards how they could be incorporated into
class.

Earnest Balajthy (2006) researched the use of text-to-screen (TTS) programs that can
read the any word on the computer screen, either within an internet website and email,
or on books that are scanned into the program, and turn them into speech using an
artificial computer voice. He found that those teachers who used the software with their
struggling students reported marked improvements in their reading comprehension.
There is research that shows test performance improvements by as much as one third
 Johnathan Wright

for some students using certain kinds of TTS programs. What he also found was use of
TTS systems is infrequent at best.

Some may balk at its use due to fears of the cost, but there are free TTS softwares
available, which can help alleviate the problem of teacher use. Programs such as “Read
Please” will read any text pasted into it with an unfortunately robotic voice. Paid
versions such as “Read Please Plus” have a variety of voices and offer web browser
interaction that will read the content of a web page without copying and pasting.
Although not as useful, the free TTS programs would be helpful for struggling readers
who need the additional scaffolding of having the text read to them.

The chief advantage of TTS programs in a Shakespeare class is the fact that all the
Bard’s works are available online, in a variety of formats. Original spellings, modern
updates, even baudlerized versions from later periods are all available as public domain
documents online, making it easy to find the text for use with any software program in
order to help the struggling reader.

Gunter and Kinney (2008) found that these same readers struggled just as much with
non-classroom books, such as those usually chosen for silent sustained reading. They
determined that the key is to match these struggling readers with writers and genres
that interest them, then give them a forum for sharing their reading experiences. Digital
booktalks were a way of doing both. Like in-class discussions of books, where teachers
and students review the context of a book, a digital booktalk creates a multimedia
preview of a book, like a movie trailer, that stimulates the interest of the reader while
frontloading important information about the book for readers that need the additional
support.

Video book trailers (VBTs) have all the benefits of a movie adaptation of a book giving
readers the context of the book and allowing them to visualize what they read – without
any of the drawbacks – spoiling the surprises a first-time reader encounters within the
story. VBTs grant authorship to students by encouraging them to create their own
trailers for the books they read. Communicating to this authentic audience can be just
the internal motivation a struggling student needs to push on through a text. VBTs for a
variety of Shakespeare’s plays are available, and the availability of all of them on video
makes finding the raw material for students to create more as easy as doing an
YouTube search.

Both TTS software and VBT online trailers can be used in class with a minimum of
expenditure. But with the advent of the Kindle and other book reader hardware a new
level of possibility is available to teachers and students. Cavanaugh (2006) reviewed
the use of electronic, or e-books, before the advent of the hand held book reader, but
his conclusions are just as valid with them as with desktop book reading software. He
 Johnathan Wright

sees how book readers can offer a variety of affordances for the struggling reader: a
wide range of reading materials, so students can choose books that are meaningful to
them; large-print materials, to make reading easier; the engaging of multiple modalities,
through built-in TTS; vocabulary support, through online dictionaries; and pre-reading
techniques, through the availability of free first-chapters from online book sellers.

All of these authors found that strategic readers, those who effectively use reading
strategies that allow comprehension of a text on or above the instructional reading level,
would not benefit from these software affordances, and in fact would read much slower
than their normal level. However this software is just the thing for a differentiated
curriculum designed to support and encourage the reading and comprehension of
complicated texts, like Shakespeare, for all students.

Conclusion
In today’s new-media culture the inclusion of technology into a progressive classroom is
a must. Though most struggling students will be far from the legendary “digital natives”
spoken of in research and pop culture, many will be interested in using technology, and
those machines can help them succeed where other things have failed. While students
may have balked at Shakespeare in the past, the well-planned inclusion of technology
can open new doors of understanding. Like all things in school, it depends on how it is
incorporated into the classroom. Technology is no magic lamp, requiring only a brisk rub
to make magic. It is a tool, like so many others in a teacher’s arsenal, and it must be
marshaled and utilized with precision in order to achieve the full benefit of its promise
for our students.
 Johnathan Wright

Works Cited
Balajthy, E. (2006). Using Text-to-Speech Software with Struggling Readers. College
Reading Association Yearbook , 364-370.

Burns, K. (Director). (2000). Jazz [Motion Picture].

Cavanaugh, T. (2006). The digital reader: using e-books in K-12 education. Eugene,
OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Gunter, G., & Kinney, R. (2008). Digital Booktalk: Digital Media for Reluctant Readers.
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(1) , 84-99.

Hasselbring, T. S., & Goin, L. I. (2004). Literacy Instruction for Older Struggling
Readers: What is the Role of Technology? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 20 , 123-144.

Ito, M., Horst, H., Bittanti, M., boyd, d., Herr-Stephenson, B., Lange, P. G., et al. (2008).
Living and Learning with New Media. Chicago: The John D. and Cathrerine T.
MacAurther Foundation.

Karchmer, R. A. (2004). Creating Connections: Using the Internet to Support Struggling

Readers' Background Knowledge. Reading & Writing Quraterly , pp. 331-335.

Ornstein, A. Philosophical Foudation of Curriculum. In Curriculum: Foundations

Principals and Issues (pp. 25-51). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Rogers, C. (1987). Freedom to Learn. In J. W. Noll, Taking Sides (pp. 90-96).

Connecticut: Dushkin Publishing Group.

Skinner, B. (1987). Freedom Through Control. In J. W. Noll, Taking Sides (pp. 85-89).
Connecticut: Dushkin Publishing Group.