TechTrends (2016) 60:218–225
DOI 10.1007/s11528-016-0041-8
ORIGINAL PAPER
The Neglected BR^: Improving Writing Instruction
Through iPad Apps
Laird Sessions 1 & Mi Ok Kang 2 & Sue Womack 2
Published online: 27 February 2016
# Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2016
Abstract In this study the authors investigated the effects of
integrating iPad applications into writing instruction for fifth
grade students. By comparing the writing of students taught
with paper and pencil methods with that of students utilizing
the iPad writing applications, two research questions guided
the study: (1) Are there differences in student writing, espe-
cially in visualizing, sequencing, or incorporating sensory de-
tails, depending on whether they used iPad apps or paper and
pencil? (2) What are, if any, the influences of iPad apps on
student’s attitude, behavior, or social relations during the writ-
ing instruction? The results demonstrated that the students
with iPad apps wrote more cohesive, sequential stories using
more sensory details than those with paper and pencil. iPad
apps also had an impact on motivation to write and changed
the classroom dynamics as iPad apps made the writing process
more social and engaging.
Keywords Elementary education . iPad apps . Literacy .
Technology . Writing instruction . Writing motivation
Students’ writing skills are known to be a gateway for college
success as well as employment and promotion in the
* Mi Ok Kang
momoinme@gmail.com
Laird Sessions
laird.sessions@gmail.com
Sue Womack
Sue.Womack@uvu.edu
1
Daegu American School, Daegu, South Korea
2
Utah Valley University, Orem, UT, USA
workplace (Graham 2008). However, writing instruction, a
comprehensive support for students’ development of ideas,
organization of ideas, language facility and conventions in
their writing process (Bridges 2011; Culham 2011; National
Commission on Writing 2003) was deemphasized in curricu-
lum delivery, and students’ writing deficiencies were
compounded from the elementary level through the time of
high school graduation (NCW 2003, 2006). Seeing that writ-
ing instruction was neglected despite the mounting evidence
of clear deficiencies in student writing, the National
Commission on Writing (NCW) branded these skills as the
neglected BR^ (2003). Currently, the initiatives for the new
Common Core State Standards in many states in the U.S.
require technology competencies within the writing standards
by asking students to use various technologies to produce and
publish their writing through collaboration with peers and also
through receiving support from adults in the process.
Given that the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) piloted a computer-based writing exam in
2012 for 4th graders and proctored a computer-based writing
exam for 8th and 12 graders, their rationale speaks to the idea
that teachers will increasingly need to evaluate available tech-
nology tools including word-processing review tools and
editing tools that can enhance the overall quality of student
writing.
For instance, the test itself monitors how often students
utilize spell check or use copy and paste features offered with-
in the test while simultaneously teaching the broader skills of
writing. Therefore, teachers need to develop more technology
driven instruction for teaching writing to improve students’
writing as well as technology competences. Utilization of
new technologies for writing instruction is one possibility in
engaging and motivating students to improve the quality of
elementary students’ writing (Cutler and Graham 2008). As
Harris et al. (2009) explained, content-based pedagogy with
TechTrends (2016) 60:218–225
thoughtfully selected and implemented technologies would
effectively facilitate students’ learning in ways that are con-
gruent with writing curriculum standards.
Given Harris et al. (2009) idea that teacher instruction
coupled with technology would improve student writing, the
authors of this article studied the effects of iPad writing appli-
cations on student writing. This study examined the writing of
students taught with traditional methods using paper and pen-
cil in comparison with that of students utilizing the iPad tech-
nology and associated writing applications. Applying the nar-
rative inquiry method (Creswell 2013), this study answers
these two research questions: (1) Are there differences in stu-
dent writing, especially in visualizing, sequencing, or incor-
porating sensory details, depending on whether they used iPad
apps or paper and pencil? (2) What are, if any, the effects of
iPad apps on students’ attitude, behavior, or social relations
during the writing instruction?
Writing to Learn and Effectiveness of the iPad
as Pedagogic Tool
Writing is integral for student success. As students learn to
read, then read to learn, they learn to write, then write to learn
(Graham 2008). Writing skill is a medium for students’ reflec-
tion, analysis, and critical thinking. It leads students to in-
depth understanding about texts and helps students crystalize
their thinking. Current state core standards ask students to
demonstrate the ability to produce sophisticated writing based
on extensive content knowledge base (Laud 2013), but learn-
ing to write is a barrier for some students; therefore, develop-
ing effective instructional strategies to improve elementary
students’ writing becomes a crucial task. At the center of the
discussion is how to make writing instruction more engaging,
motivational, and interactive.
Among many other technologies, the iPad was acknowl-
edged as one of the most effective instruments for constructive
teaching, and the built-in features of the iPad was known to
afford students a personalized as well as interactive learning
experiences (Sipe 2013). However, little research is currently
available on the effects of using the iPad for writing instruc-
tion. Although there has been much research into technology
integration in literacy instruction, it has focused primarily on
reading instruction (Boeglin-Quintana and Donovan 2013;
Delacruz 2014).
Research found that student writing using computers made
writing activity more social and engaging (Goldberg, Russell,
and Cook 2003), positively affected eighth grade writing
scores (Silvernail and Gritter 2007), and improved learning
in children with disabilities (McClanahan, Williams,
Kennedy, and Tate 2012). However, technology integration,
specifically integration of iPad and writing-specific education-
al applications, in writing instruction in elementary classrooms
219
has barely been discussed. Therefore, this study is expected to
fill the gap by analyzing the effects of integrating the iPad and
writing applications into students’ learning and by determining
if the selected writing applications made any noticeable differ-
ences in student writing, specifically students’ writing skills in
visualizing, sequencing, and using sensory details.
Visualization is a strategy in which students develop pic-
tures in their minds, immerse themselves in rich, imaginative
details, and become more engaged in language learning
(Moreillon 2009). Sequencing is one of the basic organiza-
tional structures that makes writing cohesive and clear. It al-
lows students to order their thoughts using time frame, numer-
ical or spatial order, and logical development (Staton 1984).
Using sensory details, writers convey a universal feel that
readers can reflect on and share the author’s experience, as it
allows readers to see, hear, touch, smell, and taste as the author
did; thus, sensory details make stories come to life
(Shih 1986).
As Landenwich (2001) found in her 5th grade literacy
class, students demonstrated considerable changes in their
writing details when they were challenged to draw pictures,
improve their sequencing ability, and specify sensory details
in their writing. However, many struggling students have hard
a time in visualizing, sequencing, and using sensory details
effectively when they read and write, so teachers need to de-
velop specific lessons for these strategies. Would employing
iPad applications instead of those pencil-and-paper methods
provide students with useful tools to visualize their subject,
make sequences, and specify sensory details in their writing?
Based on this question, we designed this study and selected
several iPad applications applicable to 5th grade writing in-
struction to examine their possible effectiveness.
Method
Contexts and Participants
Our participants were an intact class of 5th graders from a
suburban school in the mountain west region of the United
States. To accommodate large class sizes, the students at the
research site follow an ‘early-late’ model whereby classes are
divided into two separate groups or tracks where one arrives
earlier than the other but are also dismissed earlier thus less-
ening the time a teacher has the full group of students. Each
track has a heterogeneous mix of both gender and academic
abilities, and the school names the early arrivers as Track A
students, while the late leavers as Track B students. Each track
is formed largely by parental preference, and each track con-
sists typically of 15 students on average.
This Track A-B structure naturally lent itself well to this
particular study for comparison (Track A) and treatment
groups (Track B). Fifteen students in each track assented to
220
join this study along with parental consent, so all 30 5th
graders participated in total.
Of the 30 students, 13 were girls and 17 were boys. In
addition to analyzing 30 notebooks that the participants sub-
mitted, we conducted seven audio interviews, one with each
case study students (high, medium, and low from each track)
as well as one who was not a case study student, but produced
the best overall writing from the entire class. For the audio
interviews, we asked all participants to share (1) their choice
of a picture book that assisted them with creating sensory
details the most, and (2) a portion of their writing of which
they were particularly proud. With the B track students who
used the iPad apps we specifically asked (3) which apps they
found most helpful, and (4) what flaws in the apps they dis-
covered, and (5) what ways the apps helped them develop
their story.
The teacher may also be considered a participant in that he
conducted this study in the course of his daily instruction. He
provided the instruction and guidance to students, made in-
structional decisions, interacted with the students regarding
their writing, and used his insight as the classroom teacher to
interpret the findings.
Design
This study consisted of 3 units of study for all students in their
respective tracks. Students on Track B received teacher in-
struction and used iPads and writing applications, while
Track A students received the same teacher instruction but
they only used paper and pencil methods in their writing.
Three units of study were taught to both groups during the
study. The first exposed students to concrete details through
carefully selected exemplary writing samples primarily fea-
tured in a variety of picture books. The second unit also sought
through picture books to train students how to identify and
experiment with sensory details and sequencing through
storyboarding and other prewriting graphic organizers.
Visualizing skills were practiced throughout both the first 2
units, but more heavily in the second. The third unit put three
writing skills together by providing a context, in this case an
imaginary journey with a new world explorer aboard
their ship.
Initially all students were administered the writing portion
of the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) to estab-
lish a standardized baseline and to identify low, medium, and
high achieving students from each track. Additionally, one
student of each classification on each track was selected to
serve as a case-study student, for a total of six case study
students. The case-study students were blind to their selection
and participated in identical ways to the rest of their tracks.
The iPad Apps used for this study are: Paper (Excelsior
College Press 2014), Tamajii (Tamajii Inc 2012), Dragon
Dictation (Nuance Communications 2013), Toontastic
TechTrends (2016) 60:218–225
(Launchpad Toys 2013), Popplet (Notion Inc 2013), and
Story Builder (Mobile Education Store 2013). See Table 1
for a complete view of the design and Table 2 for a brief
explanation about the iPad Apps used.
Data Sources and Methods for Analysis
Qualitative data were collected and analyzed in multiple
ways. Students kept daily learning journals regarding
their writing activities and decision-making during story
drafting. At the end of each unit of study, each student
met with the teacher for a semi-structured interview.
The case-study students’ interviews contained more
follow-up questions than the general population. The
interview transcripts became data which was analyzed
to answer the questions of interest. In addition, stu-
dents’ writing pieces were data. The general method of
data analysis was to take an in-depth look at the six
case-study students’ data production, followed by quick
reads of each Track’s data to verify or amend the
themes uncovered.
Student Writings
Student writings were collected and coded according to
criteria suggested by the Fifth Grade Core Standards (see
Table 3). For example, the 2015 Common Core State
Standards Initiatives (CCSSI) specifies that students are to
use BUse concrete words and phrases and sensory details to
convey experiences and events precisely^ (CCSS.ELA-
LITERACY.W.5.3.d), and B… organize an event sequence
that unfolds naturally^ (CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.5.3.A).
References to words relating to visualizing, sensory details,
or sequencing were used as benchmarks for coding and anal-
ysis. Instances of student use of concrete words, phrases, sen-
sory detail, and appropriate sequencing were counted in each
piece of the case-study students’ writing and compared to
prior writing.
Student Journals and Interviews
We also explored the entire writing process from the students’
perspectives. By way of journaling, the students justified and
detailed their decision-making. Journals of the six case-study
students were analyzed and coded for frequency of key de-
scriptive words dealing with the five senses or transition
words involving sequential order. Students were also queried
during semi-structured interviews. During the interview pro-
cess, students clarified any portions of their journals that
seemed unclear upon reading, and those clarifications aided
in both the word-coding and in accurately determining their
decision making processes, creating the themes reported in the
findings.
TechTrends (2016) 60:218–225 221

Table 1 Study Design

Descriptions of the units Track B- iPad App Use Track A- Paper/Pencil use

DRA Week 1 Criterion referenced. Focus on story
sequencing and details
Unit 1 Weeks 2 and 3 Baseline. Students developed skills
in visualizing through analyzing a
variety of picture books, songs, and
novel excerpts. Sequencing was
also taught using the natural structures
found in most traditional picture books.
Unit 2 Week 4 Students created narrative based
writing with both historic facts
and sensory details in a nautical
setting.
Unit 2 Week 5 Students continued developing skills
through written assignment.
Unit 3 Week 6 Students continued developing skills
through written assignment.
Unit 3 Week 7 Sequencing was taught in part through
summarizing the events in the picture
book Yertle The Turtle by Dr. Seuss.
Unit 3 Week 8 Students were taught mind mapping
skills through dividing a page into
comic book squares.
Unit 3 Week 9 Independent writing assignments
completed and assessed.
DRA Test administered and graded.
3 students selected for case study.
Direct Instruction was used to teach
and assess Unit 1 on sequencing
and visualization.
Introduced students to iPad. Began
teaching unit 2 on sensory details.
Students began journaling.
Introduce Paper App. Assess iPad
and Toontastic skills, finish and
assess end of unit 2.
Introduced Tamajii App. which
taught visualization skills as
well as Dragon Dictation a
voice to text app.
Taught Story Builder App which
records student responses and
sequences them into a story.
Taught the Popplet App, which helped
students map out their story.
Students selected apps to assist them in
completing unit 3 assignment.
Semi-structured interviews with each student
regarding writing and apps based on
journal entries
DRA Test administered and graded.
3 students selected for case study.
Direct Instruction was used to teach
and assess Unit 1 on sequencing
and visualization.
Began teaching unit 2 on sensory
details using paper pencil methods.
Students began journaling.
Finished unit 2 with paper pencil
methods and assess.
Taught visualization through paper
and pencil methods.
Students learned sequencing skills
using paper and pencil methods.
Mind-mapping skills were taught
using paper and pencil methods.
Students complete and were assessed
on Unit 3 by using pencil paper
methods. Group interview regarding
writing based on journal entries

Findings Comparison of Writing in Visualizing, Sequencing,

Several key findings emerged from the analyses of all data
sources. First, there were similarities between Track A and
Track B groups in sensory detail, but also notable differences
in visualization and sequencing. Second, there were sur-
prising affordances that emerged in motivation and class
dynamics. Both of these areas are detailed in the fol-
lowing paragraphs.
Table 2 Selected Apps for Track B
Paper (Excelsior College Press 2014) is an award-winning app that is
designed to be a multifunctional sketchpad.
Tamajii (Tamajii Inc 2012) is similar to Paper in that it works on plot and
visualization but one key difference is that visual templates are pro-
vided such as backgrounds, people, and other props.
Dragon Dictation (Nuance Communications 2013) is a voice to text app
that first records a person’s voice and then digitizes it into text.
Toontastic (Launchpad Toys 2013) allows students to create animated
short films while learning about dramatic structure.
Popplet (Notion Inc 2013) is a mind- mapping app, which helps students
sequence and link ideas through linked boxes.
Story Builder (Mobile Education Store 2013) helps children by
prompting students to record answers to questions about a picture and
then knits these answers together into a story
and Incorporating Sensory Details
When comparing the two instructional methods, iPad app use
and paper/pencil use, several interesting patterns were noted.
Both tracks showed improvement on the targeted skills
of incorporating sensory detail, visualization, and se-
quencing. Although both tracks were taught identical
lessons, a noticeable difference emerged approximately
half way through the 9-week period. The students from
Track A (paper/pencil use) began to increase their focus
on creating vivid sensory and concrete details as they
wrote. In the following example, the use of sensory
details is effective with strong verbs and vivid adjec-
tives supporting each other.
It had tropical fruits dangling from tall majestic trees.
Rising, blue waves slapped the shore where shells lay
scattered about. (Track A Ellie)
The Track B (iPad app use) students’ writing also
demonstrated increased use of sensory details, but the
iPad apps helped the Track B students most in their
sequencing skills, which was lacking in Track A (pa-
per/pencil use) students. Using an app, students were
222 TechTrends (2016) 60:218–225

Table 3 Common Core State

Standards for Writing in English
Language Arts Literacy (CCSSI
2015)
Standards Text types and purposes
Writing 5.1 Write opinion pieces on topics or texts, supporting a point of view
with reasons and information.
Writing 5.2 Write informative/explanatory texts to examine a topic and convey
ideas and information clearly.
Writing 5.3 Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events
using effective technique, descriptive details, and clear event sequences.
5.3.A Orient the reader by establishing a situation and introducing a narrator
and/or characters; organize an event sequence that unfolds naturally.
5.3.B Use narrative techniques, such as dialogue, description, and pacing, to
develop experiences and events or show the responses of characters
to situations.
5.3.C Use a variety of transitional words, phrases, and clauses to manage the
sequence of events.
5.3.D Use concrete words and phrases and sensory details to convey experiences
and events precisely.
5.3.E Provide a conclusion that follows from the narrated experiences or events.
Writing 5.4 Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development and organization
are appropriate to task, purpose, and audience. (Grade-specific expectations
for writing types are defined in standards 1–3 above.)
Writing 5.5 With guidance and support from peers and adults, develop and strengthen
writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a
new approach.
Writing 5.6 With some guidance and support from adults, use technology, including
the Internet, to produce and publish writing as well as to interact and
collaborate with others; demonstrate sufficient command of keyboarding
skills to type a minimum of two pages in a single sitting.
Writing 5.7 Conduct short research projects that use several sources to build knowledge
through investigation of different aspects of a topic.
Writing 5.8 Recall relevant information from experiences or gather relevant information
from print and digital sources; summarize or paraphrase information in
notes and finished work, and provide a list of sources.
Writing 5.9 Draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support analysis,
reflection, and research.
Writing 5.10 Write routinely over extended time frames (time for research, reflection,
and revision) and shorter time frames (a single sitting or a day or two)
for a range of discipline-specific tasks, purposes, and audiences.

able to create picture sequences to match the story arc
of rising action, conflict, and resolution giving students
a view of the beginning, middle, and end of their story
on one single page (see Fig. 1 for this process).
The Track B students also demonstrated stronger visualiz-
ing skills than those in Track A. In their writing, they used
transition words involving time by showing with precision
rather than telling:
I took a risky step to my left. I paused. Then I glanced
around. Not a soul in sight. That was good. I stretched
my foot out in front of the Captain’s cabin. I slowly, very
slowly, eased my foot down. The brown floorboards
creaked. My foot shot back. I hesitated, then stepped
carefully again. I darted to the other side of the slippery
deck, ignoring the floorboards as they shrieked under
my weight. (Track B Mora)
The Track B (iPad app use) students’ stories moved for-
ward in dynamic ways in contrast to the static picture painted
by the Track A students.
Perhaps the most marked effect of using the iPad apps in
comparison to paper/pencil use was in students’ approach to
writing and in the decisions made during composition. Track
B students reported being able to keep the action moving
throughout their story and make critical decisions regarding
when to introduce characters or when to speed up action and
when to slow it down to create tension. A general observation
by Track B students in multiple interviews was that for the
first time they had the ability to actually see on a screen what
they were thinking. As a student described, BI have a hard time
getting my ideas out. With [the app] I could see my ideas on a
screen instead of only in my head. (Track B David)
As their thoughts unfolded on the app, which ran much like
a movie, they were better able to see deficiencies in the flow of
TechTrends (2016) 60:218–225
Fig. 1 Picture sequencing using
Toontastic app (Launchpad Toys
2013)
Eli’s Characters Assembling
their story. They could see the story as a whole, and make
adjustments to correct any flaws. According to a student,
Without the app you know you are on the ship but you
can’t tell where all the stuff is. With the app you have
better placement of characters. Instead of saying I was
going over there you might say I was going over to the
east side of the ship. You would describe things better.
(Track B Nicole)
Being able to manipulate the elements of the app allowed
the students to bring their vision to writing. In contrast, Track
A students most often used a more piecemeal, stream of con-
sciousness. For example, this student reported lack of plan-
ning, typical of this track, BThe middle of the story was the
hardest when I had to make so many decisions because with
so many ideas to get out it was like a never ending story^
(Track A Seth).
In general, Track A students appeared to have written down
ideas as they came into their minds rather than sequencing
them in a logical way. This example is representative:
He even showed me how to fish. When the smell of the
fish came, I thought someone had died and he rotted
there for a few days. But don’t think it was toxic or
something. Well now that I think of it maybe it was
toxic. And guess what, Columbus himself gave me
Josh Conker McClellan his captain’s badge. (Track A
Charley)
There is no hierarchy for events, and each thought is given
equal treatment. Each sentence alone has potential but they are
not connected in any way to move the story forward.
BIt’s Like a Tool That Lifts You Up.^: Motivation
and Change of Classroom Dynamics
In addressing the question about specific effects of iPad writ-
ing apps, there were at least two key findings that emerged:
increased motivation for writing and a positive change of
classroom dynamics.
Track B students mentioned very frequently how motivat-
ing it was to use the apps for writing. Margaret noted,
223
Eli’s Stowaways Sneaking Aboard Eli’s Maritime Battle
Unlike plain writing you can first create a scene and then
go back and write it. It helps you get your idea out in a
fun way. Some kids think writing is boring. When you
can make a cartoon of it, you can then put more details
in. (Track B, Margaret)
Jude added, BIt’s like a tool that lifts you up and helps you
so you can see writing like a movie instead of just a problem to
solve^ (Track B). Even Eli, an avowed non-writer and writing
hater became a consistent and persistent writer. For him, the
apps made all the difference: BIt tempted me to write more
because I’m used to technology. It’s all around my house^
(Track B). The classroom teacher observed that,
Students felt empowered to tell their story in a person-
alized way using backdrops and characters they had
selected [from the apps]. It was apparent to me as a
teacher that B track students were less resistant to writ-
ing as technology was offered as a means of producing
their writing.
An unanticipated effect of using the iPad apps for
writing occurred in the classroom dynamics. Several
students who were perceived as low achievers and
who had lower status relative to other class members
had heretofore hidden technology aptitude. As they dis-
covered how to use the apps in more sophisticated
ways, they became in demand as coaches for other stu-
dents, and became admired. Likewise, the highest
achieving student in the class had very limited technol-
ogy experience. Mora in Track B discovered that her
solitary learning style was not functional for the setting
in which apps were being used. She wanted to use the
apps, which caused her to seek out individuals and
groups who could help her. It created in her a new
realization:
Many of the apps were fun and made me more easy-
going. This led to me realizing that other kids had good
ideas too [emphasis added]. Then we started putting
ideas together through our writing and the apps let us
display our sense of humor, which was really fun.
(Track B Mora)
224
Mora’s new-found appreciation of classmates continued
long after the study ended. The collaboration level reported
by Mora was also noted by the classroom teacher:
I directly observed this interaction as students worked in
groups, which had the advantage of students listening to
critique from their peers at various stages throughout the
composition process. Many students were more willing
to take criticism from their peers especially if those peers
had greater technology skills including those with lower
academic levels. I also noticed that many movies pro-
duced by students had multiple parts written specifically
for other classmates. This led me to believe that from
their time listening and critiquing, students were now
making progress from writing from only one point of
view to writing a scene from multiple points of view,
which is a key component of our fifth grade writing
curriculum.
In sum, the 9-week study found that apps affected the se-
quencing of events in narrative writing, influenced students to
visualize the coherence of the story, and directed the decisions
students made about pacing the plot. Additionally, students
reported and the teacher observed that students were being
motivated by the apps to persist at writing, and students’ sta-
tuses were altered and collaborations became valued. While
both groups benefited by the instruction delivered by the
teacher in that they both made strides in visualizing ideas,
using sensory details, and sequencing events to move a plot
forward, iPad apps seemed to impact visualization and se-
quencing beyond the teacher’s instruction.
Discussion
This study was established to find better ways to improve
students’ writing, specifically responding to the Common
Core Standards’ (CCSSI 2015) call for using various technol-
ogies in writing instruction. In our discussion of the findings,
we address both the academic and affective influences of iPad
apps on student writing.
Academic Influences of iPad Apps on Student Writing
The findings align with Harris et al. (2009) assertion that com-
bining good pedagogy with appropriate technologies would
positively influence student learning in ways that are consis-
tent with current core standards. When appropriate apps were
used supplementary to teacher instruction, the students in this
study made gains in important facets of writing. The students
in our study possibly explained it best when they talked about
being able to SEE ideas, and that by having the visual images
and the ability to move the characters, and talk for the
TechTrends (2016) 60:218–225
characters they could tell where they lacked coherence, or
lacked detail.
Affective and Social Impacts of iPad Apps
Not surprisingly, iPad apps also had an impact on motivation
to write and to craft that writing. As McGee and Schickendanz
(2007), Sullivan (2013) and Harmon (2011) found, iPad apps
motivated students to actively engage in learning, which in-
creased the students’ confidence and helped improve students’
writing skills. As Eli from this study put it, BTechnology is my
language. It’s how I think.^
As Goldberg et al. (2003) demonstrated, iPad apps made
the writing process more social and engaging. The delightful
result of new-found esteem among classmates was a surpris-
ing by-product of the work with apps. It was remarkable that
students who were considered low status gained new esteem
among classmates and became sought after for their skill in
technology and their ideas for story. Students were drawn
toward collaboration because of what each could contribute.
Most often in student groups friction arises. Students in the
technology group collaborated as never before without strife.
The teacher reported, BI saw no discord among groups while
working together for the entire length of the study.^
By way of explanation, Ryan and Deci (2000) described
that when students feel autonomy, belonging, and compe-
tence, they are motivated to achieve and less likely to need
to compete in negative ways. The conditions of creating their
stories independently, while being valued by the group, might
have created the confidence each student needed to support
each group member. This finding may only apply to this par-
ticular group, but merits mention.
Implications
What do these findings mean for the reader? First, this study
suggests one way to help teachers improve their writing in-
struction. Adding writing apps to their teaching repertoire
allowed students to include needed elements and create a co-
herent sequence of events. Along with the teacher’s mini-
lessons and examples of good writing, iPad and writing apps
substantially transformed students’ writing during the 9 weeks
of the research period. This finding suggests teachers blend
various instructional technologies and encourage students’
use of emerging digital forms during the composition process.
Second, the apps motivated students to persist in writing. In
this study, different students used the apps at different points
in their writing process. The students were making decisions
about when they needed to move from writing their story back
to the app. Rather than being stuck and quitting, they were
able to go to the apps and ‘see’ what was lacking. This would
suggest that the apps used in this study, and perhaps others, be
TechTrends (2016) 60:218–225
made available as a way to keep students writing and crafting
stories with solid sequencing and vivid sensory details.
Finally, students LIKE using apps! They are used to tech-
nology, and using the apps had good effects on motivation and
cooperation. Students were able to approach writing in collab-
orative ways, and act as consultants to each other, skills that
are valued in school and the workplace. The forgotten ‘R’,
writing, was strengthened by good instruction supported by
several writing apps. Although both traditionally instructed
students and students using iPad apps made good progress
in Common Core writing skills, students using apps were
observed to have stronger visualization of their story and more
precise sequencing. And, they were enjoying the journey!
References
Boeglin-Quintana, B., & Donovan, L. (2013). Storytime using iPods:
using technology to reach all learners. TechTrends, 57(6), 49–56.
doi:10.1007/s11528-013-0701-x.
Bridges, L. (2011). Traits writing: The gold standards of writing instruc-
tion and assessment. Scholastic. Retrieved from
teacher.scholastic.com
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2015). English language arts
standards, literacy, writing, grade 5. Retrieved from http://www.
corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/W/5/
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Culham, R. (2011). Traits writing. New York: Scholastic.
Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: a
national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 907–
919. doi:10.1037/a0012656.
Delacruz, S. (2014). Using nearpod in elementary guided reading groups.
TechTrends, 58(5), 62–69. doi:10.1007/s11528-014-0787-9.
Excelsior College Press. (2014). Paper crapers (Version 1.0) [Mobile
application software]. Retrieved from https://itunes.apple.com
Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on
student writing: a meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. J
Technol, Learning Assessment, 2(1), 3–51.
Graham, S. (2008). Effective writing instruction for all stu-
dents. Renaissance Learning. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/
1FYLujm
Harmon, J. (2011). Research study finds iPad bolsters student reading and
writing skills. AASL Hotlinks, 10(7), 1–6.
225
Harris, J. B., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological
pedagogical content knowledge: Curriculum-based technology inte-
gration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
41(4), 393–416.
Landenwich, M. F. (2001). Matching reading models and strategies. The
Quarterly, 23(4), 12–16.
Laud, L. (2013). What works in writing instruction. Education Week.
Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1C2zLMH
Launchpad Toys. (2013). Toontastic Jr. pirates: Puppet theater (Version
1.0.8). [Mobile application software]. Retrieved from https://itunes.
apple.com
McClanahan, B., Williams, K., Kennedy, E., & Tate, S. (2012). A break-
through for Josh: how use of an iPad facilitated reading improve-
ment. TechTrends, 56(4), 20–28.
McGee, L. M., & Schickedanz, J. A. (2007). Repeated interactive read-
alouds in preschool and kindergarten. The Reading Teacher, 60(8),
742–751.
Mobile Education Store. (2013). Story builder (Version 1.8). [Mobile
application software]. Retrieved from https://itunes.apple.com
Moreillon, J. (2009). Collaborative strategies for teaching reading
comprehension. Chicago: Amer Library Assn Editions.
National Commission on Writing. (2003). The neglected BR^: The need
for a writing revolution. New York: College Entrance
Examination Board.
National Commission on Writing. (2006). Writing and school reform.
Washington: College Entrance Examination Board.
Notion Inc. (2013). Popplet Lite (Version 2.0) [Mobile application soft-
ware]. Retrieved from https://itunes.apple.com
Nuance Communications. (2013). Dragon dictation (Version 2.0.28)
[Mobile application software]. Retrieved from https://itunes.
apple.com
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the
facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-
being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Shih, M. (1986). Content-based approaches to teaching academic writing.
TESOL Quarterly, 20(4), 617–648. doi:10.2307/3586515.
Silvernail, D. L., & Gritter, A. K. (2007). Maine’s middle school laptop
program: Creating better writers. Maine Education Policy Research
Institute. Retrieved from http://maine.gov/mlti/resources/Impact_
on_Student_Writing_Brief.pdf.
Sipe, R.B. (2013). Strategies for writers @2013 foundational research.
Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1u5ymUS
Staton, H. (1984). Think and write: Sequencing, observing, com-
paring, classifying, imagining, evaluating. Culver City: Good
Year Books.
Sullivan, R. M. (2013). The tablet inscribed: Inclusive writing instruction
with the iPad. College Teaching, 61(1), 1–2.
Tamajii Inc. (2012). Storyboard (Version 1.24) [Mobile application soft-
ware]. https://itunes.apple.com