Joseph Keher - Research Project Dissertation

An evaluation of the ABC
PocketPhonics application as a
resource for teaching phonics to
underachieving year 3 pupils.
Joe Keher
February 2012
Abstract
This research seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of the iPad application, ABC
Pocket Phonics as a resource for teaching phonics to underachieving year three pupils.
This was achieved by assessing pupils’ current working levels; delivering three ten
minute phonics sessions using ABC Pocket Phonics; and finally, by re-assessing the
pupils’ and establishing their progress. The data showed that the pupils’ phonological
knowledge improved significantly after the iPad sessions. This data was compared with
the learning progress made in-class, using traditional resources. It shows that, given the
same average learning time per sound, the pupils made more progress using ABC
PocketPhonics than in their ordinary lessons. The teaching and learning advantages,
limitations, and potential applications of this resource are identified and explored.
Introduction and context
The use of tablet computers, such as the iPad, as a resource for teaching and
learning in literacy is becoming increasingly popular in primary schools in the USA and
UK (Warschauer, 2011; Friend, 2012). In the near future, it seems likely that tablet PCs
will follow the trend of PCs, interactive whiteboards and laptop computers; becoming a
commonplace resource in the classroom. However, there is very little research that
focuses on the effectiveness of tablet computers or their software in an educational
setting. The purpose of this paper is not only to evaluate a learning resource, but to
consider the suitability of this resource as one that may, in the near future, be a
fundamental element of the teaching and learning of early reading across our education
system.
This research was conducted in two schools that are both based in the North West
of England. School A has 403 mixed gender pupils, 14 teaching staff and 14 classroom
support staff. The percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals is very low and
pupils attend from an advantaged socio-economic area. School B has 156 mixed gender
pupils, 7 teaching staff and 4 classroom support staff. The proportion of pupils eligible for
free school meals is above average. Both schools use interactive whiteboards in all
classrooms and pupils have access to at least 2 computers per classroom. ABC
PocketPhonics is currently being used in over 12,000 schools in the USA, and has over
197,500 purchases in the UK (Friend, 2012), please see appendix 1 for screen shots.
Literature Review
Research into the general effectiveness of technology in enhancing teaching and
learning in the classroom is extensive. Neil Selwyn’s (2011) publication summarises and
considers the key issues and opinions surrounding education and technology. He suggests
that “most people in education consider digital technology and learning to be inextricably
linked” (2011, 66). This argument is supported from various perspectives such as the
behaviourist, cognitive, and constructivist
1
. Unfortunately, it is widely argued (Bell et al,
2009; Cuban et al,2001; Shapley et al, 2010 ) that due to a lack of pedagogical knowledge
and understanding, and other circumstantial barriers, the integration and application of
technology in learning environments falls below proponents’ expectations.
Hew and Brush’s study (2007) regarding the integration of technology into the
education system, provides an excellent contextual review of the benefits, limitations, and
pedagogical issues associated with ICT systems in the classroom. This study also
identifies current knowledge gaps and makes recommendations for further research,
where they touch upon the use of hand-held digital devices in the classroom. They argue
that regardless of educators opinions, if research demonstrates that digital resources (such
as the iPad) can be used to “enhance or reinforce skills, enrich current topics, or extend
ideas beyond current levels”, then these should be developed and utilised as extensively
as any other commonplace teaching resource or strategy (Hew & Brush, 2007: 245). With
1
See Selwyn (2011, 66-76) for full summary of these perspectives.
this established, Hew and Brush’s recommendations were that more research was needed
to determine the effectiveness of technology in education, and its potential applications.
Using databases such as Academic Search Premier, JSTOR, and Web of
Knowledge, I conducted a comprehensive literature search that included several
combinations of key words such as: “iPad”, “technology” “phonics”, “tablet PC”,
“reading”, “learning”, “primary” and “Classroom”. Although there are some non-
empirical studies and opinion papers
2
, the search revealed no previous research on the
iPad or its applications (apps) in the proposed setting. However, Maynard’s research
(2010) investigating the impact of e-books on young children’s reading habits was highly
relevant to the development of this research project. Maynard found that the reluctant
readers were motivated to read by the e-books, and were more actively engaged with the
digital texts than their printed counterparts
3
. This study was among the first to
demonstrate the benefits of learning to read using hand-held, digital devices. Although
the research provided significant indications; the study was too generalised to make any
substantiated recommendations as to the potential of e-readers in an educational context.
In order to be able to evaluate the ABC PocketPhonics app in the proposed
context, it is essential to consider established theories and accepted strategies in quality
phonics teaching and learning approaches. Although Lingard’s text (1997) on good
practise in phonics is dated, it is a highly cited text within its field. The text provided me
with an excellent foundation of knowledge, upon which to begin making considerations
of what constitutes high-quality phonics teaching and learning. This was a crucial element
to the research as a sounds knowledge of current phonological teaching theory is needed
2
For example Murray & Elcese (2011) ‘Teaching and Learning with iPads, Ready or Not?’ Tech
Trends. 55 (6) 42-48 a generalised consideration of the the iPad’s capabilities, and a brief
summary of the arguments put forward by the enthusiasts, skeptics, and opponents.
3
See Verhoeven & Snow (2001) for an extensive analysis of the importance of motivation and
active engagement in learning to read.
to effectively evaluate the app, and in order for the data to be reliable. More recent texts
such as Goouch (2009) and Pennington (2009) allowed me to apply current knowledge
and thinking in the teaching and learning of phonics to the analysis and exploration of my
collected data. These include the significance of the one to one element of the sessions,
the multisensory approach, and the impersonalised learning activities that will be
discussed below.
With regards to developing the methodology to be used, I have largely followed the
recommendations of Punch (2009), Kumar (2011), and Hopkins (2008). These texts were
consulted throughout the data collection process in order to ensure the research was of a
high quality, reliable and valid.
Methodology
The methodology used in the research project has been mixed, as outlined by
Kumar (2011). Firstly, quantative data was collected in the form of summative
assessments. These assessments were carried out on eight pupils from two schools, one
initial assessment, and one final assessment after the series of iPad-led phonics sessions
had been delivered. Secondly, qualitative data was collected in the form of semi-
structured interviews with the class teachers, who spent time using the ABC
PocketPhoinics app, and also observed part of the taught sessions.
The iPad sessions were structured upon the Letters and Sounds framework, as this
is currently used in both participating schools. The pupils were assessed based upon the
Letters and Sounds phrasal progression. ABC PocketPhonics’ content is based upon this
framework and therefore it was easily be integrated into the pupils current phonics
knowledge and understanding.
As this is an evaluative research paper, the conclusions and recommendations put
forward will be primarily drawn from the classroom based research. However, highly
relevant qualitative data was also collected in the form of an interview, conducted by
myself, with John Friend (Director of Apps In My Pocket, and developer of ABC
PocketPhonics), and a free response questionnaire completed by a teacher in a school that
adopts a 1:1 pupil to iPad ratio in Scotland, and uses ABC PocketPhonics on a daily basis.
The questionnaire and semi-structured interview questions were aimed at eliciting
stakeholders’ perceived impacts of ABC PocketPhonics on learning and pedagogies, and
perceived difficulties in using iPads in the proposed context. I am confident that this
additional qualitative data will add to the exploration of the application’s benefits and
limitations within the proposed context.
The classroom data was collected from the participating schools in succession
rather than simultaneously. This allowed me to reflect upon the initial iPad sessions and,
if necessary, implement modifications in order to improve the quality of the research.
I considered codifying and editing the collected quantative data, as Punch (2009)
recommends, however, I decided that the data would be concise enough to present in its
entirety, in the form of a two variable data table. With regards to the interviews and
questionnaire, the interview with John friend was recorded, and then separated into key
sections, questions and answers using Audacity audio editing software. This allowed me
to effectively organise and analyse the interview. Text is used to communicate the
qualitative data, and any outstanding themes have been identified and explored, in the
style recommended by Kumar (2011, 292).
Ethical Considerations
The research participants in this project are: the two class teachers from the
participating schools; the pupils who take part in the iPad sessions and assessments; the
teaching staff in Scotland who take part in the survey, and John Friend, developer of ABC
PocketPhonics.
The methods used to collect the classroom data caused no anxiety, risk, or
invasion of privacy greater than that ordinarily encountered in daily life. The class
teachers were asked to approve the session plans before they were to be delivered and I
spent time observing the participants in their normal phonics sessions in order to promote
familiarity with myself in the learning environment.
I was aware of the ethical complications associated with exposing an intervention
to a group of pupils and withholding from others (Oliver, 2010: 33), however, the
constraints of time and resources meant that only a small group of pupils (3-4) would be
able to take part in the iPad sessions. The participating classes contain 3-4 pupils who are
underachieving are currently receiving focused teaching interventions in order to progress
their learning. By collecting data from these pupils I was able to carry out the evaluative
research, whilst providing support to those pupils who need it most, and concurrently
maintaining the ordinary school routine of all pupils in the class.
With regards to collecting the qualitative data, the participants were made aware
of the research aims prior to participation, as recommended by Oliver (2010). Permission
was requested to audio record the interviews, and to present the findings of these, as well
as the free-response questionnaire. The questions were carefully constructed so as not to
influence the participants towards any particular viewpoint, but to allow their personal
thoughts and opinions to be communicated, in contribution to the research.
Data Presentation
Classroom research
As described above, there were a total of eight pupils, from two schools who were
active participants in the classroom research. The pupils were given an initial assessment,
which summarised their current working level within phase three of the Letters and
Sounds programme, consisting of 26 sounds (see appendix 2.1 for list of sounds). As
advised by the class teacher, and supported by Pennington (2009), they were graded from
level 1 to level 5 (see appendix 2.2 for grading criteria).
After this assessment, a series of one-to-one phonics sessions using only the iPad
and ABC PocketPhonics as a resource were delivered to the pupils. During these sessions,
each pupil was only taught their personal 6 sounds, which were identified as their lowest
scoring from the initial assessment. After the iPad sessions, the pupils were assessed
again on all 26 sounds. Tables 1.1 and 1.2 show the assessment data of the 6 taught
sounds for each pupil (see appendix 2.2 for grading criteria.llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
Table 1.1 Assessment results from School A
Pupil
A1
A3
A4
Sound
qu
igh
oa
ear
air
ure
x
qu
ai
oi
ear
air
x
zz
ng
oa
oi
ure
x
qu
igh
oa
oo
ure
Initial
Assessment
2
4
5
4
4
3
4
4
5
5
4
5
3
3
2
4
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
Final Assessment
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
Table 1.2 Assessment results from School B
Pupil
B1
B2
B3
B4
Sound
x
qu
ng
ai
ee
ow
x
ai
ow
oi
ear
air
qu
ng
ai
oa
oo
ure
zz
ng
igh
oa
air
ure
Initial
Assessment
4
5
3
3
3
4
4
5
4
5
4
5
3
4
3
3
3
4
3
2
3
2
4
2
Final Assessment
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
3
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Please see appendix 3 for full assessment data on all 26 sounds
The tables reflect 8 sets of 6 sounds, and the pupils’ levels before and after the
iPad sessions. In order to simplify this data, the changes in the pupils’ levels for the 48
sounds have been grouped into three categories: level improved; level unchanged; and
level decreased. The value of each category is reflected in the figure 2.1 below.
Figure 2.1 Chart of assessment progress
Sounds addressed in iPad sessions
The full table of results (see appendix 3), shows the initial assessments and final
assessments of all 26 sounds for each pupil. This includes the sounds that were not
addressed in the iPad sessions. Figure 2.2 shows how the pupils’ levels progressed,
showing only data from the sounds that were not addressed in the iPad sessions.
Level Improved, 45, 94%
Level Decreased, 1, 2%
Level Unchanged, 2, 4%
Figure 2.2 Chart of assessment progress
Sounds not addressed in iPad sessions
Level Improved, 16, 10%
Level Unchanged, 129, 81%
Level Decreased, 15, 9%
Interviews with class teachers from schools A and B.
The post-observation interviews with the two class teachers, one from each
school, were semi-structured, and lasted around fifteen minutes. In school A, the teacher
had observed an entire 10 minute session, and had an opportunity to explore the features
of the app themselves. In school B, the teacher observed two children interacting with the
app, and had an opportunity to explore the features of the app. The interviews revealed
many interesting ideas and opinions about the potential benefits and limitations of the
ABC PocketPhonics app. There were three key themes that stood out from their
responses.
Firstly, both teachers expressed that the app was significantly tailored to suit
personalised learning. Pupils are able to select the sounds they would like to learn or
practise at their own leisure. The teachers observed that, if the app was used consistently
in a classroom setting, it would allow pupils to progress at their own pace: relieving any
fear or pressure associated with making mistakes. Additionally, if the app was to be used
in a whole class setting, teacher A suggested that the app allows teachers to specify which
sounds to focus on in a particular session.
Secondly, both teachers extensively commented on the way in which the app
teaches the recognition of letter sounds simultaneously with the writing of the sounds.
The teachers felt that by learning the necessary handwriting movements associated with
the letter sounds, as well as the recognition of the written/spoken sounds, the children
were engaged at a multi-sensory level, which made them much more likely to retain the
information they were learning.
Finally, both teachers felt that the app was limited in terms of how teachers would
be able to use the application to assess the pupils learning. Teacher B suggested that, once
the pupils had finished using the app “it’s impossible to tell just from the iPad how much
learning has actually taken place”. Both teachers expressed that other forms of assessment
would have to be employed if the app was integrated into schools; the app itself was
unable to provide sufficient feedback on pupil progress.
Free response questionnaire from Teacher of Cedars School of Excellence, Greenock,
Scotland
4
.
This questionnaire was issued and returned via email and consisted of 6 key
questions (see appendix 4 for question list). The Cedars Teacher was able to confirm that
the school employs a 1:1 pupil to iPad ratio, and that the school uses ABC PocketPhonics
on a daily basis. The Cedars Teacher felt that the app in itself is incapable of providing
assessment data, although, they stated that they are “not looking to do that on the iPad”.
In order to establish pupils’ current working levels and targets, the teacher uses a
combination of observations, and written phonics tests.
The Cedars Teacher was able to provide information regarding why the school
chose ABC PocketPhonics, over the other 378 apps specifically associated with phonics
5
.
4
Henceforth to be referred to as: Cedars Teacher.
The Cedars Teacher stated that other apps “were either American, too complex, too
simple or difficult to use”, and that ABC PocketPhonics was chosen because “it allows
you to choose between different scripts, it's fun, it's easy for the pupils to master, it has
good progression and it's well made (never crashes!)”. This statement introduced the
consideration of the apps ability to function and operate effectively, a potential limitation
of technology in the classroom. If the app “crashed” on a regular basis it would be
ineffective, regardless of its other successful elements.
Interview with John Friend, Director of Apps in My Pocket, and developer of ABC
PocketPhonics
Friend was able to provide the research with a unique insight into the attitudes and
beliefs that lead to the development of the ABC PocketPhonics app. He also expressed his
opinion on the benefits of technology in the classroom, and the future potential of ABC
PocketPhonics in the education system (see appendix 5 for interview questions and
notes).
When asked about what makes the app a successful learning resource, Friend
explained that a key element of the app’s effectiveness was, unlike other educational apps
that are heavily focused on gameplay, its sound educational basis. The app is founded on
the synthetic phonics system, which is largely accepted as the most effective method of
teaching and learning in early reading. Additionally, it became apparent from the
interview that, the app is constantly being updated and improved upon. The
improvements that are made are a direct result of feedback from teachers who use the app
in an educational setting. An example of this is found in the new version of the app.
Friend explained that many users’ feedback commented upon the lack of assessment in
the app (as also expressed in the interviews and questionnaire above), and therefore the
5
Based on a search for “phonics” using the iTunes App Store, 4 December 2011
new version of the app has a specific feature designed to assess learners success in
writing and recognising phonics (see appendix 6 for screenshot of the new version).
Friend expressed that, in comparison to the USA, the UK has drastically fewer
iPads in schools being used as learning tools. He felt that, as an educational system, the
UK is greatly missing out on an opportunity to provide a higher quality learning
experience for children, and teaching experience for practitioners. Friend also pointed out
that the app has currently 200,000 downloads in the UK, and the majority of these users
are likely to be upper-middle class families who can afford to provide their children with
the devices to use the app, as well as parents who are actively involved in the education of
their children, and recognise the potential of ABC PocketPhonics. “These advantaged
children will be coming to school already being able to recognise and write phonics,
pulling further and further away from the less advantaged children” (Friend, 2012), this
suggests that, if this learning resource is so effective, it should be made available to all
children, regardless of their soci-economic stature.
Analysis and Evaluation
It is important to establish the parameters and potential limitations of the research
project, in order to provide effective commentary on the collected data. The sample, from
which the data is yielded, is very low, even to be considered a significant representative
of the local population. Schools A and B have relatively similar demographics, socio-
economic foundations, and are less than 10 miles apart. Therefore the ability to make
broader generalisations about the population, based on these results, is significantly
reduced. Moreover, any suggestions, implications or recommendations drawn from this
data must be considered as indicative rather than conclusive. Upon reflection, a similar
research strategy would yield much more accurate, significant data, if it were to use a
sample of at least 100 pupils, from varied geographic locations, and of differing economic
stature. However, the time and resources for such research were beyond the scope of this
paper; the data gathered is yielded from a sound research strategy, and a valid
combination of methodologies.
In analysing the assessment data gathered from the iPad sessions, it is important to
consider both the progress that the pupils made on the 48 sounds that were focussed on
(figure 2.1), and the progress made on the other 160 sounds from the phase (figure 2.2)
that were not addressed in the sessions. The pupils’ levels had improved in 95% of the
sounds addressed, using only the iPad and ABC PocketPhonics. This strongly indicates
that when an underachieving year 3 pupil uses ABC PocketPhonics, the pupil’s
knowledge and understanding of phonics progresses very rapidly, highlighting the
effectiveness of the app as a learning resource. It must be acknowledged that, as Kaye
(2007) points out, there are many advantages to one-to-one teaching, and it could be
argued that this is a primary reason that the pupils levels progressed so rapidly. However,
this argument is discounted, as the sessions deliberately had minimal input or direction
from the teacher. The same pupil activity could have taken place in a full class of pupils
with one teacher, as it does successfully in Cedars School of Excellence.
When comparing figures 2.1 and 2.2, the learning time made available to the
pupils in sessions and in class is significant. Each pupil used ABC PocketPhonics to
practise 6 sounds in 30 minutes, an average of 5 minutes per sound. The pupils’ levels
improved in 94% of these sounds. Given the same amount of time
6
in their ordinary
lessons, using traditional resources
7
, only 10% of the sounds that were not addressed in
the iPad sessions had improved; 84% less than those taught using ABC PcketPhonics. The
data therefore suggests that, when given the same amount of time, the pupils of this study
6
In schools A, and B, the class teacher was also teaching the participating pupils phase 3
Letters and Sounds phonics, for 5 hours per week. During the two week period in which
the iPad sessions took place, the pupils took part in a total of 20 hours of classroom
phonics lessons, in which they had a total of 120 sounds to learn. On average this is 5
minutes per sound.
7
These included: teaching assistants, interactive whiteboards, mini whiteboards,
worksheets, workbooks, outdoor area, pencils and paper.
were significantly more successful after using ABC PocketPhonics, than learning with
traditional classroom resources.
Clearly there are other factors that may affect the pupils’ learning in this study
such as their own learning styles, the quality of their phonics lesson, the assessment
process and other circumstantial elements. Regardless of these other factors, the data
clearly suggests that in this case, the pupils learning excelled when using ABC
PocketPhonics. With this established, the quantative and qualitative data can now be used
to evaluate other important qualities of the app as a resource for teaching phonics to
underachieving year 3 pupils.
As pointed out by Teachers A and B, Cedars Teacher, and John Friend, when
children use ABC PocketPhonics they are engaged and motivated. Murdoch and Wilson
(2008: 35) argue that this engagement and motivation means the pupils “are more likely
to stay on task, accept challenges and remain motivated”. From my own observations I
found there were several reasons for this motivation and engagement. The pupils were
intrigued by the iPad and the idea of using it in school as a learning tool; they were
instantly willing and eager to actively participate in learning. Additionally, the app itself
is highly visual and interactive, and contained many animations and incentives that made
it enjoyable to use.
This enthusiasm that the app creates is combined with a focused multisensory
learning approach. The pupils learned the new sounds through visual, auditory, tactile and
kinaesthetic modalities. Established multisensory learning theory suggests that the more
the senses are stimulated, the greater the efficiency of processing and retaining
information (Montessori, 1967; Orton, 1937). Through this multisensory approach, ABC
PocketPhonics provides a flexible platform that meets the diverse social, cultural and
intellectual diversity of the pupils to maximize learning effectiveness (Tardi et al; 2006),
and this is reflected in the presented data.
The data collected from the teacher interviews, Cedars questionnaire, and session
observations showed that a significant flaw of ABC PocketPhonics was its inability to
provide any form of assessment data on pupils’ progress. Wray (2002) states, effective
teachers [have] very clear assessment procedures, usually involving a great deal of
focussed observation and systematic record keeping”. This is directly in line with Cedar
Teacher’s assessment methods, which are used effectively in conjunction with the app. As
the literature review reflected, a key argument for technology in the classroom is to save
valuable time; this argument was also supported by John Friend. If the app were to be
used in a whole-class setting, the practitioner would still need to set aside substantial time
to perform observations of all pupils, as well as summative and formative assessments.
However, a unique aspect of the use of application as a learning resource is in its ability
to change and adapt in response to feedback from its users. The interview with Friend
revealed that since the research for this paper took place, a new version of the app, ABC
PocketPhonics Version 2.0, has been released. The new version contains many new
features, including instant assessment scores for each sound that a pupil is learning (see
appendix 6).
The classroom application of this new feature has the potential to save significant
teaching time, as groups of sounds can be assessed at a glance. Friend explained that the
changes in Version 2.0 were made in direct response to the feedback received from
teachers and parents who use the app. This is a substantial, unique aspect of this learning
resource that is not possible in other traditional learning tools.
8
With ABC PocketPhonics,
the software is constantly being improved upon in direct relation to teacher feedback, and
simply requires 60 seconds to update the software for the pupils to receive the most
current, effective learning opportunities available.
8
When a traditional learning resource becomes out-dated, they can be disposed of and
replaced; although, due to budget restrictions this very often is impossible, and so pupils
continue to receive a known lower quality learning experience, which is unacceptable.
When considering this data alongside the current literature discussed above, there
are some interesting comparisons. For example, Murray and Olcese (2011, 48) concluded
that they could not point to a single application that steps up to modern understandings
of how people learn”; the data I have collected strongly opposes their findings. After
using ABC PocketPhonics for only a few minutes, it is clear to anyone vaguely familiar
with “modern understandings of how people learn”, that sound educational theory, based
on synthetic phonics and a multisensory learning approach, has been integrated into the
development and design of every feature of this learning resource. The data collected in
this paper strongly coincides with Hew and Brush’s (2007) views on technology’s ability
to enhance or reinforce skills, enrich current topics, or extend ideas beyond current
levels” (Hew & Brush, 2007: 245), as discussed in the literature review.
There are other areas in the evaluation of this app that need to be addressed, but
that are beyond the scope of this paper. For example, although there are some variable
settings in the app such as the font style and learning foci, the principle learning activities
are impossible to differentiate. There is strong evidence
9
to suggest that the highly
interactive and multisensory interface would accommodate most learning styles, however
further research would be necessary to establish how pupils with different learning styles
or learning difficulties would respond to ABC PocketPhonics.
Conclusions and implications
Garthwait & Weller (2005) argue that new technology, such as the iPad, when
integrated into our educational system, changes the dynamics of the learning
environment. If the success of this app is recognised, and adopted by schools, this would
inevitably bring about new barriers to learning associated with its application. Further
9
See Farrel (2012) for recommendations of effective teaching practise of children with dyslexia
and other learning difficulties; many of Farrel’s recommendations are directly in-line with the
learning strategies employed by ABC PockePhonics.
research should be conducted to establish how pupils with different learning styles or
learning difficulties would respond to ABC PocketPhonics, and strategies should be
formulated to overcome potential barriers to learning associated with its use.
The purpose of this research paper was to establish the effectiveness of ABC
PocketPhonics as a resource for teaching phonics to underachieving year 3 pupils. The
data showed how pupils’ knowledge of phonics improved in 94% of sounds after just 30
minutes of usage, with no direction or input from a teacher, compared to the 10%
improvement achieved in ordinary lessons. Experienced teachers commented extensively
on the effectiveness of the app as a learning resource, and observed its limitations with
regards to assessment. Friend revealed that these limitations have been addressed, and
rectified, exemplifying the resources unique ability to constantly improve as a result of
teachers’ feedback. Based on the outcomes of this research, it seems clear that ABC
PocketPhonics can be used to great effect when used as a resource for, not only teaching
underachieving year 3 pupils, but for all early reading learners.
References
Bell, L., Schrum, L., & Thimpson, A. D. (2009) Framing research on technology and
student learning in the content area: implications for educators. Alabama: Information
Age Publishing.
Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., Peck, C. (2001) ‘High access and low use of technologies in
high school classrooms: explaining an apparent paradox’ American Educational Research
Journal 38 (4) 813-834.
Farrel, M. (2012) The effective teacher's guide to dyslexia and other learning difficulties
(learning disabilities): practical strategies. 2
nd
Ed. London: Routledge.
Friend, J. ABC PocketPhonics in schools. Telephone interview by: Keher, J.,Edge Hill
University, Ormskirk, U.K. 01 February 2012.
Garthwait, A., & Weller, H. G. (2005) ‘A year in the life: Two seventh grade teachers
implement one-to-one computing’ Journal of Research on Technology in Education.
37(4) 361377.
Goouch, K., & Lambirth, A. (2009) Teaching early reading and phonics: creative
approaches to early literacy. London: Sage Publications.
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007) ‘Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: current
knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research’ Educational Technology, research and
Development. 55(3), 223252.
Johnston, R., & Watson, J. (2007). Teaching synthetic phonics. UK: Learning Matters Ltd.
Kaye, P. (2007) ‘Teaching one to one’ Teaching English. British Council, BBC World
Service. http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/articles/teaching-one-one. (Accessed 10
December 2011)
Lingard, T. (1997) ‘Making Phonics Work: Its role within literacy acceleration’ Literacy
Oxford. 31 (3) 43.
Maynard, S. (2010) ‘The Impact of e-Books on Young Children’s Reading
Habits’ Publishing Research Quarterly . 26 (4) 236-248.
Montessori, M. (1967). The absorbent mind. (C.A. Claremont, Trans). New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Wilson.
Murray, O. T., & Olcese, N. R. (2011) ‘Teaching and Learning with iPads, Ready or
Not?’ Tech Trends. 55 (6) 42-48
Oliver, P. (2010) Student's Guide to Research Ethics. 2
nd
ed. Maidenhead: Open
University Press
Orton, S. T. (1937). Reading, writing and speech problems in children: A presentation of
certain types of Disorders in the development of the language faculty. New York: W. W.
Norton.
Pennington, M. (2009) Phonemic Awareness and Phonics Toolkit. California: Pennington
Publishing.
Selwyn, N. (2011) Education and Technology: Key Issues and Debates. London:
Continuum.
Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., Caranikas-Walker, F. (2010) ‘Effects of
technology immersion on teachers’ growth in technology competency, ideology, and
practices’ Journal of Educational Computing Research. 42 (1) 1-33.
Tardi, S., Catarina, M., & Goldstein, M. (2006) 'Maximizing Teaching and Learning
Effectiveness' International Journal Of Learning. 12 (11) 79-83.
Verhoeven, L., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Literacy and motivation: Bridging cognitive and
sociocultural viewpoints. In L. Verhoeven & C. Snow (Eds.), Literacy and motivation:
reading engagement in individuals and groups (pp. 123). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Wray, D (2004) Teaching Literacy Effectively In The Primary School. Taylor & Francis
Routledge, eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost, viewed 4 January 2012.
Appendix 1
Appendix 1
ABC Pocket
Phonics
screenshots
Appendix 2
Appendix 2.1 - Phase 3 Sounds
j
ee
zz
ur
v
igh
qu
ow
w
oa
ch
oi
x
oo
sh
ear
y
ar
th
air
z
or
ng
ure
ai
er
Appendix2.2 - Phonics Assessment grading Criteria
Level 1
The pupil is able to recite the sound independently, correctly and confidently, with little
or no hesitation.
Level 2
The pupil is able to recite the sound independently and correctly but is significantly
hesitant.
Level 3
The pupil is able to recite the sound, but has required minor prompting may have had
incorrect attempt.
Level 4
The pupil is able to recite the sound, perhaps after an incorrect attempt, but has required
significant support and prompting.
Level 5
The pupil has been unable to recite the sound, even after significant support and
prompting
Appendix 3
Appendix 3
Full assessment results, see appendix 2.2 for grading criteria.
Key
Level Unchanged
Level Improved
Level Decreased
1
Independant
2
Hesitant
3
Prompt
4
Support
5
Unacheived
x
Practised
Pupil
Pupil
Sound
Initial
Assessme
nt
Session 1
Session 2
Session 3
Re-
Assessme
nt
Initial
Assessme
nt
Session 1
Session 2
Session 3
Re-
Assessme
nt
Initial
Assessme
nt
Session 1
Session 2
Session 3
Re-
Assessme
nt
Initial
Assessme
nt
Session 1
Session 2
Session 3
Re-
Assessme
nt
j 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
v 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1
w 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1
x 1 1 4 x x x 1 3 x x 1 3 x x x 1
y 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
z 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
zz 1 1 1 1 3 x x x 1 1 1
qu 2 x x x 1 4 x x x 1 1 1 3 x x x 1
ch 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
sh 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 1
th 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1
ng 1 1 4 4 2 x x x 1 4 1
ai 2 2 5 x x x 3 1 3 1 2
ee 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
igh 4 x x x 1 2 1 1 1 3 x x x 1
oa 5 x x x 1 4 4 4 x x x 1 3 x x x 3
oo 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 x x x 1
ar 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2
or 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3
ur 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2
ow 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1
oi 1 1 5 x x x 3 4 x x x 1 1 1
ear 4 x x x 1 4 x x x 2 1 1 1 1
air 4 x x x 2 5 x x x 1 1 1 1 1
ure 3 x x x 1 4 3 2 x x x 1 4 x x x 1
er 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
A1
A2
A3
A4
School A
School B
Appendix 4
Appendix 4
Open response questionnaire from a Teacher at Cedars School of Excellence, Greenock,
Scotland 02/02/12.
1. What year groups use ABC PocketPhonics?
We use it with Primary 1 and 2 (5 and 6 year olds)
2. How often is ABC PocketPhonics used in class?
Initially on entry to Primary 1 used pocketphonics every day to
reinforce the new letter we were learning. I did from the Aug-Dec and
now I use it less frequently as we have learned all letters. I'll ask
children to spend some time practicing letters they are unfamiliar
with or to play the word games.
3. Do the children usually choose which sounds they would like to
practise, or are they specified by the teacher?
Initially the sounds we specified by me but now they are free to do
whichever letters they choose.
4. How is the progress of the pupils using the app assessed?
I assess them through observation - I only have 7 pupils in my class
so it's easy to do! I have a written phonics test which I do and then
from there I give them target letters to work on when using Pocket
Phonics.
5. The app store is crowded with reading and writing educational
apps - why does your school choose to use ABC PocketPhonics?
We looked at quite a few different phonics apps but they were either
American, too complex, too simple or difficult to use. We chose ABC
PocketPhonics because it allows you to choose between different
scripts, it's fun, it's easy for the pupils to master, it has good
progression and it's well made (never crashes!)
6. With regards to teaching, learning and assessment, what do you
consider are the limitations of ABC PocketPhonics?
I use ABC PocketPhonics along-side my regular phonics work in class. I
use it in addition to workbooks, games and songs so it's just another
tool. I don't consider there to be any limitations of the app as it
does exactly what I want and the children love it. I still use my
regular methods of assessment and am not looking to do that on the
ipad.
Appendix 5
Appendix 5
Key questions and notes from semi-structured interview with John Friend.
What do you think are the main strengths of pocket phonics - in terms of children learning
to read, and early reading.
- What is it about the app that works so well in getting children to learn the sounds?
Some argue that technology can do things better/worse than traditional resources
(whiteboards, worksheets, flashcards)
Some argue that technology like the iPad, not only does things better, but lets teachers
and learners do things that would not have otherwise been possible at all.
- Do you agree? - What are you’re thoughts on technology in the classroom in education?
I know there has been a new verion of the app recently what changes have been made
since the version I tested out, and why?
All the teachers who saw me using the app with the kids loved it and had nothing but
positive things to say extremely visual, interactive, appeals to many different learning
styles.
If the government says from now on every pupil is getting an ipad in schools,
and the ipads need Pocketphonics are there any changes (unlimited budget) you would
make to the app for a school specific version?
What are you’re plans for the the future of apps in my pocket and pocket phonics?
Appendix 6
Appendix 6
ABC PocketPhonics Version 2.0 assessment overview screenshot.
Please note some colour has been removed from screenshot.
Appendix 7
Research Proposal
An evaluation of the ABC Pocket Phonics iPad
application as a resource for teaching phonics to under-
achieving year 3 pupils.
1. Abstract
The use of tablet computers such as the iPad as a resource for teaching and learning
in literacy is becoming increasingly popular in primary schools in the USA and UK
(Warschauer, 2011). In the near future, it seems likely that tablet PCs will follow the
trend of PCs, interactive whiteboards and laptop computers; becoming a commonplace
resource in the classroom. However, there is very little research that focuses on the
effectiveness of tablet computers or their software in an educational setting.
This research will seek to evaluate the effectiveness of the iPad application, ABC
Pocket Phonics as a resource for teaching phonics to under-achieving year three pupils. It
will attempt to do this by assessing pupils’ current working levels; delivering three ten
minute phonics sessions using ABC Pocket Phonics; and finally assessing the pupils’
progress. The teaching and learning advantages and limitations of this resource will be
identified and explored.
2. Context
The research will be conducted in two schools that are both based in the North West
of England. School A has 403 mixed gender pupils, 14 teaching staff and 14 classroom
support staff. The percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals is very low and
pupils attend from an advantaged socio-economic area. School B has 156 mixed gender
pupils, 7 teaching staff and 4 classroom support staff. The proportion of pupils eligible for
free school meals is above average. Both schools use interactive whiteboards in all
classrooms and pupils have access to at least 2 computers per classroom.
3. Proposed Methodology
The methodology to be used will be mixed as outlined by Kumar (20110): firstly,
quantative data will be collected in the form of summative assessments carried out on
four pupils before and after the delivery of the iPad sessions; secondly, qualitative data
will be collected in the form of interviews, questionnaires and session observations from
the class teacher. A teacher will also be interviewed from a school in Scotland that has a
1:1 pupil to iPad ratio, and uses ABC Pocket Phonics on a daily basis. The interviews will
contain semi-structured questions aimed at eliciting stakeholders perceived learning
outcomes and impacts of ABC Pocket Phonics on learning and pedagogies, and perceived
difficulties in using iPads in the proposed context.
The iPad sessions will be based upon the Letters and Sounds framework, as this is
currently used in both participating schools. The pupils will be assessed based upon the
Letters and Sounds phrasal progression. ABC Pocket Phonics’ content is based upon this
framework and therefore can easily be integrated into the pupil’s current phonics
Although the effectiveness of ABC Pocket Phonics will largely be reflected in the
quantative data, I decided to use the mixed methodology approach because the
exploration of the application’s benefits and limitations will be most effectively
represented through the qualitative research.
The data will be collected from the participating schools in succession rather than
simultaneously. This will allow me to reflect upon the initial iPad sessions and, if
necessary, implement modifications in order to improve the quality of the research.
I considered codifying and editing the quantities data to be collected, as Punch
(2009) recommends, however, I decided that the data would be concise enough to present
in its entirety, in the form of a two variable bar chart. Text and polyvariate tables will be
used to communicate the qualitative data.
4. Ethical Considerations
The research participants in this project are: the two class teachers from the
participating schools; the pupils who will be subject to the iPad sessions and assessments;
and the teaching staff from Cedars School of Excellence, Greenock, Scotland.
The methods in which data is to be collected will cause no anxiety, risk, or invasion
of privacy greater than that ordinarily encountered in daily life. Steps have been taken in
order to ensure participants’ safety. The class teachers have been asked to approve the
session plans before they are to be delivered and I have spent time observing the
participants in their normal phonics sessions in order to promote familiarity with myself
in the learning environment.
I was aware of the ethical complications associated with exposing and intervention to
a group of pupils and not others, however, the constraints of time and resources meant
that only a small group of pupils (3-4) would be able to take part in the iPad sessions.
The participating classes contain 3-4 pupils who are underachieving are currently
receiving focused teaching interventions in order to progress their learning. By collecting
data from these pupils I will be able to carry out the evaluative research, whilst providing
support to those pupils who need it most, and concurrently maintaining the ordinary
school routine of all pupils in the class.
5. Indicative Bibliography
Hew and Brush’s study (2007) regarding the integration of technology into the
education system, provided me with an excellent contextual review of the benefits,
limitations, and pedagogical issues associated with, in particular, ICT systems in the
classroom. This study was also concerned with identifying current knowledge gaps,
which was highly relevant to the formation of this research project.
Although Lingard’s text (1997) on good practise in phonics is dated, it is a highly
cited text within this topic.. The text provided me with an excellent foundation of
knowledge, upon which to begin making considerations of a high-quality, iPad-led
phonics session. This is a crucial element to the research as the general teaching standard
needs to be of considerable quality in order for the data to be reliable.
The research of Li et al (2009) into the use of tablet PCs as a tool for empowering
student learning contained some very relevant findings that will be referred to throughout
the project. This was the only research I was able to find that was specifically related to
this topic, which was part of a journal with an impact factor above 1.2.
With regards to developing the methodology to be used, I have largely followed the
recommendations of Punch (2009), Kumar (2011), and Hopkins (2008). These will also
be consulted throughout the data collection process in order to ensure the research is
quality, reliable and valid.
6. Expected Conclusions
Based on the extensive research into effective strategies in accelerating progress in
phonics teaching (Lingard, 1997) there is much evidence to suggest that ABC Pocket
Phonics will prove to be successful as a teaching intervention for these year 3 pupils.

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

-+
550 words

Our customers say

Customer Avatar
Jeff Curtis
USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Customer Avatar
Ian McGregor
UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Customer Avatar
Shannon Williams
Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."

  • 5-paragraph Essay
  • Admission Essay
  • Annotated Bibliography
  • Argumentative Essay
  • Article Review
  • Assignment
  • Biography
  • Book/Movie Review
  • Business Plan
  • Case Study
  • Cause and Effect Essay
  • Classification Essay
  • Comparison Essay
  • Coursework
  • Creative Writing
  • Critical Thinking/Review
  • Deductive Essay
  • Definition Essay
  • Essay (Any Type)
  • Exploratory Essay
  • Expository Essay
  • Informal Essay
  • Literature Essay
  • Multiple Choice Question
  • Narrative Essay
  • Personal Essay
  • Persuasive Essay
  • Powerpoint Presentation
  • Reflective Writing
  • Research Essay
  • Response Essay
  • Scholarship Essay
  • Term Paper
We use cookies to provide you with the best possible experience. By using this website you are accepting the use of cookies mentioned in our Privacy Policy.