Technology and Alphabet Recognition
The Effects of Using Technology on Alphabet Recognition
Cassie Adelman
Marian University, Fond du Lac, Wisconsin
School District of Sheboygan Falls
December 2009
1
Technology and Alphabet Recognition
2
Abstract
This action research examines the impact technology has on alphabet recognition. The purpose
was to determine if educational websites (www.starfall.com, www.pbskids.org, etc.) help
students learn the alphabet. The research began after IRB approval and ended on December 11,
2009. Participants were members of an afternoon 4-year-old kindergarten classroom. There
were fourteen participants, four were ELL students. Participants could withdraw, decreasing the
number of active participants. Observations, parent and student surveys, and alphabet
assessments were used to collect data. The results were analyzed by comparing the number of
letters the participants knew at the beginning and end of this research period. The results
indicate that using technology does indeed assist four and five-year-old students in learning the
uppercase and lowercase letters of the alphabet.
Technology and Alphabet Recognition
3
The Effects of Using Technology on Alphabet Recognition
Introduction
Problem Statement
Recognizing the letters of the alphabet is a developmentally appropriate skill for four and
five-year-old children to be learning. I am currently a four-year-old kindergarten teacher in
southeastern Wisconsin. Throughout the year, we work on learning the uppercase and lowercase
letters of the alphabet. For some children, learning the letters comes rather easy, while others
need to put forth a lot more effort.
During this research project, the children had the opportunity to spend ten to fifteen
minutes each week on the classroom computer. During their time on the computer, the children
were asked to explore three different educational websites that focus on alphabet recognition. To
conclude the effectiveness of the use of technology, two sets of data were compared. The first set
of data was taken before the websites were introduced to the children. The children were asked
to identify the twenty-six uppercase and twenty-six lowercase letters of the alphabet. After the
children had the opportunity to explore the websites for a few weeks, they were asked to again
identify the letters of the alphabet. The two sets of data along with observations and parent and
student surveys helped to determine the effects technology has on overall alphabet recognition.
Thus leading to the research question: How does using technology impact the ability and interest
of young children to learn the letters of the alphabet?
Purpose and Rationale
As with any subject area and any grade level, in four-year-old kindergarten there is a
wide range of ability levels in recognizing the letters of the alphabet. Some children begin the
Technology and Alphabet Recognition
4
school year knowing all of the letters of the alphabet, while others cannot identify a single one.
Prior to the beginning of five-year-old kindergarten, it would be very beneficial if all of the
children had a solid understanding of what letters looked like and if they could identify them.
Our goal by the end of four-year-old kindergarten is for the students to be able to say the names
of at least ten uppercase letters and ten lowercase letters when looking at flashcards. It does not
matter which ten uppercase and ten lowercase letters, as long as they can identify at least ten of
each.
Most young children have a high level of interest in exploring computer games. I would
like to take this interest in technology and transfer it to an interest in learning the letters of the
alphabet. As a teacher, it is great to find different interest areas of children to help them learn
new concepts. The results of this research project will help to determine if computer usage in a
four-year-old kindergarten classroom is important. Young children learn best through play;
however, I would like to help maximize the amount the children are able to learn by choosing
games and activities that are of interest to them and that are developmentally appropriate.
Literature Review
A major goal in early childhood education is developing early literacy skills. “Educators
share the goal of providing young children with early literacy instruction that leads to successful
reading achievement” (Tracey and Young, 2007, p.443). One of the main literacy skills is
alphabet recognition. “A child’s knowledge of the alphabet is the single best predictor of firstyear reading success and the most powerful predictor of later reading success” (Stevenson and
Hackett, 2009, p. 65). Tracey and Young (2007) agree that there is not a “magic bullet” for a
successful early literacy program. The use of technology has been hotly debated among early
Technology and Alphabet Recognition
5
childhood professionals. Some educators feel strongly that technology increases motivation and
interest in early literacy skills, while also improving results on early childhood assessments.
Others feel that there is not enough evidence to support the use of technology and that the cost
and amount of time required in adding technology into an early childhood program is too great.
Tracey and Young (2007) also stated, “Despite the consensus regarding many early literacy
instructional practices, much controversy exists regarding the role of technology in this realm”
(p.444). Hillman and Moore (2004) also state, “The Web as an appropriate vehicle for educating
young children in formal and informal school settings is the subject of widespread, international
debate” (p.15).
Hutinger and Johanson (2000) discuss the Individuals with Disabilities Act Amendments
of 1997 (IDEA 97). IDEA 97 now states, “The educational system must include technology and
make dramatic changes so that all children can keep pace with technological advances and
societal shifts” (p.159). Hutinger and Johnson go on to reiterate “all children includes children in
early intervention programs from infancy through preschool” (p. 159). Walton-Hadlock agrees
with the National Association for the Education for Young Children (NAEYC) that “Technology
plays a significant role in all aspects of American life today…educators have a responsibility to
critically examine the impact of technology on children and be prepared to use technology to
benefit children” (p.53). As indicated by Hillman and Moore (2004), some Web-based early
literacy activities claim to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) by providing
scientific research that these programs better prepare young children for early literacy success in
comparison to traditional programs (p.159).
A 2009 study by Janelle Young in North Queensland, Australia involved using
technology in two play-based early childhood programs. The results of Young’s study showed
Technology and Alphabet Recognition
6
that alphabet recognition improved among both boys and girls. Young states in regards to the use
of technological activities, “It would appear that the activities included in the preschool program
made a difference to the children’s literacy understandings” (p.172). Walton-Hadlock (2008)
states “A significant body of research has shown that technological activities can indeed be
beneficial to young children as long as it is developmentally appropriate” (p. 53). Hutinger and
Johanson (2000) wrote, “The positive gains children demonstrate from technology use disagree
with the current arguments that computers are not appropriate for young children” (p. 160).
Hutinger and Johanson also found that children’s social-emotional skills were much better
compared to children in early childhood programs without the use of technology. Hillman and
Moore agree that the use of technology is beneficial to the education of children if it is used
appropriately. They believe that early childhood children show gains in several emerging literacy
skills compared to children without computer access. “Thus, it seems safe to say that children
with frequent access to quality computer programs will enhance their creativity, critical thinking,
and problem-solving skills” (Hillman and Moore, 2004, p. 16).
In the article written by Walton-Hadlock (2008), she states, “Parents and educators often
worry that technology will lead to problems such as poor socialization, short attention spans, and
even childhood obesity” (p. 54). Walton-Hadlock also states, “Most experts agree that a child’s
exposure to technology should be meaningful, involve collaboration with other people, include
time limits, and moreover should not be a substitute for outside play, exposure to print, and
personal interactions” (p. 54). A study by Espinosa, Laffey, Whittaker, and Sheng (2006) states,
“…mere access is unlikely to be sufficient for all young children to benefit from technology…all
adults will need to mediate the use of these potential learning tools for children” (p. 421). The
study completed by Stevenson and Hackett (2009) concluded, “While computers cannot replace
Technology and Alphabet Recognition
7
the valuable interactions between students and skilled adults, the individualized sequence of
lessons, positive gains in phonological awareness…and exposure to technology may positively
contribute to students’ emergent literacy development” (p. 81).
Young (2009) wrote that “…not all children have the opportunity of developing emergent
literacy understandings, and inequality of opportunity still exists” (p. 164). There is an increasing
gap between children as they enter school. All children should have the opportunity to develop
developmentally appropriate skills if schools and teachers are teaching them; however, they do
no all have the capability of learning them equally. “Research and common sense suggest that
significant learning gaps exist among children when they come to preschool and formal
schooling, and those gaps often persist through high school” (Hillman and Moore, 2004, p. 19).
Educators continue to work hard to close this educational gap. Hillman and Moore (2004) write,
“…the Web could help boost early literacy learning across different family incomes,
environments, backgrounds, learning abilities/handicaps, state and school districts, ethnicities,
and language abilities” (p. 19).
A study completed by Paterson, Henry, O’Quin, Ceprano, and Blue in 2003 concluded
that “Results indicated that the Waterford program did not produce any statistically significant
effects on reading or literacy learning in general” (p. 198-199). The Waterford program
conducted a study to determine the effectiveness an integrated learning system (ILS) had on
emergent readers. “Students from Waterford classrooms were not superior in reading and
writing achievement when compared to students from non-Waterford classrooms…the
Waterford program did not fulfill the promise of its promoters” (Paterson, Henry, O’Quin,
Ceprano, and Blue, 2003, p. 199). The Waterford study determined that children in both
participating and nonparticipating classrooms performed much better when devotion was given
Technology and Alphabet Recognition
8
to quality language activities and was not effected positively or negatively by the use of
technology. “Our study revealed that the Waterford program alone did not improve literacy
learning in general, nor did it have compensatory benefits for children with low literacy skills”
(Paterson, Henry, O’Quin, Ceprano, and Blue, 2003, p. 203).
The addition of technology to an early childhood program can be a large expense and
time commitment for school districts. “With the current state of our economy, President
Obama’s focus on improving early childhood education, and the need to educate an increasing
number of English Learners (EL), it is important for early childhood programs to consider the
best way to allocate their limited dollars and instructional time” (Stevenson and Hackett, 2009, p.
67). The investment of districts’ dollars and the fear of losing instructional time continue to be a
hard decision for many schools, especially when studies have shown mixed results. There are
numerous studies that have concluded the positive effects technology has had on early literacy.
However, there are also several studies that have been done that do not positively support the use
of technology with young children. “Before we spend billions of dollars to equip classrooms
with technology, we need to know whether such a colossal investment of funds makes sense”
(Paterson, Henry, O’Quin, Ceprano, and Blue, 2003, p. 204).
Motivation and interest of the children are also very important to consider when deciding
whether or not to use technology in early childhood programs. Young (2009) perceived there to
be an increase in interest in learning about print among the boys and girls in her study. WaltonHadlock (2008) states, “…most children love exploring technology, and, indeed, there are many
meaningful ways to use technology and many benefits to including it in your service plan for
children” (p. 52). Gould (2008) wrote that children in classrooms where technology was used
Technology and Alphabet Recognition
9
“were motivated to stay on task longer and gained as much as children not using technology and
often learned more when English was not their first language” (p. 9).
In spite of the mixed reviews on the use of technology in early childhood classrooms to
support early literacy skills, Young (2009) wrote, “The results demonstrate how observant young
people can be and that their capabilities can be extended beyond the expectations of most adults”
(p. 175). Hillman and Moore (2004) state, “Regardless of these debates, however, the Web’s use
in early childhood education continues to grow” (p. 15). Frazel (2007) agreed that there are
numerous Web sites appropriate for early childhood children. Most experts agree that some
exposure of technology to young children is important; however, the controversy is over the
determination of how much technology is developmentally appropriate. It is our responsibility
as educators to determine how much technology makes sense for the children in our classrooms.
More research needs to be done to determine the effectiveness of technology on early literacy
and whether or not the results are worth the time and money required to implement technology
programs into early childhood classrooms. We need to answer the question: Is technology the
“magic bullet” when targeting the development of early literacy skills?
Design of Study
I researched the effects technology has on young children’s ability and interest in
learning the letters of the alphabet. I used a triangulation of data to report my findings. I used two
types of research within the triangulation, quantitative and qualitative. After I gathered all of my
data, I concluded whether or not technology should be used in a four-year-old kindergarten
classroom to enhance the learning process of the alphabet.
Context
Technology and Alphabet Recognition 10
My action research took place in my four-year-old kindergarten classroom. The
participants used a computer located in my classroom and another computer located in a
classroom down the hall. All of the data was collected in my classroom and the classroom down
the hall. The classrooms are set up similar, as learning environments appropriate for young
children.
Participants
I conducted my research with my afternoon section of students. There were fourteen
participants in my class. Four of the participants were ELL students. There were seven male and
seven female participants. All participants were four and five-years-old. The participants
attended school in a rural, middle class school district.
I included all of the students in my afternoon section. All students and their families
agreed to participate. Participation in this study was completely voluntary. Parents had the right
to not have their child participate with this action research project. Even if the parent gave
permission for their child to participate, the child had the right to not participate or exit the study
at any time. I completed the CITI training prior to developing my research plan. I sought
approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Marian University (Appendix A). I also
received site permission from a school district administrator (Appendix B), developed a
permission form for all participants’ parents to sign (Appendix C), and developed a student
assent discussion to have with all participants (Appendix D).
In order to have kept the results as confidential as possible, each participant was given an
identification code (i.e. Girl 1 or Boy 1). The data that was collected was recorded with each
participant’s code rather than a name. The researcher and the substitute teacher were the only
Technology and Alphabet Recognition 11
individuals with access to the data. The data was kept in a file cabinet and on a password
protected computer in a locked classroom.
Instruments
I triangulated my data using three methods. The first method was to collect observations
of the participants using the computers. I observed the participants’ body language and
expressions, both verbal and visual while exploring the web sites. The second method was two
surveys I created: a student interest survey (Appendix E) and a parent survey (Appendix F). The
observations and surveys I collected are forms of qualitative research. The third method was to
assess the participants using two alphabet assessments. I used an Uppercase Letter Assessment
(Appendix G) and Lowercase Letter Assessment (Appendix H). The letter assessments are forms
of quantitative research. I also created both alphabet assessments. The alphabet assessments were
used twice, once prior to their time on the computer and once after.
Procedure
The following is a list of steps I used to complete my research: First, I was sure to obtain
permission from all willing participants and their parents. After I collected all permission forms
and discussed the Child Assent Script with the participants (Appendix D), I began assessing the
participants’ prior alphabet recognition skills. After each participant had been assessed, their
time on the computer began.
The participants were asked if they would like to explore the web sites during our free
choice times. The participants had a maximum amount of time of ten minutes on the computer
each day. The first time on the computer, the participants were asked to explore the web site,
www.starfall.com. The second time on the computer, the participants were asked to explore the
Technology and Alphabet Recognition 12
web site, www.pbskids.org. The third time on the computer, the participants were asked to
explore the web site, www.internet4classrooms.com. Additional opportunities were given for the
participants to use the computer. During these additional times, they were allowed to choose
which web site they would like to explore again. I kept track of each time a participant was on
the computer, for how long, and which web site they explored. These results were included in
my observations of the participants while on the computer.
The participants had four weeks to explore the computer web sites. At the end of the
research time, I asked each participant to complete the student survey with my teacher’s aide.
The student surveys were used to see if the students enjoyed their experiences on the computers
and to see how many students would like to continue to use computers at school. I also sent
home the parent survey with each participant. These surveys were meant to see how or if this
research project made and home-to-school connections. I was looking to see how many families
had computers in their homes and if so, how many chose to explore the web sites with their
children. The parents also responded to a question asking if they felt their child benefited from
the added use of technology and if they would like to see the continued use of technology in their
child’s classroom.
The participants were also asked to complete both an uppercase and lowercase alphabet
assessment to compare how many letters they mastered after their time on the computer. Each
participant completed a set of assessments prior to exploring the web sites and then again after
the four week time period. The assessments were used to measure how many uppercase and
lowercase letters were learned as a result of the added use of technology. I have two sections of
four-year-old kindergarten, a morning section and an afternoon section. I would like to see how
the use of technology effects the afternoon sections motivation and ability to learn the letters in
Technology and Alphabet Recognition 13
comparison to my morning section. The combined results of the observations, surveys, and
assessments were used to determine the effects the use of technology has on alphabet
recognition.
Findings and Conclusions
I used three methods to triangulate the data from my action research. The three methods I
used included uppercase and lowercase alphabet assessments, parent and student surveys, and
observations. Within the triangulation, I used both quantitative and qualitative data. The two
alphabet assessments were methods of obtaining quantitative research. The observations and
parent and student surveys were methods of obtaining qualitative research. The results of my
research indicate that technology is an effective tool in teaching the recognition of the uppercase
and lowercase letters to four and five-year-old children.
The alphabet assessments (see Appendix G and Appendix H) were used to compare the
participants’ prior knowledge of recognizing the uppercase and lowercase letters of the alphabet
with the knowledge they had after the completion of the research period. The assessments were
given orally using flashcards with individual participants. I first recorded the number of
uppercase and lowercase letters the participants knew before using the technology. I held up a
flashcard and ask the participant to name the letter. If the participant was correct in identifying
the letter, I placed a check on the assessment form for that letter. All twenty-six uppercase and
twenty-six lowercase letters were assessed this way. The assessments I completed after the
addition of technology were conducted the same as the initial assessments.
Technology and Alphabet Recognition 14
Figure 1 compares the participants’ prior alphabet recognition with the number of
uppercase letters (see Appendix G) known after their time on the computer. The results indicate
that the participants increased their overall recognition skills of the uppercase letters at the end of
the allowed research period. When looking more closely at the Figure 1, twenty-four of the
twenty-six of these letters were correctly identified by at least one additional participant after the
research period. Eleven letters were recognized by one additional participant, eight letters were
recognized by two additional participants, four letters were recognized by three additional
participants, and one letter was recognized by four additional participants. Only two letters failed
to be correctly identified more frequently after the research period.
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Prior to Research
After Completion of
Research
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
Number of Children
Uppercase Comparison
Uppercase Letters
Figure 1. Uppercase Comparison.
As seen in Figure 2, the participants also increased their overall knowledge of
recognizing the lowercase letters (see Appendix H). When looking at Figure 2, again twenty-four
of the twenty-six lowercase letters were identified correctly by more participants after the
research period. Nine letters were recognized by one additional participant, five letters were
recognized by two additional participants, three letters were recognized by three additional
Technology and Alphabet Recognition 15
participants, three letters were recognized by four additional participants, three letters were
recognized by four additional participants, and one letter was recognized by seven additional
participants. Once again only two letters failed to be correctly identified more frequently after
the study was complete.
Number of Children
Lowercase Comparison
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Prior to Research
After Completion of
Research
a b c d e f g h i j k l mn o p q r s t u v w x y z
Lowercase Letters
Figure 2. Lowercase Comparison.
My morning four-year-old kindergarten section did not have the added use of technology
during the past few weeks. I saw little change in the number of letters this group learned with
traditional teaching practices in comparison to my afternoon section, which explored the three
web sites. At the beginning of the research period, my morning and afternoon sections were very
similar in regards to alphabet recognition skills. When looking at recognition of the uppercase
letters after the study, my morning section had fifteen of the twenty-six letters correctly
identified by at least one additional student after the research period. In regards to the lowercase
letters, my morning section had eighteen letters correctly identified by at least one additional
Technology and Alphabet Recognition 16
student. The afternoon section increased nine more uppercase letters and six more lowercase
letters in comparison to my morning group.
I was able to conclude that the participants enjoyed the process of learning the alphabet
when technology was used through my observations and the parent and student surveys. I
recorded both verbal and visual observations during the research time. The results I obtained
indicate that participants were excited about the computer and Internet exploration. The visual
observations included facial expressions and body language. Their facial expressions were happy
with lots of smiles and excited when they saw something new on the web sites. Also, when it
was their turn to explore, the participants eagerly came over to the computer.
The verbal observations I recorded were also very positive. Rarely did the participants
ask to be finished before their fifteen minutes were up, rather the participants most often work
the entire fifteen minutes, until the timer signaled that their turn was over. In a journal I kept
during this research period, I recorded some of the responses the participants said when on the
computer. One participant stated, “I love being on the computer.” Another stated, “I like the
computer, it is fun.”
Table 1 illustrates the results of the Parent Survey (see Appendix F). The majority of the
parents would like their children to continue the use of technology in the 4K classroom. Parents
commented that the participants talked very positively about their computer experience while at
school and that they also explored the web sites at home. However, five of the fourteen parent
surveys came back with comments stating that they would like computers to be used at school as
long as it did not take away from other academic areas. A few parents did comment that if
additional use of technology would be used in the classroom, they would like to see this offered
during free playtime in the classroom, rather than taking away from the core curriculum time. On
Technology and Alphabet Recognition 17
three of the surveys, parents expressed their concern regarding the amount of time that children
in the four and five-year old age group should spend on the computer. The consensus was that
the children should not spend more than thirty minutes on the computer while at school, in order
to have time to explore other areas of the classroom and to interact with their peers.
Table 1
Results of Parent Surveys
Felt Participant
Benefited from
Computer Time?
Would like
Participant to
Continue Computer
Usage at School?
Yes
No
Undecided
55%
0%
45%
82%
9%
9%
A second survey was given to the participants (see Appendix E). Participants were given
the survey by my classroom aide. She read the question to each participant and asked the
participant to fill in a happy, neutral, or sad. The participants were also asked two additional
questions, which the classroom aide asked them verbally and then recorded their responses. The
results of the student surveys were overwhelmingly positive. The participants commented on the
surveys that they were happy to have had the opportunity to use the computer at school. They
also shared their favorite experiences, which included “watching panda bears sing the ABCs”
and “dancing ladybugs for the letter L”. Table 2 shows the results of the student surveys.
Table 2
Results of Student Surveys
Yes
No
Undecided
Technology and Alphabet Recognition 18
Participants
Enjoyed Exploring
the Web Sites?
Participants Would
like to Continue
Computer Usage at
School?
72%
3%
25%
84%
8%
8%
When comparing my findings with those found during my literature review, I discovered
that my results were very similar to the 2000 study of Hutinger and Johanson. Hutinger and
Johanson also found that “The positive gains children demonstrate from technology use disagree
with the current arguments that computers are not appropriate for young children” (p.160). The
results of my parent surveys were also very similar to the findings of Walton-Hadlock in 2008.
Walton-Hadlock stated that experts feel technology is important, but should not be used as a
substitution for interactions with peers, outside play, and other meaningful exposures. Similarly
to these researchers, I found my study of technology effecting alphabet recognition to be
successful.
I discovered some limitations during my research. These limitations included the length
of the research period being too short, some participants having little or no prior exposure to
computers, no computers in the homes of a few of the participants, computers failing to work
properly, and participants’ desires to want to play with certain toys in the classroom. I will
further discuss these limitations in the next section, my reflection and plan for how my research
will result in educational change.
Reflection and Plan for Educational Change
Reflection:
Technology and Alphabet Recognition 19
After reviewing the data I collected from this action research, I discovered that my results
were very similar to the assumptions I had regarding the use of technology with four and fiveyear-old children. I assumed that technology would be a good motivating tool to use with this
age group, but I was unsure as to the extent that it would assist the students in actually
recognizing the letters of the alphabet. I was happy to discover that with the study I completed,
that technology was not only an educational interest to the children, but it did in fact help them to
learn both the uppercase and lowercase letters. My morning four-year-old kindergarten section
did not have the added use of technology during the past few weeks. I saw little change in the
number of letters this group learned with traditional teaching practices in comparison to my
afternoon section, which explored the computer web sites for four weeks.
I was very pleased by the increase in the number of both uppercase and lowercase letters
the children learned in such a short amount of time. I was also glad that the majority of the
participants enjoyed their time on the computer. I could see their excitement when it was their
turn on the computer and they would ask when they could have another turn. Parents also noted
on the survey that they were exploring the web sites at home, which made a great home-toschool connection.
In addition to the participants increasing their knowledge of the letters and enjoying their
time on the computer, I found that I learned a lot through this action research and enjoyed the
experience as well. I learned several new web sites to use with my students and I was reassured
to the fact that adding technology into a four and five-year-old program is rather simple and
beneficial. I also enjoyed the extra one-on-one time I had with each participant. It is often very
difficult to find extra time to work with the students on an individual basis. This action research
period allowed that more direct contact time to occur.
Technology and Alphabet Recognition 20
Limitations:
Even though my results were very positive, I discovered several limitations as I
completed this study. The first limitation that arose was the time constraint. By the time the IRB
approved my protocol for this action research and I sent out and received all of the parent
permission letters, I was only left with two weeks for the participants to explore the computer. I
did not feel that this was enough time to accurately measure if the use of technology affected the
participants’ knowledge of the letters. I did extend my research period by another two weeks,
allowing a total of four weeks of computer exposure. I feel that the additional time did indeed
help to give more accurate results; however, this research project could have easily taken a lot
more time. If this study were to be done in the future, I would recommend allowing a whole
semester or even an entire school year to complete the research. This large time frame, would
allow the participants to really learn how to navigate the computers and web sites well, giving
more time for the participants to use the technology to its maximum potential.
The second limitation was that several of the participants had little to no prior exposure to
a computer. It took additional time to teach the participants the basic parts of the computer. The
computer mouse was the tool the participants needed to know how to navigate. Some of the
participants learned very quickly how to correctly use the mouse, while others struggled with this
concept the entire research period and required extra help and time. Additional time would help
to educate the participants on how to use a computer and allow for more time to spend on
learning the alphabet through the web sites.
Another limitation was the fact that a handful of the participants had no computers in
their homes. This limitation is most likely connected to the previous one that several participants
had little to no prior exposure to computers. Five of my fourteen families did not have access to a
Technology and Alphabet Recognition 21
computer on a daily basis. This made the home-to-school connection difficult for those families
without computer access. This is a hard limitation to overcome. I struggle with making sure
families are not left out with this new age of technology. Technology offers so many benefits for
students at school and at home, but the simple fact remains that not all families can afford a
computer or they may choose that they do not want one in their home. As educators, we can only
offer exposure to our students in the school setting and offer suggestions if computer access is
available at home.
Computers that failed to work properly were also a limitation that arose during the
research period. No one can predict when a computer will freeze up or crash. There were three
instances when the computers did not work properly, which caused us to cancel computer time
for that day. This loss of computer time added to the already short time frame to complete this
research. Unfortunately, there is really nothing we can do to prevent a computer from not
working on a given day, except for general maintenance which is done by our technology
support staff.
Future Plan of Action:
I am glad that I chose to research the effects technology has on young children learning
the letters of the alphabet. I plan to continue to use the same web sites with both my morning and
afternoon four-year-old kindergarten sections. I would like to explore additional sites and
software programs that may also help motivate and assist the students in learning the uppercase
and lowercase letters. I will continue to allow children the opportunity to use the computer
during free choice time; however, I will monitor their time on the computer to ensure that they
are still exploring other areas of the classroom and interacting with their peers.
Technology and Alphabet Recognition 22
I plan to share my results with my coworkers at our next team meeting. I will also be
typing up a short report to share with my participants’ families. I do not plan on making a formal
presentation to my school district. However, if a coworker or administrator would ask me to
create a presentation, I would be happy to share my results.
In conclusion, the results I collected through this research study will help to guide the
way in which I continue to teach four and five-year-old children the letters of the alphabet. The
results indicate that technology is an important tool in linking the students’ motivation and
abilities in order to increase their letter recognition skills. I will continue to implement the use of
technology into my classroom and encourage my coworkers to so the same.
Technology and Alphabet Recognition 23
References
Espinosa, L., Laffey, J., Whittaker, T., & Sheng, Y. (2006). Technology in the home and the
achievement of young children: Findings from the early childhood longitudinal study.
Early Education & Development, 17(3), 421-441.
Gould, T. (2008). Laying sound foundations for literacy. Supporting communication, language
and literacy with children in the early years. English 4--11, (34), 6-10.
Hillman, M., & Moore, T. (2004). The web and early literacy. Computers in the Schools, 21(3/4),
15-21.
Hutinger, P., & Johanson, J. (2000). Implementing and maintaining an effective early childhood
comprehensive technology system. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20(3),
159.
Frazel, M. (2007). Tech for tinies: How young is too young to use computers?. Library Media
Connection, 26(3), 56-58.
Paterson, W., Henry, J., O'Quin, K., Ceprano, M., & Blue, E. (2003). Investigating the
effectiveness of an integrated learning system on early emergent readers. Reading
Research Quarterly, 38(2), 172.
Stevenson, H., & Hackett, R. (2009). Should four-year olds use computers to develop emergent
literacy skills?: A study of the Waterford Early Reading Program. Journal of Literacy &
Technology, 10(2), 64-84.
Tracey, D., & Young, J. (2007). Technology and early literacy: The impact of an integrated
learning system on high-risk kindergartners’ achievement. Reading Psychology, (28),
443-467.
Walton-Hadlock, M. (2008). Tots to tweens: Age-appropriate technology programming for kids.
Children & Libraries: The Journal of the Association for Library Service to Children,
6(3), 52-55.
Young, J. (2009). Enhancing emergent literacy potential for young children. Australian Journal
of Language and Literacy, 32(2), 163-180.
Technology and Alphabet Recognition 24
Appendix A: IRB Approval
Researcher Name: Cassie Adelman
Your project titled "The Effects of Technology on Alphabet Recognition" has been reviewed by
the Marian University Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects (IRB).
It has been determined that under rules governing protocol review, the project qualifies for
expedited review and is approved for one year without modification.
1. If you should make any future changes in the protocol involving 1) method, 2) subjects, 3)
informed consent, and/or 4) subject identification, you must submit a protocol modification.
Contact the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs for instructions regarding protocol
modification.
2. The case number assigned to this protocol is D091010121Q; please reference this number in
all future correspondence. You are responsible for maintaining all records related to this project
for at least three years after completion of the research project.
3. Your protocol approval is valid from 11/03/2009 to 11/02/2010. You will be required to
submit a Research Completion Report to the IRB at the completion of your project. Before your
proposed end date, you will be sent a reminder to complete this form and return it to the Office
of Research and Sponsored Programs to disclose the status of the research. may also request an
extension of IRB approval for another year by completing the Continuing Review Request found
on the Marian University IRB website.<http://www.marianuniversity.edu/irb>
Please do not hesitate to contact the ORSP
(orsp@marianuniversity.edu<mailto:orsp@marianuniversity.edu> or 920-923-8976) if you have
questions or require additional information.
MARC HEIMERL, IRB Secretary
Office of Research and Sponsored Programs
Marian University
45 S. National Avenue; Room R006
Fond du Lac, WI 54935
Telephone: 920-923-8796
Fax: 920-926-2114
www.marianuniversity.edu/irb
Technology and Alphabet Recognition 25
Appendix B: Site Permission Letter
SHEBOYGAN FALLS SCHOOL DISTRICT
220 Amherst Avenue
Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin 53085-1799
920-467-7890
FAX 920-467-7825
September 30, 2009
Institutional Review Board
Marian University
45 S. National Avenue
Fond du Lac, WI 54935
Dear Institutional Review Board,
I hereby agree to allow Cassie Adelman, from Marian University to conduct her research at
Sheboygan Falls Middle School. I understand that the purpose of the study is to find out the
effects of technology on alphabet recognition. Cassie will be using observations, student and
parent surveys, and alphabet assessments to conduct her research.
By signing this letter of permission, I am agreeing to the following:
Cassie Adelman has permission to be on Sheboygan Falls Middle School premise.
Cassie Adelman has unrestricted access to the data collected to perform the data analysis
both for presentation to staff members and participants’ families at Sheboygan Falls Middle
School and for publication purposes.
Sincerely,
Jean Born, Director of Curriculum and Instruction
School District of Sheboygan Falls
Technology and Alphabet Recognition 26
Appendix C: Parent Permission Letter
November 3, 2009
Dear Parents,
I am currently attending Marian University for my master’s degree in Educational Technology. A
requirement for graduation is to complete an action research project in my classroom. I am asking for
your permission to allow your child to participate in this research study. Please read the following letter
carefully, taking as much time as you need. Feel free to ask me to explain anything you do not
understand. This study has been approved for human subject participation by the Marian University
Institutional Review Board (IRB).
You may refuse to give permission, or you may withdraw your permission for your child to be in the
study, for any reason. Your child will be asked if he or she would like to take part in this study. Even if
you give your permission, your child can decide not to be in the study or to leave the study at any time.
What is this research study about?
This action research is focused on improving alphabet recognition in young children. I am hoping to
discover how technology impacts the ability for children to learn the upper and lowercase letters of the
alphabet. The information I receive during this research project will be important in determining if
technology benefits students’ interest and ability in learning the alphabet. I am asking your permission
for your child to be in this study because he or she is a member of my afternoon 4K class. Taking part in
this study will take about 15 minutes per week.
What will my child be asked to do if he or she is in this research study?
If your child takes part in the study, he or she will be asked to spend 10-15 minutes on the classroom
computer each week during free choice time. Participants will be asked to explore three different
educational websites, www.starfall.com, www.pbskids.org, and www.internet4classrooms.com. Please
feel free to explore these websites with your family at home as well!
In order to collect data for this research project, your child will be asked to identify the upper and
lowercase letters of the alphabet, prior to using the computer in the classroom. After a few weeks of
using the computer websites, your son or daughter will be asked once again to identify the letters of the
alphabet. The results will be compared to see if the number of letters able to identify increased through
the use of these computer websites. After participating in this research study, your son or daughter will
be asked to complete a short interest survey. A parent survey will also be sent home at the conclusion of
this research study.
Are they any benefits to my child if he or she is in this research study?
There is no direct benefit to your child from being in this study. However, if your child takes part in this
study, it may help other children in the future.
Are they any risks to my child if he or she is in this research study?
The potential risk to your child from taking part in this study is the loss of confidentiality, although
unlikely.
Will information about my child be kept private?
Technology and Alphabet Recognition 27
In order to keep the data as confidential as possible, each child participating will be given an
identification code. The data collected will be recorded with a child’s code rather than a name. All
results will be kept in our locked classroom and on my password protected computer.
The results of this action research study will be published in a paper for Marian University, shared with
staff members in the School District of Sheboygan Falls, and shared with parents of the participants;
however, I can assure you that student names will not be used. The data collected and any other
important information regarding this research project, such as the surveys and permission letters, will
be destroyed three years after the study.
There are no costs or payments for your child being in this research study.
What are my child’s rights as a research study volunteer?
Your child’s participation in this study is purely voluntary. Your child may choose not to take part in this
study, choose not to answer specific questions, or leave this study at any time. If the child is not involved
in this study, he or she will still take part in the regular classroom activities, but the child’s information
will not be used in the study.
There will be no penalty or loss of benefits to which your child are entitled if you choose not to give your
permission for your child to take part or your child withdraws from the study.
Who can I talk to if I have questions?
If you have any questions about this research, please feel free to contact me by email at
cladelman@sheboyganfalls.k12.wi.us or by telephone at 920.242.3151. You may also contact my
research advisor, Dr. Dennis, by email at scaves@marianuniversity.edu or by telephone at 920.923.8100.
You may also contact the Marian University IRB Administrator if you have questions about your child’s
rights as a research participant, or would like to report a concern or complaint about this study at
920.923.8796 or orsp@marianuniversity.edu or regular mail at: Marian University ORSP, 45 S. National
Avenue, Fond du Lac, WI, 54935.
What does my signature on this consent form mean?
Your signature on this form means that:
 You understand the information given to you in this form.
 You have been able to ask the researcher questions and state your concerns.
 The researcher has responded to you questions and concerns.
 You believe you understand the research study and the potential benefits and risks that are
involved for your child.
 You understand that even if you give your permission, your child may choose not to take part in
the study.
Thank you for you consideration and support with this action research project.
Sincerely,
Technology and Alphabet Recognition 28
Cassie Adelman
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Please detach and return this portion of the permission slip by Tuesday, November 10, 2009.
I have read and understand the information regarding Cassie Adelman’s action research.
_____, Yes, I give voluntary permission for my child to take part in this study.
_____, No, I do not give permission for my child to take part in this study.
Student’s name: ___________________________________
Parent’s Signature: _________________________________ Date: _______________
Technology and Alphabet Recognition 29
Appendix D: Child Assent Discussion Form
Study Title: The Effects of Technology on Alphabet Recognition
Researchers: Cassie Adelman
The following is what I will read to my students to inform them of the action research project:

At night and on the weekends, I am a student, just like you. Part of my homework is to do a
research project.

I am asking you to be in this research study about how using the computer helps children to learn
the letters of the alphabet.

Your parents know I am going to ask you to be in this research study, but you get to decide if you
want to join in this study. It is up to you. If you decide to be in the study, I will ask you to
explore three different websites during free choice time. The websites will ask you to play
different games involving the letters of the alphabet.

Taking part in this research study may not help you in any way, but it might help other kids be
able to learn the alphabet better. By taking part in this research study, you might learn new
online games to play at home.

I don’t think anything bad would happen if you decide to take part in this research study, but
some kids might get tired of sitting still while they explore the computer websites or answer
questions. I will let you take a break as often as you need to.

If you decide to not be in the study, you will still take part in the activity but your answers will
not be used in the study.

If anything in the study worries you or makes you uncomfortable, let me know and you can stop.

Everything you say and do will be private. I won’t tell your parents or anyone else what you say
or do while you are taking part in the study. When I tell other people about what I learned in the
study, I won’t tell them your name or the name of anyone else who took part in the research
study.

You don’t have to be in this study. It is up to you. You can say no now or you can change your
mind later. No one will be upset if you change your mind.

You can ask us questions anytime and you can talk to your parent any time you want.

Do you have any questions now that I can answer for you?
Technology and Alphabet Recognition 30
Appendix E: Student Interest Survey
Student Survey
Did you like the website www.starfall.com?
Did you like the website www.pbskids.org?
Did you like the website www.internet4classrooms.com?
What did you like most about your computer time?
Would you like more time to explore these websites at school?
Yes
No
Technology and Alphabet Recognition 31
Appendix F: Parent Survey
Parent Survey
Dear Parents,
Please take a few minutes to fill out this survey regarding the action research project I am
currently concluding with your son/daughter. I greatly appreciate any feedback you are able to
give me! Please answer the following questions and return to school on or before:
___________________________.
Surveys will remain anonymous...you do not need to sign your name to this survey.
Has your son/daughter talked about his/her time on the computer? If so, what has he/she told
you about the websites?
Do you have computer access at home? If so, has your son/daughter tried any of these computer
websites at home?
If you have computer access, did you go to any of these websites and look around the sites? If
so, what did you (as a parent) like/dislike about the sites?
Do you feel your son/daughter benefited from his/her time on the computer? If so, in what ways
has your son/daughter benefited?
Would you like your son/daughter to spend more time on the computer at school? Why or why
not?
Thank you for your participation and feedback!
Cassie Adelman
Technology and Alphabet Recognition 32
Appendix G: Uppercase Letter Assessment
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
Boy 7
Boy 6
Boy 5
Boy 4
Boy 3
Boy 2
Boy 1
Girl 7
Girl 6
Girl 5
Girl 4
Girl 3
Girl 2
Girl 1
Uppercase Alphabet Assessment
Technology and Alphabet Recognition 33
Appendix H: Lowercase Letter Assessment
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
u
v
w
x
y
z
Boy 7
Boy 6
Boy 5
Boy 4
Boy 3
Boy 2
Boy 1
Girl 7
Girl 6
Girl 5
Girl 4
Girl 3
Girl 2
Girl 1
Lowercase Alphabet Assessment