Teacher Education and the Integration of Technology: a reading and language arts perspective

Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education ISSN: 0962-029X (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtpe19 Teacher Education and the Integration of Technology: a reading and language arts perspective Jay Blanchard To cite this article: Jay Blanchard (1994) Teacher Education and the Integration of Technology: a reading and language arts perspective, Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 3:2, 187-198, DOI: 10.1080/0962029940030206 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0962029940030206 Published online: 11 Aug 2006. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 963 View related articles Citing articles: 1 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalinformation?journalcode=rtpe19

Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1994 Teacher Education and the Integration of Technology: a reading and language arts perspective JAY BLANCHARD Arizona State University, USA ABSTRACT Teachers are increasingly expected to employ integrated technology practices in their classrooms to help students learn more, better, faster and cheaper. Unfortunately, teachers generally have not been provided education or training on how to employ these technology practices. Attempting to get integrated technology practices into pre-service and in-service teacher education, especially in reading and language arts, is at the core of this article. An overview of technology integration is provided along with discussions about: (a) goals and content for teacher education courses or training, (b) research on integrating technology into reading and language arts education, (c) integration without education and training, and finally (d) issues that affect integration. Goals for Teacher Education If teacher education programs, whether under the auspices of colleges, universities, educational agencies or school districts, are to meet their responsibility to prepare teachers for the 21st Century, then we have a responsibility to help teachers employ technology in support of integration. Today's teachers are expected to use integration to help students learn more, faster, better and cheaper but teachers receive little instruction on how to do it (Brooks & Kopp, 1989). Two recent surveys report that teachers in the United States had little or no training on how to apply technology to teaching - let alone curriculum integration (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, 1992; US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1988). The consequences are obvious! To cite just 187

JAY BLANCHARD one example, in 1989 the San Francisco California public schools installed seventeen multimedia systems along with social studies and history software developed by the National Geographic Society. No teacher training was provided. By the end of the school year most of the systems were idle. Only after teachers were given training in how to integrate the multimedia content into their lesson plans did teachers start using the systems (Yoder, 1991). Of course, this example points out the fallacy of purchasing hardware and software and ignoring teacher education (Stoddard & Niederhauser, 1994). School districts are not the only ones ignoring teacher education. New teachers report they received little technology training in colleges of education and as a result feel unprepared to use technology (Kromhout < Butzin, 1994; U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1988). Shiengold (1991) noted that instructors in teacher education programs must be able to help teachers integrate technology into their classroom practices. Courses on only hardware and software are not enough. In addition, instructors must move away from isolated examples of technology removed from any relationship to the curriculum and from any meaningful classroom contexts. Teachers need help developing classroom environments that support technology integration. As Carey (1994) noted, teacher education programs must deal with models of instruction, curriculum and learning with technology. If technology is to have any chance of integration, teachers must be comfortable with it and see it as a resource that enables rather than interferes with daily teaching. The ideal way to incorporate technology into pre-service and_ in-service teacher education programs is for instructors to model technology integration (Munday, Windham & Stamper, 1991). To this statement must be added the requirement that modeling should take place in 'real' classrooms with teachers and students in as rich a contextual environment as possible. This is especially important for pre-service and in-service teachers who lack the experience-based contexts that makes technology demonstrations meaningful. Instructors must demonstrate that technology can be educationally useful and contribute in some way to the learning process (Bork, 1985). Unfortunately, to provide courses with modeling requires instructors with expertise in academic specializations, an understanding of educational technologies, experience with integration and an understanding of school culture. Today, most teacher education programs claim some degree of emphasis in technology. Typically, they offer two general types of courses or experiences where teachers might have an opportunity to discuss and perhaps use technology. The first is an introductory course on educational technology and media. The second is an academic specialization course dealing with such subjects as reading and/or language arts education. In the first, reading and language arts technology may be part of the course and in the second, technology may be part of the course. There are no guarantees. 188

A READING AND LANGUAGE ARTS PERSPECTIVE There is a third type of course. It is a course that combines an academic specialization like language arts with technology. For example, in the graduate technology and language arts course reported by Dunfey (1989), the goals were (a) seeing technology as a useful tool for the teaching of language arts, (b) offering teachers a valid language arts curriculum course which provides them with a theoretically sound background in the pedagogy for teaching the different areas of language arts, and (c) using technology to revitalize experienced teachers who are looking for new ways to teach language arts (see also Sommer & Collins, 1989). Despite good intentions, most of these academic specialization and technology courses - as well as more general ones - will not include classroom experiences where students and teachers are actually using technology (Novak & Knowles, 1991; Newren & Lasher, 1993; Newren, Waggener & Kopp, 1991). On a personal note, the author has taught all three types of courses across the last two decades and can attest to the almost insurmountable problems that an instructor faces trying to present integrated technology efforts in schools with students and teachers. Course Content What would a reading and language arts education course look like that offered opportunities for technology integration? The International Society for Technology in Education (1992) has provided standards for educational technology instruction that can be adapted to reflect reading and language arts education or any other academic discipline for that matter (see Robinson, 1993). Below are the standards adapted (with brackets) for reading and language arts education. The teacher in a technology in reading and language arts course or in-service training will learn to: 1. operate a computer system in order to use [reading and language arts] software successfully; 2. evaluate and use computers and related technologies to support the instructional process [in reading and language arts education]; 3. apply current instructional principles, research and appropriate assessment practices to the use of computers and related technologies [in reading and language arts education]; 4. explore, evaluate, and use computer technology-based materials [for reading and language arts education]; 5. demonstrate knowledge of uses of computers for problem solving, data collection, information management, communications, presentations, and decision making; 6. design and develop student learning activities that integrate computing and technology for a variety of student grouping strategies and for diverse student populations; 189

JAY BLANCHARD 7. evaluate, select, and integrate computer technology-based instruction in one's own subject area(s) and/or grade level(s) [in the reading and language arts curriculum]; 8. demonstrate knowledge of multimedia, hypermedia, and telecommunications activities to support instruction [for reading and language arts education]; 9. demonstrate skill in using productivity tools for professional and personal use, including word processing, database, spreadsheet, and print/graphic utilities [to support reading and language arts education]; 10. demonstrate knowledge of equity, ethical, legal, and human issues of computing and technology [especially in reading and language arts education]; 11. identify resources for staying current in applications of computing and related technologies in education [as well as reading and language arts education]; 12. use computer-based technologies to access information to enhance personal and professional productivity; and 13. apply computers and related technologies to facilitate emerging roles of the learner and the educator [in reading and language arts education]. Research on Integration in Reading and Language Arts There is a paucity of research on technology integration efforts in reading and language arts education in relation to schools, teachers and students. It is important to avoid confusion about this and the literature on the more general subject of research on technology in reading and language arts education (e.g. Blanchard, Mason & Daniels, 1987; Scrimshaw, 1993). It is also important to avoid confusing integrated research efforts with research on integrating technology into reading and language arts methodology classes to teach academic content (e.g. French, Landretti & Tutolo, 1993). To date, only one study has appeared in the literature that examines integration across several schools and several school districts. (Note: reports of individual schools beginning integration attempts in reading and language arts education have begun to appear in the literature; for instance, see Wilson et al, 1993.) Project CHILD (Butzin & King, 1992; Evaluation Systems Design, 1990; Kromhout & Butzin, 1993; Orr, Butzin & Bergquist, 1989) is an ongoing research and development project that involves integration of reading and language arts education at elementary classroom sites in the State of Florida (USA). According to the most recent project evaluators, CHILD successes are based on seven key elements: "(a) classroom computer integration, (b) multigrade continuous progress classroom clusters [K-2 or 3-5], (c) multi-dimensional classroom learning stations, (d) student empowerment, (e) systematic classroom management procedures, (f) use of 190

A READING AND LANGUAGE ARTS PERSPECTIVE multiple assessments, and (g) parent involvement" (Kromhout & Butzin, 1993, p. 56). CHILD also provides teacher education involving peer observation guides and peer coaching. The following descriptions of CHILD are provided by the project evaluators for the 1991-1992 school year. Each Project CHILD classroom is organized with learning stations appropriate for the designated subject specialty (of the teacher). Each classroom, has a computer station with three to six computers, a teacher station for small-group instruction, and textbook and writing stations as well as stations for hands-on activities. A typical hour...opens with a teacher-directed whole-group lesson followed by extended work at the learning stations. Students usually are able to visit two or three stations. A closing whole-group activity allows time for sharing and reflecting on the day's work. The Project CHILD reading and language arts curriculum is integrated through literature themes. Supporting skills are introduced in the context of students' reading and writing. For reading, students use computers to practise comprehension, problem-solving, and word analysis strategies; for language arts, they use computers in all stages of the writing process and to practise specific language skills. (Kromhout & Butzin, 1993, pp. 56-57) The most recent evaluation of CHILD classrooms found statistically significant positive effects for CHILD classrooms as compared to non CHILD classrooms in reading and mathematics achievement on standardized tests; (effect sizes varied between grade level and between schools). The evaluation also noted several areas of concern: namely, (a) workload demand on CHILD teachers, especially new teachers, (b) workload demands on administrators, (c) installation, maintenance and upgrading of technology, (d) validity of assessment tools, (e) better evaluation of technology's impact on program effectiveness, (f) lack of science and social studies components, and (g) CHILD students graduating to the middle school (Kromhout & Butzin, 1993). Integration Without Education and Training Despite the lack of technology integration education, some teachers and schools are still moving ahead with integration - teaching themselves and their colleagues. Arguably the most common ways that teachers are using technology for reading and language arts education are as tools for word processing, spread sheets, desktop publishing, databases, drawing, painting, graphing and utilities. For example, a United States study of 600, K-12 teachers who considered themselves technology users, reported that the teachers used an average of 14-15 different applications in their classrooms. Word processing was the most common application and the most common uses for word processing revolved around student projects such as reports and newsletters (Brady, 1991). Clearly for these teachers, integration is 191

JAY BLANCHARD happening with or without education to support their efforts. Swan and Mitrani (1993) have observed this phenomenon in their research. They have suggested that changes in schools, teachers and students as a result of technology will happen slowly because integration will occur at the individual teacher and student level not at the classroom, school or district level. Their research indicates that interactions between individual teachers and students involving technology happens at a very basic level, that is, one student and one teacher. This may suggest that change is happening but at individual teacher student level and not in numbers large enough to be noticeable in large scale evaluations. An examination of the interactions between teachers and students in different classroom settings suggests that the use of computers is beginning to change the structure of teaching and learning at this most basic level. When viewed from this perspective, the use of computers seems to be having a greater effect on educational practice than simply providing for the efficient delivery of instruction. The use of computers seems to be having the kind of effects, in fact, that McLuhan (1964) maintained communications media have on those who use them - that the defining properties of a medium are internalized by the users, who then incorporate those properties into their external affairs. The defining property of the computing medium must be interactivity. It may very well be that we are seeing the computer's interactivity reflected in more equal control of the student-teacher interaction and greater individualization of learning. (Swan & Mitrani, p. 52) Issues that Affect Integration of Technology There are many issues that surround efforts to integrate technology into pre-service and in-service education programs in reading and language arts. Wiburg (1994) identified five issues that seem to account for success or failure of technology integration: (1) support and leadership of the administration, (2) pedagogical orientation of the program and the instructors, (3) collaborative partnerships with agencies interested in technology, (4) technology integration planning, and (5) quality of pre-service and in-service education provided to teachers so they can integrate technology in their classrooms. Mahmood & Hirt (1992) identified seven issues from a number of variables they examined that seemed to define success or failure of integration: (1) administration encouragement, (2) teachers' training and background, (3) technology planning, (4) teachers' attitudes toward technology, (5) teachers' use of computers at school, (6) teachers' use of computers at home, and (7) teachers' attitudes toward the use of technology at school. Of the seven issues, an integration plan and support of the administration appeared to be most significant 192

A READING AND LANGUAGE ARTS PERSPECTIVE Whitaker, Schwartz & Vockell (1989) have also identified what they believe are issues that contribute to the success or failure of technology integration: (1) lack of faith in technology as a result of earlier failed attempts to use technology, (2) fear of technology, (3) failure to use the power of available technology, (4) lack of in-service training, (5) lack of pre-service training, (6) lack of administrative support, (7) lack of technology, (8) failure to move beyond narrowly focused technology programs like those for gifted and talented or at-risk students, and (9) adding technology as another thing for teachers to do. These issues are not unique to Wiburg; Mahmood & Hirt; and Whitaker, Schwartz & Vockell. Others have reached similar conclusions (e.g. Finkel, 1993; McCarthy, 1993; Honey & Moeller, 1990; Ritchie & Wiburg, 1993; Shiengold & Hadley, 1990). Of all the issues listed above, the lack of teacher education and training seems to be one that always garners the most attention. It is a linchpin that helps to define many of the other issues. For instance, administrative support for integration can go nowhere without teacher education and training. Unfortunately, a remedy for the lack of teacher education and training is not simply adding teacher education and training. Much more is involved. What will teacher education and training look like? There are many factors that should be considered and three are especially pertinent to reading and language arts education: control, interest and curriculum. Control Integration of technology in the reading and language arts curriculum brings change and change affects control, the point being that... whether the innovation is the process approach, writing across the curriculum, or computers in composition, [technology] means teachers are being asked to restructure those premises and relationships which they have already learned to master and with which they are comfortable. Confronted by change, they no longer find themselves in command of the vocabulary and ground rules. Power structures within the [school] must change to accommodate the new experts; novices will have to expend new energy in acquiring new skills. Performance may now be measured along unfamiliar lines. Each of these problems threatens the image that teachers have of themselves as competent, experienced teachers of others. (Humphreys, 1989, p. 11) Interest There is a widely held perception that teachers are typically slow to integrate technologies into their classrooms. Whether that perception is real or not, recent surveys seem to indicate that teachers like technology and they want 193

JAY BLANCHARD to use technology in their classrooms (O'Donnell, 1991; Kinnaman, 1993). Clearly there is an important difference between teachers liking and wanting technology - and integrating it in their classrooms. The difference helps to explain the current state of technology in reading and language arts education. These teachers, especially elementary teachers who teach self-contained classes, spend a great deal of each day working with language development (reading, writing, speaking, listening). That means lots and lots of good books. These teachers have a natural love of reading and writing. They have a culture of books not a culture of technology. But until these teachers accept the necessity of (or responsibility for) moving from liking and wanting to using and integrating, there is little to be gained by forcing them. Finkel (1990) was right - interest makes behavior more probable. After years of unsuccessful efforts to integrate technology into classrooms, "...if I had it to do over again, I would only train those who were interested" (p. 35). Curriculum Niederhauser & Stoddard (1993) and Stoddard & Niederhauser (1994) pointed out that technology integration brings with it mismatches or misalignments between applications and classroom curriculum. For instance, most elementary reading instruction in the United States is done with commercial basal readers supported by varying degrees of children's literature. There are some sophisticated and inventive applications in elementary reading education but they generally deal with only one small part of the curriculum, for instance English letter-sound relationships. Since these applications do not match current curricular goals they are distractions that use up valuable time that is needed to cover required material. Rather than serving as a time-saving aid, incorporating these reading applications into the schools makes significant demands on teachers in terms of time and effort In fact, although recent surveys indicate teachers would like to use technology, other surveys indicate that current technology makes their jobs harder (Niederhauser & Stoddard, 1993; US Department of Education, Office of Research, 1993). Until curricular goals are aligned or matched with integration efforts, many reading and language arts applications are simply an extra student in the classroom. And it must be pointed out that technology tools like word processors do not guarantee successful integration and may indicate only that teachers and students are 'turning on' technology. Successful integration is about why students write, what they write, and who they write to. It is about technology going unnoticed while maximizing the strengths and minimizing the weaknesses of classroom writing practices. 194

A READING AND LANGUAGE ARTS PERSPECTIVE Conclusion This paper has focused on some of the issues that surround the integration of technology into teacher education programs for reading and language arts education. In the final analysis, integration of technology in teacher education will only succeed when it is seen as advantageous for both teaching and learning. Suffice it to say, this cannot happen until teacher educators are able to demonstrate knowledge of integrated technology practices. To date, few teacher educators in reading and language arts education or any other curricular areas have successfully demonstrated integrated technology practices. Until that happens, the potential of technology to serve teaching and learning remains largely untapped. (For critical comments on technology in education and teacher education see, Cuban, 1986 and 1989; Hannafin & Savenye, 1993; Hill, 1994; LaFrenz & Friedman, 1989; MacWorld, 1992; Means, 1994; Papert, 1993; Postman, 1992; Scrimshaw, 1993; and Selby, 1993). Correspondence Jay Blanchard, College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-0311, USA. References Blanchard, J., Mason, G. & Daniels, D. (1987) Computer Applications in Reading (3rd edn). Newark: International Reading Association. Bork, A. (1985) Personal Computers in Education. New York: Harper & Row. Brady, H. (1991) New survey summarizes what top technology teachers have learned, Technology and Learning, 11 (4), pp. 38. Brooks, D. & Kopp, T. (1989) Technology in teacher education, Journal of Teacher Education, 40, pp. 2-8. Butzin, S. & King, F. (1992) An evaluation of Project CHILD, Florida Technology in Education Quarterly, 4(4), pp. 45-63. Carey, D. (1994) Teacher roles and technology integration: moving from teacher as director to teacher as facilitator, Computers in the Schools,, 9(2/3), pp. 105-118. Celis, W. (1994) Silicon Valley schools set technical standard, New York Times, March 16, p. B-8. Cuban, L. (1986) Teachers and Machines: the classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press. Cuban, L. (1989) Neoprogressive visions and organizational realities, Harvard Educational Review, 59, pp. 217-222. 195

JAY BLANCHARD Dunfey (1989) Integrating computers into the language arts curriculum at Lesley College, in C. Selfe, D. Rodrigues & W. Oates (Eds) Computer in English and the Language Arts. Urbana: NCTE. Evaluation Systems Design (1990, June) Project CHILD 1989-1990: Phase III summative evaluation final report. (Available from Evaluation Systems Design, 700 N. Calhoun St,. Suite A-2, Tallahassee, FL 32303, USA.) Finkel, L. (1993) Moving your district toward technology, in T. Cannings & L. Finkel (Eds.) The Technology Age Classroom. Wilsonville: Franklin, Beedle & Associates. French, M., Landretti, A. & Tutolo, D. (1993) Enhancing use of computer technology in an integrated reading/language arts methods class, in D. Carey, R. Carey, D. Willis & J. Willis (Eds) Technology and Teacher Education Annual. Charlottesville: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Hannafin, R. & Savenye, W. (1993) Technology in the classroom: the teacher's new role and resistance to it, Educational Technology, 33(6), pp. 26-31. Hill, D. (1994, January) Professor Papert and his learning machine, Teacher, pp. 16-19. Honey, M. & Moeller, B. (1990) Teachers' beliefs about technology integration: different values, different understandings. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service Service No. ED 326 203) Humphreys, D. (1989) A computer-training program for English teachers: Cuyahoga Community College and the urban initiatives action program, in C. Selfe, D. Rodrigues, & W. Oates (Eds) Computer in English and the Language Arts. Urbana: NCTE. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (1992) Computers in American schools, 1992: an overview. Minneapolis: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (Available from IEA, Computers in Education Study, University of Minnesota, 909 Social Sciences, 267-19th Ave., South, Minneapolis, MN, 55455-04112, USA.) International Society for Technology in Education (1992) Curriculum Guidelines for Accreditation of Educational Computing and Technology Programs. Eugene: International Society for Technology in Education. Kinnaman, D. (1993) Making professional development pay off, Technology & Learning, 13(4), pp. 51-52. Kromhout, O. & Butzin, S. (1993) Integrating computers into the elementary school curriculum: an evaluation of nine Project CHILD model schools, Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26, pp. 55-69. La Frenz, D. & Friedman, J. (1989) Computers don't change education, teachers do! Harvard Educational Review, 59, pp. 222-225. MacCarthy, R. (1993) Making the future work: the road to curriculum integration, in T. Cannings & L. Finkel (Eds) The Technology Age Classroom. Wilsonville: Franklin, Beedle & Associates. 196

A READING AND LANGUAGE ARTS PERSPECTIVE MacWorld (1992) America's shame: personal computers in education, Macworld Special Issue, 9(9), pp. 25-239. Mahmood, M. & Hirt, S. (1992) Evaluating a technology integration causal model for the K-12 public school curriculum: a LISREL analysis. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 346 847.) Means, B. (1994) Technology and Education Reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Munday, R., Windham, R. & Stamper, J. (1991) Technology for learning: are teachers being prepared? Educational Technology, 31(3), pp. 29-32. Neiderhauser, D. & Stoddart, T. (1993) Integrating technology with elementary mathematics: effects of training and support, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 1, pp. 1-8. Newren, E. & Lasher, E. (1993) The basic instructional media course for teacher education, International Journal of Instructional Media, 20, pp. 251-262. Newren, E., Waggener, J., & Kopp, T. (1991) Media and technology for preservice teachers: design, development, and implementation of a basic course, Educational Technology, 31(12), pp. 7-14. Novak, D. & Knowles, J. (1991) Beginning elementary teachers' use of computers in classroom instruction, Action in Teacher Education, 13(2), pp. 43-51. O'Donnell, E. (1991) Teacher perceptions of their personal computer needs to integrate computers into their classroom instruction. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1991.) Dissertation Abstracts International, 42A(10). Orr, C., Butzin. S. & Bergquist, C. (1989) Integrating computers into the curriculum: a formative evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 321760.) Papert, S. (1993) The Children's Machine. New York: Basic Books. Perelman, L. (1992) School's Out: hyperlearning, the new technology, and the end of education. New York: William Morrow. Postman, N. (1992) Technopoly. New York: Knopf. Ritchie, D. & Wiburg, K. (1993) Integrating technologies into the curriculum; why has it been so slow and how can we speed it up?, in D. Carey, R. Carey, D. Willis, & J. Willis (Eds) Technology and Teacher Education Annual. Charlottesville: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Robinson, B. (1993) The politics of technology in education and the role of teacher educators, in D. Carey, R. Carey, D. Willis, & J. Willis (Eds) Technology and Teacher Education Annual. Charlottesville: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Scrimshaw, P. (Ed.) (1993) Language, Classrooms and Computers. London: Routledge. Selby, C. (1993) Technology: from myths to realities, Phi Delta Kappan, 74, pp. 684-689. Shiengold, K. (1991) Restructuring for learning with technology: the potential for synergy, Phi Delta Kappan, 73, pp. 17-27. 197

JAY BLANCHARD Shiengold, K. & Hadley, M. (1990) Accomplished Teachers: integrated computers into classroom practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Sommer, E. & Collins, J. (1989). English teachers and the potential of microcomputers as instructional resources at the State University of Buffalo, in C. Selfe, D. Rodrigues & W. Oates (Eds) Computer in English and the Language Arts. Urbana: NCTE. Stoddart, T. & Neiderhauser, D. (1994) Technology and educational change, Computers in the Schools, 9(2/3), pp. 5-22. Swan, K. & Mitrani, M. (1993) The changing nature of teaching and learning in computer-based classrooms, Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26, pp. 40-54. US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1988) Power On/ Washington: US Government Printing Office. US Department of Education, Office of Research (1993) Using Technology to Support Education Reform. Washington: US Government Printing. Wiburg, K. (1994) Integrating technologies into schools: why has it been so slow? The Computing Teacher, 21(5), pp. 6-8. Wilson, B., Hamilton, R., Teslow, J. & Cyr, T. (1993) Evaluating the impact of technology at Peakview Elementary School, in D. Carey, R. Carey, D. Willis & J. Willis (Eds) Technology and Teacher Education Annual. Charlottesville: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Whitaker, B., Schwartz, E. & Vockell, E. (1989) The Computer in the Reading Curriculum. Watsonville: Mitchell. Yoder, S. (1991) Readin', writin' and multimedia, The Wall Street Journal, October 21, p. R-12. 198