Literacy Now

A friend of mine who teaches at a premier college in the United States lamented over Facebook about an e-mail he received from a student. In it, the student said he couldn’t figure out how to play a DVD on his computer even after asking a number of friends. My friend said he would be tempted to “staple the e-mail to a speaker’s forehead” if one more person talks about how intuitive young people are with technology. Considering how his university has been ranked in the top 10 public universities in the United States according to U.S. World News and Report, I want to talk about a couple of terms we hear often: digital natives and digital immigrants.

In his 2001 article, Marc Prensky coined the terms that have been used frequently by various scholars. He claimed that students were vastly different from their teachers because of their exposure to technology. He declared, “The single biggest problem facing education today is that our Digital Immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language.” He argued that educators should become innovative in the way that they teach their content because the old way of teaching was no longer serving our students who were so much savvier than their teachers.

In my previous post, I pointed out the importance of access to all students in terms of computer coding education. I argued that access matters a great deal when it comes to technology education. So it may sound strange that I do not subscribe to Prensky’s idea of calling this generation of learners digital natives. No one can dispute that today’s youths have access to more technology in comparison with previous generations. Clearly our young people have more devices, more services, and more apps.

As much as I believe in the importance of access, I also know access doesn’t automatically equal competency. It is true that access is a prerequisite to creating competency. However, to transform such access to learner competency, intentional instruction must follow. Just because a student can use Snapchat doesn’t mean that he knows how to harness the power of instant communication. Just because a student can post photos on Instagram doesn’t mean that she knows not to share sensitive photos in a text message. In fact, a Washington Post article indicates that access allows more opportunities for youngsters to make decisions that may compromise privacy or safety or may lead to cyberbullying. Calling our young people digital natives allows adults to relinquish our responsibility to our young people who need more guidance than ever before.

Educators of today must remember that our students need us to set good examples when it comes to using technology. Rather than shying away from using social media, we can set good examples for our students. Rather than avoiding YouTube, we can use it as an instructional platform and a valuable resource. Rather than relying on someone else to post instructional content, we can use free blog sites such as WordPress or Google Sites to share educational content. In today’s digital wilderness where so many commercial companies lead our students astray, we all must step up and lead our students by behaving like the adults that we are.

Kip Glazer is a native of Seoul, South Korea, and immigrated to the United States in 1993 as a college student. She holds California Single Subject Teaching Credentials in Social Studies, English, Health, Foundational Mathematics, and School Administration. In 2014, she was named the Kern County Teacher of the Year. She earned her doctorate of education in learning technologies at Pepperdine University in October 2015. She has presented and keynoted at many state and national conferences on game-based learning and educational technologies. She has also consulted for Center for Innovative Research in Cyberlearning and the Kennedy Center ArtsEdge Program.

Recently I read a blog post written by Doug Belshaw describing a project being completed by Mozilla to create digital badges associated with their Web Literacy Map.
Although digital badges and the Web Literacy Map are not recent developments, per se, I decided to spend some time examining the project further, which led me to the Academy Badge Library, a potentially useful tool for helping students (and teachers) demonstrate their competencies for online inquiry.

I think it’s important to begin with some background on the Web Literacy Map and digital badges. The former was originally described in a whitepaper that defined web literacy as skills and competencies required to read, write, and participate effectively on the web. In the original paper, the authors identified four areas of Web literacies: exploring, creating, connecting, and protecting. As often happens with anything related to technology, though, changes in context result in various updates to the map. The most recent version retained the original broad areas of Web literacy (write, read, and participate), yet added depth and detail to each by delineating specific skills for each area and competencies for each skill. The map also incorporated 21st-century skills to offer a comprehensive framework for teaching and learning Web literacy skills.

Digital badges, on the other hand, were characterized in one report as “digital credentials that represent skills, interests, and achievements earned by an individual through specific projects, programs, courses, or other activities.” They are proposed as a mechanism to provide greater understanding of an individual’s skills or accomplishments due to the defined performance criteria associated with each. An inherent benefit of digital badges is they can be embedded within an electronic resource and serve as a form of electronic portfolio. They have also been described as a way to provide students with choice, contributing toward motivation and engagement.

What really captured my interested about the Academy Badge Library—beyond the general benefits of badges—was the alignment between several badges with the skills and competencies associated with the new literacies of online research and comprehension. Specifically, badges used to demonstrate the capability to Search, Navigate, Evaluate, Synthesize, and Compose on the Internet addressed the five primary processes outlined in a recent article by Leu and colleagues, which included

1. Reading to define important questions
2. Reading to locate online information
3. Reading to evaluate online information
4. Reading to synthesize online information
5. Reading and writing to communicate online information.

I also noted that each of the badges addressed the specific sub-skills Leu et al. described in their work. For example, the Search badge included using and revising keywords, evaluating questions and search terms, and discovering information spread across a website, which were skills also mentioned in the article.

Relating this to the classroom and to research (including my own) has repeatedly shown that students should be explicitly taught processes necessary for effective online inquiry, and I view the Academy Badge Library as a way to supplement this instruction. Earning badges provides opportunities for students to demonstrate their knowledge in each of the aforementioned real-world competencies. In addition, accumulating badges allows them to document the skills they have developed and the achievements they have accomplished over time. Finally, as students earn badges, teachers can document skills and competencies related to 21st-century skills that are not often (or easily) assessed, including problem solving and critical thinking, especially if additional badges are earned beyond those directly associated with online research and comprehension.

The Web Literacy Map and Academy Badge Library can be useful to prepare students to be critical, effective seekers of information online. The resources listed below will provide deeper knowledge about digital badges and encourage badge creation, especially in the primary grades. Good luck as you begin this process!

Here are some additional resources if you wish to further explore badges:

• ITM 28: Class Badges
• What Is a Badge?
• Chart Students’ Growth With Digital Badges
• The Teacher’s Guide to Badges in Education
• Badge Library

These are tools you can use to create your own badges:

• Mozilla Open Badges
• Credly (and an instructional video)
• For All Badges
• Edmodo
• Badge Studio

S. Michael Putman, PhD, is an associate professor and interim chairperson in the Reading and Elementary Education Department at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. His areas of research include the impact of teacher preparation and professional development on teacher self-efficacy, student dispositions toward online inquiry, and the effective use of technology within teaching practices.

This article is part of a series from the International Reading Association’s Technology in Literacy Education Special Interest Group (TILE-SIG).

James, a third grader enrolled in a summer reading program, reluctantly joined his tutor each morning and often shrugged in response to questions or invitations to participate. Initial assessments revealed low self-perception and attitudes toward reading and writing and a lack of motivation and independence as a writer. James demonstrated difficulty with finding writing topics, engaging in the act of writing, and maintaining overall writing stamina. He was more interested in outdoor activities or playing games on his tablet.

Using his interests in technology and the outdoors, his tutor encouraged him to take photos of his weekend fishing trip. She used these photos on his tablet to encourage discussion, and when asked what he wanted to write about, James chose fishing. Using Book Creator, he wrote an opinion and informational piece and then posted these pages in his Seesaw digital portfolio so his family could see his work. His mom “liked” it and left positive comments. Sharing his work on Seesaw gave James an authentic audience for his writing and made communication between home and school easier, which is an essential component of student success.

James used Seesaw throughout the tutoring sessions to reflect on his reading and writing progress and goals. Because James had difficulty with composing ideas in writing, his tutor provided him with sentence frames such as “As a reader/writer, I learned…” and “To continue to grow, I will…” to help initiate his self-evaluation and reflection process. James learned about the importance of continued practice as a reader and writer as noted in his reflection from June 30: “To continue to grow as a writer, I will keep writing.” The use of digital tools enhanced James’s engagement, interest, and attitude toward writing. According to his tutor, “Technology was definitely the [catalyst] that changed James’s view of writing!”

Digital portfolios

Digital portfolios can serve to demonstrate a wide range of purposes and processes including completed work or work in progress. Students can explain their thinking and request feedback from others to foster more authentic learning experiences. The online nature of digital portfolios makes it easy for both students and teachers to evaluate growth. Students can examine their strengths, set goals for areas of continued development, and take greater ownership in their own learning process. Additionally, stakeholders in students’ education such as parents and teachers can see ongoing evidence of students’ growth.     

Seesaw is a versatile online tool that can be used for a range of self-assessment activities such as exit slips, reflection, and portfolios for goal setting and to document progress over time. Getting started with Seesaw is simple. Once a class has been created, students can sign in with e-mail addresses or by scanning a QR code from their devices, which is especially helpful if students do not have individual e-mail accounts. Once in the Seesaw class, students can upload images, texts, PDF files, links, videos, drawings, and work from other apps. Teachers must approve work before it can be posted, and parents can be invited to view their child’s work. With teacher approval, students can feature their work on the Seesaw blog to connect with wider audiences from around the world. Giving students a platform from which to share their work increases access to authentic audiences, which is an important part of any writing program.

Katie Stover is an assistant professor of Education at Furman University in Greenville, SC, and coauthor of From Pencils to Podcasts: Digital Tools for Transforming K–6 Literacy Practices(Solution Tree, 2017) and Smuggling Writing: Strategies That Get Students to Write Every Day, in Every Content Area, Grades 3–12(Corwin, 2016). Lindsay Yearta is an assistant professor of Education at Winthrop University in Rock Hill, SC, and coauthor of From Pencils to Podcasts: Digital Tools for Transforming K–6 Literacy Practices(Solution Tree, 2017) as well as a number of articles published in peer-reviewed journals. She can be reached via Twitter.   

At Ruth Fox Elementary School in North Branch, MI, my colleagues and I are entering year three of our online professional learning with Matt Copeland, author of Socratic Circles. Not only have we continued our long distance learning via video, but we have also started exploring the benefits of using video to reflect on our instructional practices in the classroom. The results have been overwhelmingly positive!

Just last month, Edutopia published this piece by Mary Davenport, outlining the importance of yearlong, embedded planning for successful implementation of Socratic Circles, a protocol for facilitating student-led discussions that focus on close reading, higher order thinking, question formation, and speaking and listening. Davenport’s last step, “Let’s get reflective,” is crucial for building our capacity as educators to facilitate this type of classroom dialogue to spur learning and a deep sense of community and collaboration in the classroom. How might classroom video be leveraged to provide rich opportunities for such reflection?

Lights, camera, action!

Last spring, we used smartphones and tablets to record Socratic Circle lessons in our classrooms. Next, we used a simplified version of discourse analysis to gather and analyze data about the dialogue we were facilitating among students. To begin, we selected a short segment of video, approximately five minutes, and took the time to transcribe all of the conversation that took place therein. Then, with videos and transcripts in hand, we poured over our data, tabulating and commenting on what we saw.

For example, one teacher was able to document that in her five-minute snippet of classroom dialogue:

• 89% of the verbal contributions to the conversation were made by students
• Of the 14 students in the inner circle, 10 contributed to the discussion
• Of the 18 verbal contributions, five were questions and three of those questions came from the teacher whereas only two came from students
• In 12 of the 16 student contributions, the student speaking was responding directly to another student
• There were no instances of students inviting/drawing others into the conversation

Benefits of looking through the lens

Through these video analyses, we reflected on our own practice, just as Davenport suggests we should. Exploring a range of video annotation tools (MoocNote, Video Ant, Edthena), we identified, individually, where we believed our facilitation was working well and also where there were opportunities for personal growth. Because these annotations were all documented in the technologies we were using, we were able to share our videos and analyses with one another, collaborate, and offer our own coaching tips to build one another’s capacity to facilitate better classroom dialogue in the future.

As an example, from the previous data,the teacher was able to quickly identify the strength of the verbal interactions among her students’ dialogue but then also begin to brainstorm with her colleagues strategies she might use to facilitate students generating and posing more questions to the group. The professional conversation that grew organically from this activity was every bit as rich and productive as the student-led dialogue in the classroom.

Using video and discourse analysis afforded our teachers the opportunity to step back from the details of each classroom conversation itself and weigh the breadth and depth of the dialogue against our goals for the discussion. This practice and reflection has taken our implementation of the protocol to a whole new level. Our planning for future Socratic Circles with students has been greatly strengthened by this job-embedded professional learning facilitated by video.

This fall, we intend to share these same tools and procedures with our students, to engage them in studying their own conversations through discourse analysis and video, and facilitating their own growth in learning.

Amber White is a reading specialist, a teacher consultant for the Saginaw Bay Writing Project, and the Director of Curriculum & Instruction for North Branch Area Schools. You can reach her on Twitter. Matt Copeland is an author, presenter, and instructional coach who works with educators to build capacity in using Socratic Circles in K–12 classrooms and beyond. You can learn more about implementing Socratic Circles by joining our professional community.

This article is part of a series from the Technology in Literacy Education Special Interest Group (TILE-SIG). 

Computer coding is a trending topic these days. One reason why is a key feature of the current focus in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education—President Barack Obama’s Computer Science for All initiative. According to folks in the White House, coding has become a new “necessary skill” for our students’ economic opportunity and social mobility.

Computational thinking, math, design, engineering, and data analysis are considered essential skills to prepare students for the high-paying technology jobs that are open and currently unfilled. That is all well and good, but literacy-focused educators may be wondering how literacy fits it in with coding movement.

As a school librarian invested in literacy education, I have seen school and public librarians embrace the computer coding movement. Some people argue that libraries have no place in computer science and should stay with their traditional programs and services. In contrast, proponents see that computer coding helps develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills, and these are at the core of our professional mission: to help people understand how to solve problems using information effectively, which are skills that support people as lifelong learners.

Not until a group of librarians and I visited the South End Technology Center (SETC) in Boston, MA, last June that I realized computer coding has a big place in literacy education. Dr. Susan Klimczak, L2T Director of Special Programs at SETC, spoke to us about how computer coding is essentially writing a story. The five-stage story structure is all there. When you code, you set the scene, build tension, create climax, include falling action, and come to a resolution—think Minecraft game design. The possibilities for librarians to collaborate with English and reading teachers using code are wide open and exciting.

At a sold-out Coding With Scratch workshop for school librarians in August, facilitator and school librarian Jennifer Robinson and I were impressed by librarians’ eagerness to learn and bring coding into their schools. After Jen explained the basics about Scratch, we let the librarians loose, tasked with developing a short computer program with a sprite (character), setting, costumes, and actions. They quickly learned the start, loop, repeat, and sequence commands. Excitement grew as the participants interacted and learned through trial and error. These educators experienced the design process emotions of frustration, pride, dismay, and exhilaration and were hooked on the value of bringing coding into the literacy fold.

To show librarians what a collaborative English language arts and coding project could look like, Jen described her project with fifth-grade students. Working as an instructional partner with the classroom teacher, Jen had the students create a computer program using Scratch to show evidence of competency in a Common Core narrative writing standard. First, students read a biography and then created a narrative script highlighting important parts in this person’s life. After a brief tutorial on Scratch, students attempted to master the broadcast and receive commands to code a dialogue sequence from their script.

Librarians who are on the coding bandwagon have the dispositions to be comfortable with the discomfort of taking risks and letting go of control. They are trained collaborators who support traditional literacies of reading and writing but are also technology leaders willing to try new things and create student-centered learning activities. Check with your school librarian for ways to bring coding into your literacy instruction.

Mary Moen is a visiting research professor and the coordinator of the School Library Media Program at the University of Rhode Island’s Graduate School of Library and Information Studies. A former school librarian, her research interests include teacher professional learning of technology, digital literacy, and makerspaces in libraries.

This article is part of a series from the Technology in Literacy Education Special Interest Group (TILE-SIG).