Literacy Now

Do you know Glenn? Maybe you’ve had Glenn—or an adolescent reader like him—as a student. His reading scores on standardized tests are middle-of-the-pack. But if you shadow Glenn through a typical day, you’ll discover that he’s a reader of eclectic interests with a repertoire of distinct, somewhat idiosyncratic ways of reading he habitually resorts to when reading in particular contexts, for particular purposes.

(Note: “Glenn” is a composite. The following vignettes of Glenn reading draw on interview and think-aloud data collected from two sixth-graders who each described and demonstrated more than 10 different ways of reading they use on a regular basis.)

• Lying on the couch, reading a graphic novel, Hereville, for pleasure, Glenn’s gaze flits across the page, bouncing back and forth between words and pictorial details, adjusting its path from page to page as the layout of panels changes. He enjoys the speed with which the story unfolds. He also enjoys noticing details in the drawings that clash with what a character has said or what a character is thinking.
• In the car, on his smartphone, text-messaging with his friends, Glenn alternates between reading and typing. He has made a game of trying to anticipate what his friends will type next in response to what he has just typed, and with some friends, on some topics, he bats 1000. He also has strong views about how emojis can be more persuasive than words in some conversations because their meaning is often fuzzy and open to interpretation.
• Sitting in his sixth-grade social studies classroom, reading his social studies textbook, Glenn’s go-to method is to turn the information on the page into a movie in his head. This works well on some pages (e.g., with descriptions of wars and battles) and less well on others (e.g., with information about changing agricultural methods). With his textbook, he also sometimes voices the words in his head in the style of a play-by-play sports announcer—which he says helps him stay focused when the information is boring.
• In the cafeteria at lunch with his “gamer” friends, Glenn co-reads a how-to book about a favorite video game (e.g., Minecraft: Redstone Handbook). When he is not  reading, he is envisioning game situations in which a particular how-to tip could be applied. As Glenn and his friends exchange ideas, they interrupt each other with objections and alternate ideas, which sends everyone back to the book to check for details that support or disqualify their ideas.
• At the dining room table, at his mother’s laptop, Glenn searches a video-game wiki (e.g., Minecraft Wiki) for usable information and now also with an eye for authorship and sourcing. A few months ago, a friend who tried to add a new page to the wiki had that page deleted by a more senior wiki author/administrator, and this event sparked Glenn’s curiosity. Now he uses a reading process that looks at the “layers” under the wiki’s top layer. He looks at the history of the page he’s on and enjoys scanning the “talk” page to see the disagreements among editors about what the page should include or exclude.
• Still on his mother’s laptop, having logged into his account at a popular learn-how-to-code website (e.g., CodeCombat.com), Glenn composes lines of code, clicks Run to see how the code he has written changes the movements of a digital character, and then meticulously rereads what he has written to fix mistakes. He’s keenly aware that even a single letter or punctuation mark in the wrong place can cause a problem.

From Glenn’s point of view, these ways of reading are all different. They look and feel as different as playing different sports. To be sure, they are all forms of reading (just as different ball sports are all ways of using your body to get a ball into some kind of net), but they are also at the same time significantly different, both in terms of how much he enjoys them and cares about them, and in terms of the cognitive processes and strategies he’s using when he enacts one or another.

Which is why Glenn sometimes tunes out when his ELA teacher tells him and his classmates about “what good readers do.”

Narrow characterizations fail to recognize and leverage the diverse types of reading experiences and expertise that diverse students bring to the classroom, to the page, and to the screen. And that’s a big missed opportunity. As students’ ways of reading diversify, and as students bring more and more specialized reading expertise and varied reading MOs to the classroom, it behooves us as teachers to enlarge our awareness—and to find ways to build on what our students know and do as readers, even when what they know and do is not the academic reading we privilege.

Paul Morsink is an assistant professor in Reading and Language Arts at Oakland University in Michigan.

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

“It’s like...magic!” the second grader celebrated, as he scanned a QR code on a frog food container and was directed to a website about what frogs eat. “Magic” was also what we felt when a team of us—a second-grade classroom teacher, a technology staff developer, and an administrator—examined how digital tools helped to support student-directed inquiry in the content areas over the course of a school year. We discovered three practices vital to making digital inquiry–based learning successful.

Encouraging questions and wonderings

Knowing that their ideas mattered helped our students to feel comfortable trying out different inquiry questions/topic ideas during our science and social studies units. Before we introduced digital tools, we created a “Think and Wonder” wall on a classroom bulletin board where students could place sticky notes with any questions or ideas they were pondering. Idea sharing and questioning were established as vital components of our learning community. When we later introduced Padlet, an online collaborative “bulletin board,” kids were not only comfortable sharing their thoughts in the digital format but many also eagerly contributed responses from home. We were thrilled to see how seamless the transition to digital sharing was and impressed with the inquiry that had extended beyond the units of study and the classroom.

Extending the learning network

While creating a Google slideshow to share her understanding of communities, one of our students searched for a picture of a fire truck but could not find one she liked. Instead, she discovered and played with the Google drawing tool and created her own fire truck clip art. Her partner noticed what she’d done and excitedly told the classmates sitting nearby to come and see. Suddenly, this student was teaching a group of classmates a neat trick that many of them then went on to try. The teacher noticed this and invited the student to conduct a minilesson on using the drawing tool the next day. Other students were then invited to share their tips and strategies throughout the year. We noted how they helped each other in many ways such as providing technical support, helping to narrow down topics for research, and giving feedback to improve each other's presentations. The teacher was no longer the “expert” in the room and students viewed their peers as resources.

Finding entry points for all learners

At the culmination of our science unit study of frogs, we asked students to share what they’d learned about the life cycle through observations and research. We introduced Wixie, an online publishing and creativity platform that enables students ages 4–8 to create multimedia presentations. We were impressed by students’ abilities to customize projects with little support to demonstrate their understanding of the frog life cycle. Throughout the study, students asked questions related to the information they were learning. For their culminating project, many chose to extend their presentations by seeking answers to these questions. Some students transferred learning from other subject areas and incorporated Venn diagrams, maps and charts, and QR codes directing their audience to noteworthy frog websites. Other students created a single slide presentation that read more like an informational poster, with voice recordings to narrate over their photographs, digital and analog drawings, and flowcharts. Students with diverse learning needs were able to use their strengths to communicate their understanding using the various tools available.

If inquiry-based learning is to be successful in the elementary classroom, teachers need to facilitate a classroom environment where independent thinking is celebrated, risk-taking is encouraged, and strengths are highlighted. These practices can transfer in meaningful ways when using digital tools. By laying the groundwork for a culture of asking questions and seeking answers, sharing ideas, and learning from peers using digital tools, teachers can find their own “magic” in the classroom.

Jenny Gieras teaches third grade at Roaring Brook Elementary School in Chappaqua, NY. She can be reached via Twitter. Ellen Moskowitz is an instructional technology coach in Chappaqua, NY. She can be reached via Twitter. William Yang is an assistant principal at the Edgewood Elementary School in Scarsdale, NY. He can be contacted via Twitter. This article is part of a series from the International Literacy Association’s Technology in Literacy Education Special Interest Group (TILE-SIG).

Earlier this fall, I was scrolling through Twitter when I came across an anchor chart created by Pana Asavavatana. Hashtagged with #MentorTech and #LivBit, I curiously clicked on the handle of @TheLivBits. Short for Olivia, Liv is an elementary student in the United States who shares selfie videos that range from book reviews to her thinking about reading. Liv also shares meetings with authors and inspirational bits.

In an age of global connectedness, Liv’s videos, shared through her “mom-monitored” Twitter, Instagram, and Vimeo accounts have taken the world by storm since she began posting in February 2016. Curious about the possibilities of using Liv’s videos in the global literacy classroom, I reached out to Pana and asked her to share her strategies for doing so.

Pana is the preK–2 technology and design coach at Taipei American School, an independent, coeducational day school with a U.S.-based curriculum. Founded in 1949 for preK–12 learners, its students represent more than 30 nationalities. In her role, Pana collaborates with 23 teachers as well as specialist teams, including Mandarin and art, with a focus on technology integration, robotics, and engineering.

An active Twitter user, Pana first encountered Liv through teacher and author Kristin Ziemke, who had posted about #LivBits. Pana discovered Liv’s Instagram (note: the account is private and you must request permission to follow), where Liv began her journey of sharing ideas about books. During summer 2016, Pana, Kristin, and Liv met at the Building Learning Communities (BLC) education conference in Boston, where each person presented.

As many of us know, “literacy” is more than just reading text on a page. Communicating in today’s world includes multisensory, multimodal, and interactive experiences to engage audiences. What does this mean for teachers and students?

Together, we must learn to think critically about new media and how to use it effectively to share ideas globally. Liv is one example of a student connecting with wider audiences using digital platforms, which reflects the evolving nature of communication today.

Mentor texts in literacy teaching are not new. We, as educators, often use them to teach craft or techniques in writing and hope our students will use these tools to enrich their own writing. Similarly, Liv’s videos act as “mentor tech” and provide models that Pana’s students use to create their own videos. Pana’s students begin drafting a script before filming their first video and then revising their work. Throughout this process, students watch several versions of Liv’s videos, noting craft techniques they might borrow—from what they might say to how ideas are presented on camera.

The collaboration between Pana and Liv is but one example of how new technologies are continually opening new doors for fostering a global literacies network, inclusive of both teachers and children. As Liv’s mom shared with me, Liv’s goal is “to be a positive voice for kids, to celebrate others’ work, and to grow advocacy for causes she cares about—like being a voice for shark education.” The selfie videos created by Liv and Pana’s students provide teachers another medium for generating meaningful assessment, feedback, and communication that tells much more about a child’s literacy learning than a test score.

Liv is one model of how children can use social media not only to learn but also to develop, reflect on, and share their passion and knowledge with others as they cultivate metacognition about their literacy experiences.

Special thanks to Pana Asavavatana, an Apple Distinguished Educator, for connecting with a stranger from across the globe via Twitter. I am deeply grateful for her willingness to share her teaching expertise and the work of her students at Taipei American School with me. 

Cassie J. Brownell is a doctoral candidate and Marianne Amarel Teaching and Teacher Education Fellow in the Department of Teacher Education at Michigan State University. A corecipient of a 2015 NCTE-CEE Research Initiative Grant, Cassie’s most recent collaborative project—#hearmyhome—explores how writing with and through sound might help students and teachers attune toward literacies and communities of difference.

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

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).