Literacy Now

photo credit: Massachusetts Secretary of Education via photopin cc

In 2013, Nelleke Belo, Susan McKenney, and Joke Voogt conducted a review to further understand research outcomes in the use of technology for early literacy acquisition in the kindergarten classroom. Drawing on four academic literature databases, the research team narrowed 13,070 initial hits to 46 articles that met their selection criteria. These articles, explicitly focused on technology as an independent variable, were aimed at kindergarten-age students, included early literacy development, and were published after 2001. Drawing on previous research affordances as well as gaps in the literature, the authors asked:

• What is the content and focus of studies on technology and ICT applications in relation to early literacy development?
• What kinds of evidence do these studies provide about the affordances of technology and ICT for fostering early literacy development?

The 46 articles were representative of studies of electronic storybooks (11), computer-based training programs (11), and technology-based curriculum supplements (11). The authors also found studies related to full curriculum (5), assistive technologies (4), and other media such as websites and television (4). Based on these studies, the authors suggest two overall findings.

• There is positive evidence of the role of technology in supporting early literacy acquisition for this age group.
• In a majority of the studies used in the analysis, there was a lack of attention paid to the role of the teacher. The specific study outcomes may be promising but they may also be more difficult to replicate without this information.

Review articles like the one offered by Belo et al. are critical to our field. Where specific studies lend insight into the use of particular technologies or methodologies, reviews like this offer researchers and practitioners a chance to step back and paint a picture of the field. The portrait represents successes and areas that need improvement. In addition to the two broad stated conclusions, there are at least two other important outcomes that can be gleaned from the analysis.

First, technologies have affordances and constraints making them more or less useful in different circumstances. The review provided evidence that electronic storybooks can lead to significant early literacy gains. However, there were also other technologies highlighted in this review that were successful in literacy acquisition. More importantly, electronic storybooks impacted literacy skills differently based on the interactivity they afforded and the number of student interactions offered.

This all sounds like common sense: you would not use an electronic storybook for every literacy goal and you would not assume all electronic storybooks work the same. However, there seems to be an innate desire, often verbalized by reporters, who attempt to glorify or villainize emerging tools and technologies. Technology can positively impact emergent literacy acquisition, however, it does not mean it always will. Some electronic storybooks used in certain ways can positively impact literacy skill development, however, it does not mean all e-books will work all the time, even if they demonstrate success in one environment.

Literacy researchers should be promoting a deeper understanding of the role of such technologies by asking a different type of question. Instead of wondering if technology can promote literacy acquisition or even if electronic storybooks work, it is more prudent to ask under what situations or circumstances will certain technologies work. The answer to “do electronic storybooks work?” is not yes or no—it’s sometimes, and under certain circumstances. Literacy practitioners should thus be cautious about interpreting results of research studies in terms of broad-sweeping claims. Instead of asking if it works, practitioners should push to understand when it could work or the conditions under which it works or fails to work.

Unfortunately, as the authors conclude, researchers seem to understand—and then forget—the importance of the teacher. Knowing how to teach and understanding literacy acquisition are both obviously different than knowing how to teach literacy.  Arguably knowing how to teach literacy with technology is yet another set of skills.   As such, it would be prudent to know more about the teacher involvement and requisite professional development of technology and literacy implementations. These were left out of many of the stated studies, reducing the ability of researchers and practitioners to further implement or confirm the outcomes.

What is striking about the 46 studies is that most of them seemed to be about technologies or experiences where children consumed media. That statement is not meant to be a definitive description of the 46 studies, there were obviously facets of many programs where children were producing artifacts of learning. Nor is it meant to be an indictment against consumable media, these are important in scaffolding learning.

It simply demonstrates a lack of published research on technologies and experiences rooted in student development and production for those age and date ranges. Compare this to the movement of production as literacy as evidenced by the coding movement or the notion that production can lead to literacy gains (e.g. see Jason Ohler’s resources about Digital Storytelling in the Classroom).  Think about the “maker movement” (e.g. http://makerfaire.com/) identified through tools like 3D printers and Lego Mindstorms (http://mindstorms.lego.com).

In the end, such analyses help us evaluate our current literacy stances. Are we creating new technologies that mirror our pedagogical stances? Are technologies pushing our pedagogical strategies in intended and unintended ways? And/or are we utilizing the technologies outside of literacy to better inform our pedagogical needs in literacy acquisition and instruction?

Dr. Richard E. Ferdig is the Summit Professor of Learning Technologies and Professor of Instructional Technology at the Research Center for Educational Technology, Kent State University, rferdig@gmail.com.

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

In today’s world, the topic of using technology in the classroom can be intimidating. In this monthly column, join one teacher on a quest to discover the best way to meet the needs of her digital-age learners…moving beyond the technology tools to focusing on supporting each student’s learning. 

photo credit: JD Hancock via photopin via photopin cc

Warning: I’m about to let you in on how deep my geekdom really runs.

Recently, I was in a somewhat heated debate on the validity of the first three episodes of the Star Wars saga; I’m talking about Episodes 1–3, which were released from 1999–2005. My stance was the original three movies (released starting in 1977) were of much higher quality than the newer episodes. In the original episodes, the writing was of higher quality with the storyline and characters being more multifaceted; the plot was rich and full of literary qualities; and the acting was better (hello, Harrison Ford!). Personally, I also love the fact it was a fairy tale told about the distant past but appeared to be further into our future.

One point that kept coming up for debate was about the level of technology and special effects. More specifically, what wasn’t available when the original three installments were filmed, but which were spectacular in the more recent episodes. I can see how technological advances did add a “wow” factor to the newer films that modern audiences may see as lacking from the original three (I disagree, but that’s a topic of a different discussion). However, does all of that “wow” equate to a higher quality movie? Does it make up for the depth that was lacking from the story? I don’t think so.

As I pondered the educational lessons learned from this dialogue (yes, another one of my passions), I realized that in today’s digital world, it is very easy for us to get sucked in by the “wow” factor of new tech tools we can bring into our classrooms. We see things claiming to make our educator lives easier and make learning more fun for learners. However, just because we can bring that technology into our classrooms, does it necessarily mean that it will do a better job at supporting student learning? Are we willing to buy into the premise that bigger, faster, or easier is always better for our students? 

To be honest, I have found myself swayed by all of the bells and whistles only to discover my practice already provided the best support and level of challenge my students needed before our new, sometimes very expensive, toy arrived. So I thought I would take a few minutes and share with you my thought process when weighing “the wow” versus “the substance” a tool can provide.

What do my students need? Sometimes we go to professional learning events sponsored by major vendors and become enticed by all that their product claims to offer to our students. All of a sudden we find ourselves wanting a product in an area where we do not have any needs or gaps in learning. As with so many of the decisions we make as educators, we always, without fail, need to lead with the learning. I discovered that if I identify practices, strategies, and needs of my students regularly and I keep my focus on those, I am much less likely to get sold any snake oil.

For instance, we all know the power of small groups and one-on-one conferring with our students. The struggle I had was in how to document and collect that data in order to effectively develop my instruction for each student in a timely manner. I had tried many practices. Yet, I felt like I was using an inordinate amount of time away from the actual instruction. I knew I needed a better way, not just for me, but also for my students. So, everything I read, every vendor I visited, every educator with whom I conversed, I searched to fill that need. I adjusted my lens and kept focus until I found my answer in an app called Confer. Yes, you need to be open to new ideas, but student-need should always remain our focus.

What will it provide that I don’t already have? As educators, it is crucial we model lifelong learning for our students. Each student, each year, is unique. That means we must continue to search for tools to put into our teaching toolbox. When you see a tool with a lot of pizzazz, you need to take time to evaluate whether it promotes strong pedagogy. Mentally strip down the bells and whistles to see what it is truly offering to you and your students. Will it not only support student learning, but also do it more effectively than what you are already doing?

Several years ago, I encouraged my administrator to go with me to a technology conference with the sole mission of showing her the power of an interactive whiteboard. I saw it as a way to have students engaging with and creating content. In my mind it provided students, especially those with special needs, the opportunity to actively participate and engage in learning unlike anything we had done in the past.

However, what happened was the district bought one from different company, one which did not offer the same capabilities for student engagement. Every class in the district was given this extremely expensive piece of equipment which ended up being used as a whiteboard without the engagement originally intended. We already had whiteboards; this electronic version had no impact on student learning (whereas the other model, with its more student engagement-friendly features, may have). As the ones in direct contact with students, it is our job to peel back the glitzy façade and analyze how a new technology could fill a need for student learning.

What does it offer other than fun? I often hear teachers say how much students will love a new tech tool. They claim it will motivate students to want to learn. I have heard educators extol the features of a tool without once mentioning student learning. This is a danger I call “Christmas Morning Syndrome.” On Christmas morning, kids get up thrilled and excited by their new toys. They spend countless hours playing with them. They are having fun. But where are those toys in July? They are often broken, discarded, and generally left forgotten. See, although a tool may be fun, and research supports the role of fun within the learning process, fun without substance is short-term, not long-lasting. Just like those toys on Christmas morning, if we throw new tools at our learners expecting them to do our job of creating self-motivated learners, we are on a slippery slope.

We are the educators. We are the content specialists and educational strategists. It is our responsibility to make the best choices for our students. We need to tap into their interests and learning styles to provide instruction that meets their unique needs. We need to differentiate, assess, challenge, inspire, and guide them to meeting their goals.

None of these steps can be replaced by a tech tool. A tool’s role is to support aspects of learning and educating. If it can’t do that, we need to spend our time and resources elsewhere.

Until next time, may the force of making the best choices for your students be with you.

Julie D. Ramsay is a Nationally Board Certified educator and the author of “CAN WE SKIP LUNCH AND KEEP WRITING?”: COLLABORATING IN CLASS & ONLINE, GRADES 3-8 (Stenhouse, 2011). She teaches ELA to sixth graders at Rock Quarry Middle School in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. She also travels the country to speak, present, and facilitate workshops in applying technology to support authentic learning. Read her blog at juliedramsay.blogspot.com. 

For teachers in the northern hemisphere, summer has arrived. Typically, our summer work revolves around planning for the year ahead. As we look forward to the fall, we consider how to re-envision and enhance our lessons. In doing so, I am drawn to the concepts of collage—the combination of different elements to create an artistic whole—and bricolage, described by Louridas (Design Studies, 1999) as “the process of designing within contingencies by using and repurposing the tools at one’s disposal.” Today, the variety of available texts is more diverse than ever, and multimodal literacy practices demand we include these diverse texts in our instruction (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 2004). More than ever, I find myself gathering, collecting, blending, and recombining resources like a mixed media artist. 

Blendspace for Collages

My preferred tool for curating multimodal morsels is a site called Blendspace. Blendspace is not unlike Pinterest in that it displays collections using image tiles instead of text descriptions or URL addresses. But I like its speed and efficiency; I can search for and preview videos, images, and websites in the sidebar and quickly drag them to my canvas. I can also narrow my search to Youtube, Google, Open Ed, Flickr, Edcreations, or Gooru.

Added features include the ability to insert specific web pages and upload media files, Dropbox files or Google Drive files. Note that Blendspace collections are called lessons, though I used these to collect resources for an entire unit. Here’s a snapshot of my poetry collection page: 

Transitioning to Edmodo

Because my school uses Edmodo as a Learning Management System (LMS), I primarily use Blendspace in the gathering stage. It works nicely as a visual filing cabinet for potential resources, which I’ll later post to Edmodo if I choose to use them. However, the site does provide other LMS functions like creating classes, tracking lesson views, and creating quizzes.

Finding Resources for Units

What’s important here is not that I use Blendspace specifically, but that I use something to collect multimodal resources for potential inclusion in my unit. I begin a search with this question: What multimodal texts will enrich my students’ understanding of this topic?

In the case of poetry, I found middle-school appropriate resources such as: spoken word performances by youth, poets reciting their work, videos of popular songs and their lyrics, choral performances of famous poetry put to music, photos of poetry posted in public places, and multimedia interpretations of poetry. Consistent with the argument that one of technology’s greatest affordances is in providing diversity (Dede, International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education, 2008), these texts provide multiple representations of meaning. Not every student makes a connection to every text, but I reach more students by providing alternative paths to their appreciation of the genre.

Later, in the context of the writing workshop, modeled in Kelly Gallagher’s excellent book Write Like This (2011), these multimodal texts provide examples and inspiration for our own compositions. Students write poems to “Haiku the School” with public poetry; they compose poems grounded in things and memories; and they seek and then speak their voices in a class poetry slam. In the spirit of bricolage, we create a class “coffeehouse” with a makeshift stage projected behind the poet performer, a class microphone, and background music streamed from Pandora. Finally, we create multimedia representations of our work using sites like Tackk, Haiku Deck, and Animoto, and share them with our schoolmates, our families, and the world on Edmodo, Twitter, and Youtube. In short, what began with a treasure hunt via Blendspace ends in a celebration of our literary selves.

You can find my developing collection for poetry at this link. Happy gathering!

Angie Johnson (ajohnson@lakeshoreps.org) is a doctoral student in Educational Psychology and Educational Technology at Michigan State University and teaches 8th grade Language Arts at Lakeshore Middle School, in Stevensville, MI.

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