Literacy Now

The effects of integrating digital technologies (e.g., computers and iPads) into preschool instruction are not well-researched and some scholars even find the issue controversial (e.g., Lindahl & Folkesson, 2012). While some educators have negative stances toward using technology in preschool classrooms (Cordes & Miller, 2000), others argue that using iPads can be an effective way of teaching literacy to preschool children because iPads foster student engagement and provide more interactive learning environments (Dobler, 2011; Hutchison, Beschomer, & Schmidt-Crawford, 2012; Hutchison & Woodward, 2014; Northrop & Killeen, 2013). 

 

In spite of these debates, iPads are being increasingly used in many preschool classrooms in the United States. Furthermore, professional development has been shown to improve the effectiveness of integrating iPads into preschool literacy instruction (Lawless & Pellegrino, 2007). In this blog post, I share one of these positive experiences.

Context of the Professional Development

In the spring of 2013, I participated in a semester-long professional development for iPad integration in a preschool located in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Teachers in four preschool classrooms participated in this professional development. Some of the teachers had used iPads personally on a daily basis but had little experience using them to teach children. Each classroom was provided with four iPads.

 Before the professional development sessions, teachers searched and downloaded several free apps by themselves. However, they were challenged by the large amount of educational apps and lack of time for investigation. They needed someone who could help them search for good educational apps and teach them how to integrate the apps effectively. A professional development team consisting of a literacy coach and a technical supporter was formed to address the teachers’ concerns.

Before Integration: Introducing a Set of Apps to Teachers

For the successful integration of iPads, teachers need to be knowledgeable about possible sets of educational apps and the affordances of each for preschool literacy instruction. To support this learning process, I searched for preschool-literacy iPad apps from Apple’s app store, educational websites, and blogs, and selected several to examine more closely.

After exploring and analyzing these selected apps, I created a summary table of the features and functions of each app (figure 1). Then, I selected a list of 32 apps and sorted them into seven categories: alphabet, handwriting, matching phonemes, vocabulary, comprehensive phonics, sentence, and storybook. To share information about these apps, I organized all of this information into a series of PowerPoint slides (see Figure 2 for the slide about vocabulary apps). As I introduced the 32 apps to the teachers, I explained the affordances and characteristics of the apps in each category. As part of this process, teachers found it helpful for me to demonstrate on a projector how to use each app.

During Integration: Observing Teachers’ Integrations of iPad Apps

Of course, introducing apps to teachers is not sufficient professional development for effective iPad integration. What is most important is considering how, when, and for whom the apps will be used. Before we were able to discuss how these apps might be integrated into their literacy curriculum, teachers needed time to explore how children at different levels of literacy development used these apps. 

Based on the review of previous studies (e.g., Dobler, 2011; Hutchison, Beschomer, & Schmidt-Crawford, 2012; Hutchison & Woodward, 2014; Northrop & Killeen, 2013), we established three basic principles of the iPad integration for all classrooms. First, we created iPad rules for preschool children and reminded them to follow the rules (Figure 3). Second, teachers used a direct instruction method to teach students how to use each iPad app. Third, a gradual release of responsibility model (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983) was applied to guide classroom practices with the iPad.

 For a month, teachers followed these principles and investigated the best ways that they could improve students’ literacy skills. Some teachers established a technology center in one corner of the classroom and other teachers set a regular time of learning with iPads in small groups.    

While I observed four classrooms, I also played a role as a technical trouble-shooter. Whenever teachers or students had problems with using apps, I helped them solve the problems. All four classrooms were observed at least once a week and field notes were taken in each classroom.

 

After Integration: Discussing Effective Apps and Ways of Integration

After a month’s integration of iPad apps in each classroom, I met with the teachers and a literacy coach to discuss their successes or challenges using the iPad as part of their literacy instruction. Teachers shared their experience first. For one teacher, the most effective ways of using the iPad was “differentiated integration of apps.” The teacher used three iPads in a small group session. She paired two students who had similar literacy proficiencies. For example, a group of students played Little Writer app to match sound with each alphabet letter and to practice handwriting of upper- and lower-case alphabet letters. Two children in another group played Dora ABC vol.2 Rhyming app to improve their phonemic awareness.

 One thing I noticed was that the teachers did not know how to modify and customize each app for literacy instruction. To solve this problem, I focused on some apps including customization features such as Little Speller and Sentence Maker, which were developed by grasshopperapps.com. One advantage of using these apps was that teachers could create more games with the letters, words, and sentences they taught in the class. I demonstrated how to customize each app and teachers also followed each step with their own iPads.

 

The Need for On-going Professional Development

At the focus group interview of these teachers, they reported increased competency on integrating iPad apps for literacy instruction. However, teachers still expressed the need for more professional development for storybook reading and writing instruction with the iPad.

 Teachers and professionals in preschools should collaborate to implement the before, during, and after integration steps of professional development continuously. Throughout on-going professional development sessions, teachers may learn not only how to use provided apps by other experts but also how to identify high-quality information about educational apps for preschool literacy instruction.

TILE-SIG will host a special session on Sunday, May 11 at 3:00 p.m. at the International Reading Association 59th Annual Conference in New Orleans. The session includes the presentation of the 2014 Technology in Reading Research Award, "Changing the Landscape of Literacy Teacher Education: Innovations with Generative Technology" with keynote Dana Grisham (National University, TILE-SIG 2013 Reading Research Award Winner), and 18 roundtable discussions about research findings and practical classroom ideas. Visit http://www.iraconference.org to learn more about IRA 2014 or to register.

 References

Cordes, C., & Miller, E. (2000). Fool’s gold: A critical look at computers in childhood. College Park, MA: Alliance for Childhood.

Dobler, E. (2011, December). Using iPads to promote literacy in the primary grades. Reading Today, 29, 18-19.

Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt‐Crawford, D. (2012). Exploring the use of the iPad for literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 66, 15-23.

Hutchison, A., & Woodward, L. (2014). A planning cycle for integrating digital technology into literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 67, 455-464.;

Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of educational research, 77, 575-614.

Lindahl, M. G., & Folkesson, A. M. (2012). ICT in preschool: friend or foe? The significance of norms in a changing practice. International Journal of Early Years Education, 20, 422-436.

Northrop, L., & Killeen, E. (2013). A framework for using iPads to build early literacy skills. The Reading Teacher, 66, 531-537.

Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary educational psychology, 8, 317-344.

Sohee Park is a doctoral student specializing in Literacy Education in the School of Education at the University of Delaware, sohee@udel.edu.

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. 

It’s almost that time again…time to pack our bags and head out to IRA’s Annual Conference. As one who has the opportunity to participate in multiple conferences a year, I often get asked about how I prepare to get the most out of the short time I have at each one. Beyond the “wear comfortable walking shoes” and “drink lots of water” types of practical advice, I thought I’d give you a peek into some of my conference practices to help you get ready for IRA 2014.

Whispers of an Adventure
A conference program, like the one IRA offers, can potentially become overwhelming with all of the opportunities to learn, connect, and grow one’s practice. Since the conference only lasts for a few days, it’s important to plan your schedule to get the most bang for your buck in this jam-packed event.

Each year, I have one or two large goals for my professional growth. Having that focus helps me peruse a conference program and identify sessions that will help me move towards meeting my goals. I look at sessions by not just well-known, established presenters, but also sessions led by educators who seem to have an area of expertise where I want to sharpen my teaching practice.

Since most sessions have limited seating, I typically will select multiple sessions scheduled during the time slot. That way, even if I arrive to a session and it is already at capacity, I have a plan for continuing my professional learning without losing too much valuable conference time. This year, I am really excited that my entire schedule of sessions is neatly organized in IRA’s conference app, keeping me organized on the go.

A non-educator friend once asked me why I loved attending professional learning events so much. I told her that it was more than the learning and networking with my colleagues from around the world; it was a kind of family reunion. Conferences were our time to meet face-to-face and continue our conversations that we have conducted through social media or our classes’ collaboration during the rest of the year.

In fact, many of the members of my personal learning network (PLN) have become friends because we have dedicated time at a conference to meet and chat for a meal or over coffee. I have discovered that those face-to-face times have deepened our professional relationship and yielded connections and collaborations far beyond what would have been possible simply through social media. Therefore, I typically reach out through social media to discover who else will be attending the conference and begin scheduling time.

This year, I am thrilled that IRA has scheduled several tweetups throughout the conference where my PLN, both established and yet-to-be-met, can have dedicated time during the conference to build these important relationships. If you have never attended a tweetup, and even if you are not on Twitter, this is a great opportunity to meet other educators, establish relationships, and tap into the greatest resources of all…one another.

For many conference participants, attending a conference is a major undertaking involving flights, hotels, conference registration, confirmation numbers, ground transportation, recommended restaurants, and possible sightseeing opportunities. If you are like me, you want to carry as little as possible around an unknown city and convention center. I pull each of the sites up on my smart phone. Then I save it to my home screen. Once I have everything saved, I drag it all into one folder for that trip. That way, I have easy access to all of my information right at my fingertips. (I have also done this using Evernote. However, at one conference, the app was unreachable and I was unable to gain the access that I needed while I was en route.)

Full Disclosure of Ongoing Learning
Typically, I arrive the day before a conference officially begins. Often, I check into registration and then walk round the convention center to get the lay of the land. Because that first day is mostly a travel day for me, I usually am unable to attend any pre-conference workshops. However, this year, IRA is also offering Edcamp Literacy the Friday before the conference kicks off. Edcamps are a fantastic opportunity for informal learning. Schedules are typically developed on-site based on what conversations participants want to engage in with others. Because Edcamp Literacy begins midday, it’s a wonderful way to meet others and get a jump on the professional learning.

Over the last several years, my note taking practices have changed. I now travel with my iPad to conferences. While I am in a session, I tweet out the resources and important points made by each presenter. For each of us who are fortunate to attend IRA, there are ten or twenty educators who are learning from a distance by following the conference hashtag (#IRA14) on Twitter or Instagram. When someone posts a slide with a really good idea or conducts an activity or demonstration, that’s a perfect opportunity to take photos to post to Instagram. Tweeting and posting photos on Instagram is a perfect opportunity to not only remember what you are learning, but also pass it along to those learning from afar.

At conferences it is easy to get information overload. I have found that content curation is key to getting the most out of what I am learning. As with Twitter and Instagram, when a presenter shares a great resource, I take the time to pull it up and often pin it to a Pinterest board for my (and others’) future use. This can also be done on Evernote by using the Evernote clipper. In Evernote, notes and notebooks can be shared with others, extending your learning beyond the physical presence in a session.

I don’t know about you, but often times I’m in a session and I think of another colleague that I know would really benefit from the information being shared by a speaker. By using these tools, you can very easily tag them, or email them access to the information you have curated during a session.

Much Buzz about Something
Because conferences are marathons and not sprints, I often come out with a brain bursting full of new connections, ideas, and inspiration. When speaking with others about the conference, sometimes I struggle to have just one takeaway. I’ve found that it takes time for me to process and reflect upon all of this new knowledge.

One of the ways that I find is best for me to crystallize ideas is to review my notes, tweets, and Instagram posts, and begin to find the ideas that will truly sharpen my practice. For me, the best way for me to clarify how this knowledge will fit into my professional life is to begin writing a series of blog posts. This does two things: First, I reflect and put the pieces together for my own practice. Second, it shares my perspective and learning with others who may or may not have attended the conference.

Taking the time to formalize your thinking gives you time to truly think about the reality of the place of newfound knowledge into your practice. You are much more likely to successfully integrate this new learning if you have a plan of how it will play out in your classroom. It also opens up further conversations on new topics, which pushes you to deeply contemplate and reflect on the direction this new learning will take you and your students.

Since meeting friends (old and new) is one of my favorite parts of professional learning events, I always try to follow up with any collaborations that we might have discussed at the conference. Some of the most meaningful and powerful collaborations in which my students have engaged have come from educators that I met at a conference. You never know where one tweet, photo, email, or introduction might lead. And who are the ones who really reap the benefits of all this professional learning? Our students. That makes all of this professional learning even more powerful…because it truly is all about them.

In addition to the Mid-level Educators Tweetup on Sunday, May 11 at 1 p.m., you can also find Julie in the Digital Classroom on Sunday, May 11, from 11:20 to 11:40, presenting “Twitter-a-ture: Creating content and Connections Using Twitter.” And you don’t want to miss her session, “The Global Read Aloud: One Book to Connect the World.”

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. 

In a high tech world with an overwhelming amount of internet resources, it can be easy to forget newly discovered and even old favorite website URLs. If that happens to you or you are looking for a way to help you organize all of those URLs so you have access to them on the go, then Symbaloo might be the tool to fit your needs.

Symbaloo is a free webmix organizational tool that uses colored tiles to help you organize your favorite websites all on one page. Simply open a website, copy the URL and paste it into the tile. Once you create your webmix tiles, you can easily move them around by dragging and dropping them into place.

Design a corner for favorite literacy websites, another for professional development sites, the third for classroom favorites and the fourth for your personal favorites. Or, you can develop multiple webmixes for each subject or topic of interest. Once developed, you have world-wide access from your computer, tablet, or mobile device. All of your information is stored in the cloud and easily shared with friends, colleagues, and/or students with a click of a button.

To get started, simply visit Symbaloo at http://www.symbaloo.com. Take the tour on the homepage to quickly learn how to use this fun tool, and then apply the skills to create your own webmix. Develop custom tiles, use the Google search box, or select favorite websites already embedded into the program to conveniently find the website you are searching for. Drag and drop your tiles to organize them on your webmix home page.

To edit, a simple click of the mouse allows you to rename tiles, change the wallpaper, or change the webmix icons and size. After creating a tile, a right click will allow you to edit or delete it. Once completed, you can publish and share your webmix with others. You can also search the gallery for public webmixes from around the world. You have the ability to filter your search for new webmixes and to explore an endless number of websites to add to your tech savvy tool box.

If after sampling what Symbaloo has to offer, you can check out Symbaloo Edu for a free or premium classroom account. To become Symbaloo certified investigate the Symbaloo Basic, Student or PD certification programs. Give it a shot and I think you’ll find Symbaloo to be a useful too for when you can’t remember that URL.

TILE-SIG will host a special session on Sunday, May 11 at 3:00 p.m. at the International Reading Association 59th Annual Conference in New Orleans. The session includes the presentation of the 2014 Technology in Reading Research Award, "Changing the Landscape of Literacy Teacher Education: Innovations with Generative Technology" with keynote Dana Grisham (National University, TILE-SIG 2013 Reading Research Award Winner), and 18 roundtable discussions about research findings and practical classroom ideas. Visit http://www.iraconference.org to learn more about IRA 2014 or to register.

Mary Beth Scumaci is a Clinical Assistant Professor with the School of Education at Medaille College in Buffalo, New York.

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

Will the digital tool I’m thinking of using with my students tomorrow widen or narrow the achievement gaps between students in this class?

What instructional choices could I make to increase the chances of this digital tool narrowing these gaps rather than widening them—or creating new ones?

I confess these are not the sorts of questions that are usually on my mind the day before I introduce a new digital reading or writing tool to my students. I’m usually thinking about what I’ll do if the Internet connection is glitchy or how much time it will take us to create new accounts and get down to work. When I ask my colleagues, their response is similar: there are so many things we’re already juggling, the impact digital tools may have on achievement gaps is not really something we have time to think about.

But maybe it should be.

p: World Bank via photopin

Something I’ve started noticing is that, while a strong majority of my students enjoy using new digital tools, there are significant differences between students in terms of what they actually do with a new tool as well as what they take away from a technology-infused lesson or unit to apply in their future learning.

Some students come to class with rich prior experience not just with social media apps, but with content creation tools. They readily “get” a new tool such as Citelighter
(for online annotation and curation of sources) or Voicethread (for multimodal presentation and discussion of texts)—they play with it fearlessly, figure out its affordances and constraints, and by the end of class they are showing me something I had no idea the tool could do.

Other students are initially less knowledgeable and more tentative. They follow the directions. When they get stuck, they rely on others for help. At the end of the day they may have accomplished the assigned tasks, but if I later ask them what they thought of the new tool, their response is likely to focus on a frustrating or fun moment (e.g., “It was frustrating when I couldn’t get the highlighter to change color”; “It was fun to record our voices”), not on the tool’s key affordances.

And these observations have got me thinking about Matthew effects.

Matthew Effects—the “Old” Kind

In 1986, Stanovich drew everyone’s attention to the phenomenon of dramatically diverging learning trajectories experienced by students with different initial levels of reading-relevant knowledge. Students who start with strong phonemic awareness, alphabet knowledge, and vocabulary knowledge get off to a strong start and generally keep doing well. From early on, reading for them is about learning new words, acquiring interesting background knowledge, and engaging with meaning and ideas. And because early success in these areas increases their motivation to read, their performance goes up not just incrementally but by leaps and bounds: “early achievement spawns faster rates of subsequent achievement” (my emphasis, p. 381).

By contrast, students who struggle early on are much more likely not just to remain behind their peers but to gradually lag farther and farther behind. When they read, most or all of their cognitive resources are devoted to laborious decoding of words. Indeed, this decoding work is so onerous that they don’t often get to engage with meaning and ideas or learn new words and background knowledge. Their progress is slow and incremental at best.

Matthew Effects—the New Digital Kind

Now let’s add to the mix Google Search and a sampling of web tools featured in past TILE-SIG blog posts including online annotation tools (e.g., Citelighter), multimodal composing tools (e.g., Voicethread), resource curation tools (e.g., Symbaloo), and some free educational iPad Apps.

For some educators, the hope has been that these tools would somehow help to level the playing field and close achievement gaps—at least under conditions of equal access to screens and Internet connectivity. As one colleague put it a couple of years back: “Now my kids with less background knowledge will be able to Google the words and the information they don’t know. When they read a difficult text, they’ll be in much better shape than before.”

This colleague and I now shake our heads at our past naiveté.

The reality we’re seeing is that, with new digital tools in the mix, we may have opened the door to a new class of digital Matthew Effects.

Take something as basic as search engine use. Some 6-year-olds now start school with considerable experience and expertise with “Googling” information (Dodge, Husain, Duke, 2011; Rideout, 2013). And by the upper-elementary grades this initial difference between students can turn into a significant skill and knowledge gap that’s hard to close—because of a dynamic that’s similar to what Stanovich described for early reading development. Students who get an early start “Googling” keep getting better.  For them, searching reliably leads to new knowledge and vocabulary, and searching for information consequently feels fun and rewarding. Here again, “early achievement spawns faster rates of subsequent achievement.”

Other students don’t get the early start and are much less adept. Their searches are imprecise and often don’t lead to useable results. Consequently, over time, they don’t get the same boost to their background knowledge and vocabulary growth that their more skillful classmates enjoy. They tend to be less motivated to Google for information, and when they do, they are less persistent.

And the obvious remedy here—devoting class time to getting all students up to speed—may not be the quick fix we hope it will be. It takes time and, done well, really needs to involve the full gradual release of responsibility model (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983): explanation, teacher modeling, guided practice, and independent practice.

It also risks creating a version of the situation that Allington (1983) warned about in his article “The reading instruction provided readers of differing reading abilities”: well-intentioned teachers (yes, I include myself here) giving their striving readers additional time with phonics practice and other forms of remedial instruction that in effect deprives these students of richer literacy experiences—meaning-focused discussion about story characters, interesting information, etc. Today the danger is that, if we pull some students aside to work with them on the basics of using a new digital tool, they may miss out on the fun and engaging work of creating content or discussing new information and ideas.

None of this makes me or my colleagues think we should pull back on our integration of digital tools. Still, it has given us pause and made us think harder—or at least make a commitment to think harder in the future—about what we can do to mitigate new types of Matthew effects in our classrooms.

From conversations with colleagues, I have distilled the following four preliminary ideas:

1) Seize every opportunity to help students distinguish between a new digital tool’s “bells and whistles” features and its more important cognitive affordances—for supporting some aspect(s) of the mental work involved in reading or writing. Being explicit about these affordances may help less tech-savvy students stay focused on what’s most important for their learning—and why they may want to remember today’s digital tool for possible later use.

2) Over the course of a semester, put students in mixed-ability “tech mentor” groups. Each group is responsible for helping the teacher give the class a basic orientation tour and answer questions about one digital tool. (The idea is that, if everyone develops above-average expertise with at least one digital tool, this will generate confidence and seed future development of expertise with other tools.)

3) Seize every opportunity to communicate with parents and guardians about the tools you’re using and their educational value—and point out possible parental uses of new digital tools (e.g., Google Docs)! Especially with our younger students, home support and encouragement may play an important role in sustaining interest and growth over time.

4) Whenever possible, try to coordinate your efforts with those of colleagues teaching in grades above and below yours. It will require coordinated efforts across grades to avoid and/or reverse digital Matthew effects.

TILE-SIG will host a special session on Sunday, May 11 at 3:00 p.m. at the International Reading Association 59th Annual Conference in New Orleans. The session includes the presentation of the 2014 Technology in Reading Research Award, "Changing the Landscape of Literacy Teacher Education: Innovations with Generative Technology" with keynote Dana Grisham (National University, TILE-SIG 2013 Reading Research Award Winner), and 18 roundtable discussions about research findings and practical classroom ideas. Visit http://www.iraconference.org to learn more about IRA 2014 or to register.

Paul Morsink is a doctoral candidate in Educational Psychology and Educational Technology at Michigan State University, morsinkp@msu.edu.

References

Allington, R. L. (1983). The reading instruction provided readers of differing reading abilities. The Elementary School Journal, 83(5), 548-559.
Dodge, A. M., Husain, N., & Duke, N. K. (2011). Connected kids? K-2 children’s use and understanding of the Internet. Language Arts, 89(2), 86-98.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, G. (1983). The gradual release of responsibility model of instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 112-123.
Rideout, V. (2013). Zero to eight: Children’s media use in America 2013. San Francisco: Common Sense Media.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.