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 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.

Do you want to know the secret to successful multimodal composition instruction? Here are five tips I use when teaching students how words, images, and sounds work together to enhance the author’s message.

Tip 1: Create a common language about multimodal composition

Creating a common language, or meta-language, empowers students by giving them the words they need to analyze and discuss their multimodal composition process. Begin by building a class multimodal glossary. First, select one mode to discuss as a whole class: linguistic, visual, audio, gestural, or spatial. Next, write the term on an anchor chart and analyze several examples.

Throughout the day, point out how the mode is used differently in math, science, and social studies. Challenge students to identify ways the mode is used outside of school. When students are ready, work together to create a class definition. By the end of the year, discussions about multimodal composition will be rich with common definitions and concrete examples. Check out MODE’s 2012 multimodal glossary for more terms and definitions.

Tip 2: Develop a critical lens

Research suggests multimodal composition may result in combining modes that distract from the author’s intended meaning. Heighten students’ awareness of effective and ineffective multimodal combinations by analyzing a mode’s affordances and constraints.

Instead of starting with complex media that includes multiple modes, like a commercial, limit the analysis to a single mode.  Hassett & Curwood (2009) suggest starting with a picture book to discuss how images and words convey different meanings. For example, an image may support a reader’s ability to make meaning from the words on the page. At the same time, an image may add more information than the words provide. Additionally, an image may contradict or distract from the written message.

Begin by identifying a page for analysis and then lead a discussion by asking:

• How do the images and words work together?
• How do they work against creating meaning?
• Which mode creates the best meaning for this message?
• Are there other modes that might convey a clearer message?

Expand the critical lens by analyzing how images are used in other genres and media such as informational texts, poetry, magazines, blogs, and websites. By talking about how modes can enhance or inhibit meaning, students develop a critical lens. Also, students begin to collect exemplar structures to guide their own composition decisions.

Tip 3: Shift responsibility to students

The gradual release of responsibility model provides an opportunity for honoring a wide-range of semiotic resources. For example, provide direct instruction on how to select and analyze websites, book trailers, or blogs that combine multiple modes. Next, facilitate a discussion while students work in pairs or small groups to select and analyze multimodal resources. Finally, ask students to bring in their favorite multimodal examples to analyze independently. This type of scaffolding strengthens students’ interest in multimodal composition and develops recursive design skills.

Tip 4: Set up a station for exploration

Establishing one computer as a station for exploration allows students to discover their preferred composition pathway. Rish (2013) found his students’ multimodal composition process consisted of three different pathways. Some students utilized modes linearly from linguistic to audio to visual. Other students began browsing digital images and audio files first and then wrote the essay. Still others wrote using a recursive process by moving back and forth between the drafts in digital, audio, and linguistic forms. Providing space for exploration creates ownership and values innovation.

Tip 5: Show and tell

Devote a few minutes each week for students to show the effects of different multimodal combinations or tell about their multimodal composition process. Similar to an author’s chair in writing workshop, students learn how to explain their design decisions and receive constructive feedback from their peers. These student led discussions generate concrete examples of the various processes that can be used for multimodal composition.

Don’t end the school year with the same old writing routine. Use these five tips to remix your instruction and inspire students to be multimodal authors.

Julie B. Wise is currently a doctoral student at the University of Delaware. She can be reached via email at jbwise@udel.edu.

When students work in groups oriented toward a particular task, their teachers often encourage them to pay attention to their group collaboration skills. A checklist can be helpful as students reflect on how well they worked together and whether they were able to get the job done well. This Goal 18 checklist is an example. Students discuss each of the elements on the chart, award themselves up to 3 points for each area of the chart, and then add the points as a means of reflecting on their collective skills working with each other.

It is important that students think about the capacity of their group, and their own individual dispositions, to perform a job well while maintaining a cohesive group. Post-action checklists such as the one linked above can be a helpful means of guiding students to think about their collaboration skills.

However, planning a project is also an essential collaboration skill. Expectations in the Common Core State Standards (see CCSS.ELA Literacy.CCRA.SL.1 and CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.SL.6) highlight the importance of collaboration. In school, in the world of work, and at the university, being able to plan a multifaceted project while working with others collegially is increasingly important. 

Students work together in problem-based learning groups, on service learning projects, while doing research, and while creating products that guide their learning and show what they know. As posts throughout the TILE-SIG feature point out, digital technologies bring people together. Nowhere is that more important than when projects are part of the curriculum.

In this post, we will explore two tools that students can use to plan projects that carry over right into the world of work. Two keys to successful planning with technology include the visual nature of the tool and the ability others have to see and edit the tool. An interactive chart that shows what the plan for getting the work done will be and what the status of that work is as it proceeds is just what’s needed.

The first tool is one that is familiar to most teachers. Good old spreadsheet software, such as Excel, can provide a clear way to show who is going to do the work, when they will do it, and what the status of the work is as students complete the task. The Excel spreadsheet can be stored in a file sharing site for all to access (e.g., Box.com, Dropbox, or Google Drive), the file sharing area of a course management system (e.g., Canvas, eCollege), or on the class website. If the teacher chooses, parents can be allowed to view the chart as they assist their children with different aspects of the task.

In figure 1, you will see a Project Management Organizer that I adapted from a generic template Microsoft offers for download. This adapted version also includes a quick status check area where students can indicate whether they are making good progress (green), may have encountered some snags (yellow), or are really stuck (red). If you would like a copy of this template, visit LiteracyBeat.

For those who have worked on large projects, the format of the organizer may seem familiar. This is a Gantt chart used in industry, the military, and even sports for organizing large, multi-faceted projects. It visually displays what the plan is, who is responsible, and what progress has been made. The literacy value is in the discussions that are required to plan the project, collaborate on status updates, and troubleshoot any challenges that arise.

An important part of using any technology for project planning is making it transparent—all team members need to be able to see and update the tool. Though there are others, one online app that really makes transparency easy is Smartsheet.

Screenshot via smartsheet

There are several things to like about Smartsheet. First, it is intuitive, so time spent training students to use the technology is minimal. Second, it is easily shareable among team members, parents, and anyone else who is participating in the project simply by sharing the link. Third, Smartsheet allows pictures, Word documents, or links to be easily attached to any phase of the project. Fourth, just a toggle away is a calendar view. Finally, and most importantly, Smartsheet has a free student version available. If your students don’t have email accounts, the teacher can create a Smartsheet and share it with the students as a link.

The visual components of Project Management Organizers combine well with written and spoken collaboration tasks. Imagine students with a tablet computer discussing how to break down a large research project so that everyone can learn and participate as they create and update their organizers. Consider the digital skills students will learn that they can carry over right into college or career. And, most importantly, picture students who have learned to work together, learn well, and create high-quality results.
Read more on LiteracyBeat and on Jodi Sorensen’s blog.

Dr. Thomas DeVere Wolsey is a professor of literacy and author of books and articles on literacy intersections with technology, TDWolsey@msn.com.

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

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.