Integrating Technology in Literacy Instruction: Models and Frameworks for all Learners 9780367355432, 9780367355425, 9780429340154

Citation preview

INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY IN LITERACY INSTRUCTION

This text addresses the changing literacies surrounding students and the need to communicate effectively using technology tools. Technology has the power to transform teaching and learning in classrooms and to promote active learning, interaction, and engagement through different tools and applications. While both technologies and research in literacy are rapidly changing and evolving, this book presents lasting frameworks for teacher candidates to effectively evaluate and implement digital tools to enhance literacy classrooms. Through the lens of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), this text prepares teacher candidates to shape learning environments that support the needs and desires of all literacy learners through the integration of technology and literacy instruction by providing a range of current models and frameworks. This approach supports a comprehensive understanding of the complex multiliteracies landscape. These models address technology integration and demonstrate how pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge, and technological knowledge can be integrated for the benefit of all learners in a range of contexts. Each chapter includes prompts for reflection and discussion to encourage readers to consider how literacy and technology can enable teachers to become agents of change, and the book also features Appendices with annotated resource lists of technology tools for students’ varied literacy needs in our digital age. Peggy S. Lisenbee is Assistant Professor in the Department of Literacy and Learning at Texas Woman’s University, USA. Jodi Pilgrim is Professor at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, USA. Sheri Vasinda is Associate Professor in the School of Teaching, Learning and Educational Sciences at Oklahoma State University, USA.

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group

http://taylorandfrancis.com

INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY IN LITERACY INSTRUCTION Models and Frameworks for all Learners Peggy S. Lisenbee, Jodi Pilgrim and Sheri Vasinda

First published 2020 by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 Taylor & Francis The right of Peggy S. Lisenbee, Jodi Pilgrim and Sheri Vasinda to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Lisenbee, Peggy S., author. | Pilgrim, Jodi, author. | Vasinda, Sheri, author. Title: Integrating technology in literacy instruction : models and frameworks for all learners / Peggy S. Lisenbee, Jodi Pilgrim and Sheri Vasinda. Description: New York : Routledge, 2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020005454 (print) | LCCN 2020005455 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367355432 (hardback) | ISBN 9780367355425 (paperback) | ISBN 9780429340154 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Computers and literacy. | Language arts— Computer-assisted instruction. Classification: LCC LC149.5 .L478 2020 (print) | LCC LC149.5 (ebook) | DDC 372.60285—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020005454 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020005455 ISBN: 978-0-367-35543-2 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-35542-5 (pbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-34015-4 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by codeMantra

This book is dedicated to all of the students we’ve taught for the last 25–35 years, pk-12 and beyond, undergraduate, and graduate students.You are the reason we wrote this book.You motivate us to think deeply about the many ways of being literate. We also dedicate this book to our husbands, Rick, Michael, and Mark, whose constant support and love made us more grateful each long night and crazy day as we completed this process. Finally, our own children, and Sheri’s grandchildren, remain our inspirations to this day and always.

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group

http://taylorandfrancis.com

CONTENTS

List of Illustrations Preface Acknowledgments Author Bios

xiii xvii xxiii xxv

SECTION 1

Foundations for Thinking about Literacy

1

1

3

Literacy in a Changing World Mind Shift 3 The Link to Information and Communication Technology 4 The Shift from Reading to Literacy 5 Multiliteracies 5 Literacy Terminology 6

Traditional Literacy 7 Digital Literacy 8 Information Literacy 8 Media Literacy 9 Computer Literacy 9 Critical Literacy 9 Web Literacy 9

viii

Contents

new literacies (lower case) 10 New Literacies (upper case) 10 Transliteracy 11 Revisiting the Multiple Literacies Mind Shift 12

2

Multiliteracies: Theory and Pedagogy that Reflect a Changing World

16

Mind Shift 16 Culture Shifts Create Literacy Shifts 17 Multiliteracies as a Theory and Pedagogy 18

History of Multiliteracies Theory and Pedagogy 19 Tenets of Multiliteracies Theory 19 Diversity 19 Multimodality 20 Design 22

Multiliteracies Reflexive Pedagogy 22 Experiencing 23 Conceptualizing 23 Analyzing 23 Applying 23

Reflexive Pedagogy in Action 24 Revisiting the Multiliteracies Mind Shift 27

3

Universal Design for Learning within a Multiliteracies Perspective Mind Shift 29 Origin of Universal Design for Learning 30 Universal Design for Learning Framework 31

Principle 1: Multiple Means of Representation 32 Principle 2: Multiple Means of Action and Expression 33 Principle 3: Multiple Means of Engagement 34 Universal Design for Learning and Technology 35

Affordances of Technology 36 Supportive Legislation and Policy 37

United States National Education Technology Plan 37

29

Contents  ix

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 38 No Child Left Behind Act and Every Student Succeeds Act 39 Revisiting the Universal Design for Learning Mind Shift 40 SECTION 2

Frameworks for Thinking about Technology Integration 4

Technology-Influenced Frameworks for Thinking about Literacy Instruction

45 47

Mind Shift 47 A Framework to Describe New Knowledge Domains for Teachers: TPACK 48

TPACK 48 TPACK, Universal Design for Learning, and Multiliteracies 52 A Framework for Instructional Planning and Implementation: TIPC 53

Instructional Goal 54 Instructional Approach 54 Tool 54 Contribution to Instruction 55 Constraints 56 Instruction 56 Reflection 56 A Framework for Encouraging Independent Use of Technology: EMSCI 57

Exploration 57 Modeling with Mistakes 57 Scaffolded Exploration 58 Classroom Problem-Solving 59 Independent Activities 59 Revisiting the Technology-Influenced Frameworks Mind Shift 60

5

Evaluation of Technology Integration: TechnologyInfluenced Taxonomies Mind Shift 64 Taxonomies for Technology Integration 66

Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, or Redefinition (SAMR) 66

64

x Contents

Replacement, Amplification, or Transformation (RAT) 67 T3 Framework 69 Translational (T1) 70 Transformational (T2) 71 Transcendent (T3) 72

Taxonomies and Universal Design for Learning 73 Revisiting the Taxonomies Mind Shift 74 SECTION 3

Applications for Classroom Instruction Section 6

77

The Use of the Internet in Literacy Instruction: Web 2.0 Tools 79 Mind Shift 79 Web 2.0: The Read-Write Web 80 Web 2.0 and Pedagogy 81

Social Media Platforms 81 New Ways of Teaching and Learning in a Web 2.0 World 83

Critical Thinking 84 Communication 85 Collaboration 85 Creativity 86 4 Cs in Classroom Practice 86 Web 2.0 Tools and Inclusive Practices 87

Representation 87 Action, Expression, and Engagement 88 Revisiting the Web 2.0 Mind Shift 88

7

The Use of the Internet in Literacy Instruction: Online Reading and Research Mind Shift 92 The Internet: A Global Library System 93

Library Systems and the Internet 93 Libraries and Browsers 94 Card Catalogs and Search Engines 94 Call Numbers and URLs 95

92

Contents  xi

Books and Websites 96 Chapters and Webpages 96 Indexes and Search Bars 96 Bookmarks and Web 2.0 Bookmarking Tools 97 Hyperlinks 97 Online Reading: The Changing Rules of the Road 97

Changes in Online Reading 98 Critical Thinking 99 Online Research 99 SEARCH Strategy 101 Universal Design for Learning Connections 103

Multimodal Searching 104 The Difference in Search Engines for Children 105 Multiple/Multimodal Options to Access and Text-Based Support of Content 105 The Teacher’s Role: Continued Parallels 107

Mentor Texts and Modeling 107 Developing Digital Citizenship 109

Internet Safety 109 Digital Citizenship 110 Revisiting the Online Reading and Research Mind Shift 111

8

Changing Learning Environments: Transformational Practices Mind Shift 115 Learning Environments 116 Transforming Classroom Space 117

Beyond Physical Classroom Spaces 118 Digital and Literacy Rich Environments and Universal Design for Learning 120 Transforming Classroom Materials 121

One-to-One Initiatives Effect on Learning Environments 122 Virtual Reality 123 Augmented Reality 127 Mixed Reality 127

115

xii Contents

Other Technology Tools 128 Literacy Rich Materials and Universal Design for Learning 128 Transforming Learning Models and Approaches 129

Blended Learning 129 Personalized Learning 130 The Flipped Classroom 130

Project-Based Learning 131 Problem-Based Learning 131 Challenge-Based Learning 131 Beyond Transformation: Transcending Learning 132

New Approaches and Universal Design for Learning 132 Agency in Learning 133 Revisiting the Learning Environment Mind Shift 134

9

Lesson Design: The Teacher as the Architect

137

Mind Shift 137 Teachers as Architects of Lesson Design 138

Application of Foundations and Frameworks 139 Multiple Means of Representation 142 Multiple Means of Action and Expression 144 Multiple Means of Engagement 145 Facilitating Construction: Lesson Implementation 146 Digital Resources to Support Lesson Design 146 Teachers as Agents of Change 147 Revisiting the Lesson Design Mind Shift 147 Appendix 9.1: List of Tools arranged by the 4Cs 149 Appendix 9.2: Using a Lesson Plan Template and the Integrating Technology into Literacy Instruction Textbook with the 4Cs 154 Appendix 9.3: List of eBooks and Optical Reading Devices 161 Appendix 9.4: List of Resources and Organizations Supporting All Learners 162

Index

165

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figures 0.1 1.1 1.2 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3

Alignment of Content in Integrating Technology in Literacy Instruction Donald J. Leu–New literacies research lab [Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/zFN81JAugDo Transliteracy: Literacy in a Changing World, from Traditional to Transliteracy Seven Modes of Meaning (Kalantzis & Cope, 2016) 8.3 A grammar of multimodal meaning. Retrieved from https:// youtu.be/BUQez2U2Jsc.

Multiliteracies Pedagogical Dimensions (Kalantzis & Cope, 2016). Used with permission UDL at a glance. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/ bDvKnY0g6e4 Universal Design for Learning Principles. Used with permission Kid President’s 20 things we should say more often. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/m5yCOSHeYn4 What is the TPACK Model? Retrieved from https://youtu. be/yMQiHJsePOM The TPACK Model. Reproduced with permission of the publisher, © 2012 by tpack.org Technology Instructional Planning Cycle. Reprinted from “A Planning Cycle for Integrating Digital Technology into Literacy Instruction,” by A. Hutchison and L. Woodward, 2014, The Reading Teacher, 67(6), p. 459. Copyright 2014 by the International Reading Association. Reprinted by permission

xxi 10 12 21 22 24 32 33 37 49 50

55

xiv Illustrations

4.4 5.1

EMSCI Model (Lisenbee, 2009b) Bloom’s Taxonomy. Reprinted with permission under Creative Common Attributes 5.2 SAMR Model. Reprinted with permission (Puentedura, 2006) 5.3 The RAT technology integration model. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/RDGsLoahDDM 5.4 R.A.T. Reprinted with permission (Hughes, n.d.) 5.5 T3 Framework for Innovation: Stages of Educational Technology Use (Magana, 2017). Refer to www. maganaeducation.com. Used with permission 5.6 The T3 framework for innovation in education explained in 5 minutes. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/RTQjEPmex8E 6.1 #KidsCanTeachUs | Olivia Van Ledtje | TEDxYouth@BHS. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/g5Je9a4vSaI 6.2 What are the 4Cs? Retrieved from https://youtu.be/ QrEEVZa3f98 7.1 The SEARCH Process: Traditional and Online Parallels (Bledsoe, Pilgrim, Vasinda, & Martinez, 2019). Used with permission 7.2 Search Engines and File Types 7.3 Components of the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) 7.4 Website Search Bar Example 7.5 The SEARCH Steps 7.6 Google Suggest Image (or Autocomplete on Other Websites) 7.7 Image of How to Change a Language Setting to a Preferred Language 7.8 Newsela Website Offers Adaptations of Lexiles, or Reading Levels, to Personalize Reading Content for Learner Variabilities 7.9 Image of How to Turn on the Safe Search Tool 7.10 We the digital citizens. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/ -N7lRYMmbXU 8.1 Mount Evans on Google Maps with 360° Camera 8.2 Virtual reality revolution article 9.1 A Blueprint for Lesson Design

58 65 67 68 69

70 71 81 84

93 94 95 97 102 104 105

107 109 111 123 124 139

Tables 1.1 2.1 4.1 6.1

Summary of Traditional and 21st-Century Literacies Comparative Overview of Pedagogical Emphases Brief Description of Knowledge Domains Represented in the TPACK Model Web 2.0 Technologies for Educators

6 25 51 82

Illustrations  xv

6.2 6.3 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 8.1 9.1 9.2

Web 2.0 Tools Integration of UDL and the 4 Cs into a Multiliteracies Reflexive Pedagogy Top-Level Domain Codes and Meanings Transforming Literacy Skills with Technology Search Engines for Children Mentor Texts for Teaching Reliability Reasoning Using Hoax Websites Virtual Reality Resources Lesson Design Integrating Technology Using a UDL Perspective Template for Lesson Design Lesson Plan Template for Using Integrating Technology into Literacy Instruction Textbook

86 89 95 101 106 108 125 141 147 160

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group

http://taylorandfrancis.com

PREFACE

The scope of literacy in a digital age is vastly expanding, yet, often, the literacy of schools continues to remain focused on alphabetic literacies, or “letteracy,” as visionary Seymour Papert (1993) observed. Additionally, this focus on traditional literacies is often taught and assessed using traditional tools and approaches. While these traditional literacies are essential, we believe that we are not yet leveraging the technology tools that are increasingly central to the lives of students outside of school. Children and youth engage with both print and digital media and create powerful multimodal messages using their “letteracy” skills, technological skills, creativity, and motivation during tasks completed outside of school. However, when in a classroom, they primarily push pencils across paper, read from print textbooks or workbooks that may be out of date, and wait for their turn to use the too few computers available in their classrooms. Papert (1993) posited that we will never realize the potential of computers until students no longer have to share devices. When thinking about technology tools in the same way that we think about other learning tools, such as pencils, books, and composition notebooks, we have to wonder what might happen if all students had regular access to the tools they use routinely outside of school. Additionally, if we look at technology tools as both a bridge to literacy and a door to new possibilities, we begin to see a shift in the types of learning activities integrated into classrooms. The thoughtful and purposeful integration of technology into classrooms provides opportunities for students to mediate traditional literacies in schools and to demonstrate their brilliance using transformative, new literacies. These new literacies amplify the efforts of teachers and opportunities for students to fully participate in a multiliteracy, multimodal world.

xviii Preface

Our purpose in writing this textbook has been to address changing literacies that students need and want to use to communicate effectively using technology tools. Our intended audience encompasses educators of all grade levels and disciplines as technology tools have no boundaries. Technology has the power to transform teaching and learning in classrooms with tools and applications that promote active learning, interaction, and engagement. Because technology changes so quickly, we introduce enduring frameworks for considering technology tools, including applications that support professional decisions related to the creation of literacy lessons for all learners. A justification for sharing these technology frameworks, foundations, and planning tools to enhance traditional literacy is that we do not advocate the use of technology for technology’s sake. We encourage teachers to use technology because its everyday use reflects the reality of our world. We caution against using the worn-out adages related to technology integration for our students’ “future” or because they will “need it later.” When it comes to 21st-century literacy, the future is now. In addition to addressing changing literacies, we promote the use of new technologies to eliminate literacy barriers. Classrooms are increasingly diverse, and a challenge for educators is providing learning opportunities in the general education curriculum that are inclusive and effective for all students. Technology can leverage learning for students, especially in ways that alleviate barriers to literacy, which is everything we do! It’s all literacy! With literacy, technology, and learning variability in mind, we focus this textbook on Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and intentional lesson design. UDL leads contemporary efforts to create access to educational curricula for all students, including those with learning challenges. With each chapter in this unique text, we offer the foundations to technology use in the classroom and provide classroom applications using the UDL framework. In addition, we consider and unpack the changing and expanding nature of literacy, including the multiple ways in which people are literate and how technology mediates access to traditional literacies. Also, we consider how technology creates new literacies that transform our lives by offering opportunities unimagined as recently as the 20th century.

Section 1: Foundations for Thinking about Literacy Instruction This textbook first provides a historical overview of literacy education. We believe that understanding a historical and public policy stance provides a perspective on the importance of equity and access to both literacy and technology in classrooms as well as how “siloed” approaches towards each has hampered the integration of transformative practices in classrooms. In Chapter 1, Literacy in a Changing World, we define a multiple literacies perspective and describe the changing and expanding nature of literacy. This introductory chapter explores

Preface  xix

technology’s impact on historical and current views of what it means to be literate. In Chapter 2, Multiliteracies: Theory and Pedagogy That Reflect a Changing World, we present multiliteracies as a theory and pedagogy reflecting the changes in literacy based on cultural and societal changes brought about by technology. Multiliteracies theory describes multiple ways of expressing communication by focusing on diversity, multimodality, and design. Chapter 3, Universal Design for Learning in a Changing World, offers an overview of the UDL framework and principles. We share the principles of UDL as a way to design literacy instruction using technology to benefit all learners. The principles of UDL thread throughout the chapters in this text as we use our perspective, multiliteracies, to address the provision of multiple means of representation, multiple means of action and expression, and multiple means of engagement while integrating technology in classrooms. Additionally, this chapter relates specific educational policies and legislation generated by the US government to support learner variability.

Section 2: Frameworks for Thinking about Technology Integration In educational settings, frameworks for learning provide a way to develop and enhance teaching and learning. Therefore, Chapter 4, Technology Influenced Frameworks for Thinking about Literacy Instruction, provides foundational frameworks to support active and intentional technology integration and lesson design. Chapter 5, Evaluation of Technology Integration: Technology Influenced Taxonomies, focuses on the most recognized taxonomies that evaluate student learning. The use of frameworks, foundations, and taxonomies for thinking about literacy instruction is necessary for effective technology integration in a classroom.

Section 3: Applications for Classroom Instruction This section of our textbook highlights technology tools, resources, and applications. In Chapter 6, The Use of the Internet in Literacy Instruction: Web 2.0 Tools, we focus on the internet as a tool for learning. Becoming digitally fluent requires an understanding of the social influences of the internet as well as how to navigate the largest repository of information safely. We will explain how Web 2.0 tools influence student behavior both in and out of the classroom, and address the affordances of Web 2.0 technology. Chapter 7, The Use of the Internet in Literacy Instruction: Online Reading and Research, describes knowledge and skills required for being efficient consumers of online information. Skills such as locating and evaluating online information challenge children and adults alike. In Chapter 8, Changing Learning Environments: Transformational Practices,

xx Preface

we challenge readers to consider evolving notions of “space” and learning environments, including Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality. The chapter focuses on the learning environment as a dominant force in a digital age since learning takes place everywhere, extending the possibilities for new spaces where students gain knowledge, skills, and practice toward mastery of new literacy skills. In Chapter 9, Lesson Design: The Teacher as the Architect, we explore the many uses of technology and share specific strategies, techniques, and tools for designing lessons using the frameworks and models discussed in this book. This chapter concludes our textbook by sharing possible applications, resources, and websites as a way to support teachers’ integration of technology in lessons intentionally designed for all learners.

Mind Shift A Mind Shift section precedes each chapter. We include this prompt to encourage our readers to reflect on how literacy and technology can enable teachers to become agents of change. We designed these intentional prompts to assist readers in making personal connections as they read and reflect on the text, then transfer improvements to their instructional practices.

Literacies, UDL, and Technology Integration As we reflected on content in the textbook and our overall focus on creating literacy lessons for the success of all learners, we realized that the chapters aligned with Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge’s (TPACK) content, pedagogical, and technological domains within the context of UDL. Using technology integration frameworks for literacy instruction, UDL as the context of the learning environment to meet the needs of all learners, and multiliteracies as our perspective for teaching literacy, we decided to illustrate our thinking with a concept map similar to TPACK in Figure 0.1. The visual alignment of content within the textbook using literacy, technology, and pedagogy with multiliteracies and UDL perspectives is illustrated in Figure 0.1. The commonality among the chapters in this textbook is an understanding of the complex expectations for teachers to integrate technology into literacy instruction in this digital age.

Preface  xxi

CONTEXT -- Universal Design for Learning

LITERACY and TECHNOLOGY CHAPTERS: Literacy Terminology – Chapter 1 Multiliteracies Perspective – Chapter 2 Universal Design for Learning– Chapter 3 Technology Integration –Chapter 4 Taxonomies for Evaluation—Chapter 5 Web 2.0 Tools—Chapter 6 Online Reading and Research—Chapter 7 Learning Environment – Chapter 8 Lesson Design – Chapter 9

Techno logy Tools Knowledge

Literacy Knowledge

Pedagogical Knowledge

PEDAGOGY CHAPTERS: Multiliteracies Reflexive Pedagogy – Chapter 2 Universal Design for Learning– Chapter 3 Technology Integration – Chapter 4 Learning Environment – Chapter 8 Lesson Design – Chapter 9 FIGURE 0.1

Alignment of Content in Integrating Technology in Literacy Instruction.

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group

http://taylorandfrancis.com

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We want to thank everyone for their support during our writing journey. First and foremost, we know that our faith provided the strength and perseverance we needed to complete this effort. Our goal was to create a blueprint of a book on literacy and technology integration with ways to think about technology use that endure the rapid change of digital tools. This goal became a reality with the assistance of Karen Adler and EmmaLee Ortega at Routledge as they answered a myriad of questions to keep us on track as we published our first book. This book collaboration began as an idea shared at a literacy conference several years ago. We noticed some overlapping teaching and research interests, primarily regarding the disruptions and possibilities of technology. As we discussed our individual work and pooled our expertise, we recognized an interest in considering the contexts of teaching using multiliteracies and UDL as lenses for appreciating diversity, learner variability, and technology integration. We appreciate the opportunities provided by this book to help us grow as writers and thinkers. We appreciate Sonny Magana sharing his time and research to deepen our understanding of innovative technology frameworks. We had many readers who contributed their time and expertise with helpful feedback. Many thanks to our university colleagues Jennifer Batson, Sharlene Kenyon, Barbara McClanahan, Jared McClure, Laurie Sharp, and Jerry Whitworth for careful reading and insightful thinking. Many K12 teachers read early drafts, and we appreciate their feedback as they continue this work. Thanks to Penny Brinegar, Amanda Bueno, Stephanie Coca, Tammi Ellis, Kacie Fox, Sandy Krueger, Keli Miles, Ashley Quillin, Emily Ramsey, Jessica Swain, Amanda Tetik, Colby Torres, Cynthia Vleugels, Mandy Vollmer, and Whitney Warner.

xxiv Acknowledgments

Finally, to our personal support teams: I want to thank my rock, and the love of my life, Rick Lisenbee. Thank you for all the ways you support me; I couldn’t do any of this without you. Kevin, Whitney, and Jessica, I loved being your first teacher and experiencing all of these literacies and technology from your perspective. Mom, Dad, Dwan, Kevin, Tanna, Jessica, Dak, Whitney, Michael P., Carole, Ann, and my BBGs—Jana, Kay, Shannon, Jill, Cheryl, and Pat—thanks for your patience and understanding as I missed phone calls, texts, FB posts, events, activities, and time just to hang out for almost two years. I love you all!! A special thanks to TWU administrators and faculty who supported my writing: Lisa Huffman, Connie Briggs, Pat Watson, Holly Hansen-Thomas, Ron Hovis, Sharla Snider, Nancy Anderson, Catherine Dutton, Claudia Sanchez, and Gabby Smith. I want to acknowledge the Pilgrim clan for their patience with take-out meals and messy spaces. Michael Pilgrim, your love of technology and virtual reality (VR) inspire many ideas. Regan, Rachel, and Jordan—you have taught me the most about lifelong literacies, and you are my favorite “students.” I thank my sweet mom and dad for everything you have done for me. Finally, I want to thank our friends Christie Bledsoe and Elda Martinez for past and continued research endeavors that contribute to our understanding of skills students need as they navigate online text. Mark Vasinda, thanks for your encouragement and support with time and space to write (and meals and reminders to get up and move). I would like to thank my children and grandchildren as they continue to inspire me to think about new possibilities for home and school-based learning and literacies: Kami, Tony, Julia, and Joseph; and Aaron, Elijah, Olin, Micha, and Kylen. We invite you to reach out to us with any questions, comments, or even suggestions at [email protected]. We would love to hear from you and improve our future editions of this book by networking with readers. You can also find all of us on Twitter at @drpeggylisenbee, @jodipilgrim, or @svasinda. Thanks for choosing our book as a way to reflect on frameworks and models of technology integration in literacy instruction.

AUTHOR BIOS

Peggy S. Lisenbee is an assistant professor in the Literacy and Learning Department at Texas Woman’s University (TWU) in Denton, Texas. She earned a doctorate at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, Oklahoma, in Curriculum and Social Foundations in Early Childhood Education. She previously taught at both the University of Tulsa and Northeastern State University (NSU) in Oklahoma before moving to teach at TWU in 2017. She has seven nominations for teaching and mentoring, and received an NSU College of Education Outstanding Faculty in Teaching Award in 2011. The Association for Literacy Educators and Researchers (ALER) awarded the Mary Richardson Literacy as a Living Legend Award to her in 2016. Peggy’s research in teacher education includes technology integration, computational thinking, coding and robotics, literacy apps, struggling readers, and multicultural literature. She is a long-standing member of the National Association of Education of Young Children, the International Society of Technology in Education, the International Literacy Association, and ALER. She volunteers as a Fred Moore Day Nursery School Board Member and an Early Childhood Coalition Committee Member for the North Texas Area United Way Agency in Denton and nationally as an officer in ALER. Connect with Peggy on Twitter, @drpeggylisenbee. Jodi Pilgrim is a professor at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor (UMHB)

in Belton, Texas. She earned her bachelor’s and master’s degrees at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas, and her doctorate in Reading Education at the University of North Texas. She currently teaches literacy courses for undergraduate and graduate pre-service teachers. The faculty at UMHB selected her as the recipient of their Excellence in Teaching Award in 2014. With over 25 years of experience in literacy education, Jodi’s passion is ensuring that

xxvi  Author Bios

struggling readers receive the instruction and motivation necessary for success in the classroom. Jodi is an active member of the International Literacy Association and the Texas Association of Literacy Educators (TALE), and TALE awarded her the Texas Education Leadership in Literacy Award in 2019. Jodi’s teaching and research interests include new/digital literacies, UDL, teacher preparation, and technology integration. Connect with Jodi on Twitter, @ JodiPilgrim. Sheri Vasinda is an associate professor in the School of Teaching, Learning

and Educational Sciences at Oklahoma State University (OSU). She earned her Masters and Doctorate degrees at Texas A&M University- Commerce. In 2018, the OSU College of Education honored her with the Distinguished Researcher and Outstanding Teaching Awards. In her over 25 years as a K12 educator in Allen, Texas, she was an early adopter and innovator of technology tools and ways of thinking about its possibilities for transformation, and was Teacher of the Year in 2007. With friend and colleague Julie McLeod, she supported several campuses with technology integration, using what they referred to as “enduring frameworks for thinking.” At OSU, she supports preservice and inservice teachers in developing deep understandings of literacy processes and practices, including those enhanced by technology. She is passionate about supporting readers and writers of all variabilities through purposeful pairings of new technology tools with strong traditional literacy strategies and creating engaging and joyful learning environments. She researches ways in which technology affords authentic self-assessment opportunities, the challenges and affordances of online reading, and new literacies. She is active in state, national, and international professional organizations. Connect with Sheri on Twitter, @svasinda.

SECTION 1

Foundations for Thinking about Literacy

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group

http://taylorandfrancis.com

1 LITERACY IN A CHANGING WORLD

Mind Shift Literacy is a broad term for being able to read, write, listen, speak, view, and visually represent information in order to communicate and understand. Consider all the different ways you demonstrated literacy today. Create a concept map with literacy as a center circle. Branch out from the center to list the multiple modes of literacy you used today. Use the concept map to think about the multiple modes available for communicating today that have changed over the last ten or more years. How has literacy evolved? Is it more effective? Why or why not?

Have you ever used a meme in a text to reflect a mood? Or listened to a podcast on the way to school or work? Students spend their time outside of school in similar ways. If you were to follow students home after school, you would see them blog, create videos, play games on smartphones, and communicate with friends through Snapchat or the newest app they have found to connect with others online. These young people are all engaged in literacy events using tools that amplify their voices, their efforts, their social circles, and more. The scope of literacy in a digital age is vastly expanding. The term literacy, at its most basic form and function, is the use of various means to communicate and create. Consider oral language. From the time infants enter the world, parents interpret babbling as language and respond with language that children will acquire incrementally throughout a lifetime. The same holds true for written language as it developed from pictograms in cave dwellings to symbols, the alphabet, and eventually, the printing press. The invention of the Gutenberg press created a means for literacy across the globe.

4  Foundations for Thinking about Literacy

Today’s students have an expanded repertoire of literacies from those of their parents or teachers (International Reading Association, 2009). The launch of the first iPads occurred in 2010. Now, children as young as two years old understand that swiping and tapping on glass screens can command songs, photos, animations, and videos. Young children demonstrate purposeful interaction by identifying the icons that will display desired content similar to the 20thcentury child making meaningful marks with a crayon on paper. These forms of emergent literacy are powerful ways to understand, communicate, and create, and they demonstrate changes in what it means to be literate. In the 21st century, the transition from paper-based to screen-based communication is changing the skills used for accessing and communicating information and ideas. Think about the online reading process of informational print. Readers need to understand how hyperlinked digital information is connected to get the most out of online reading. Clicking on the blue words or phrases leads to another webpage with related information and additional details. This information may be helpful or lead to distractions (Warlick, 2009). Readers need to understand this process in order to evaluate information encountered online. Today’s learners listen to podcasts or watch videos on demand, but they still need to evaluate the quality and reliability of online information, just as with print-based texts. As technology capabilities and access increase and expand, demands of literacy continually increase and change (Biancarosa & Snow, 2006).

The Link to Information and Communication Technology As we address literacy in a changing world, we encounter varying terms used to reflect literacy as well as an expanded notion of literacies. The commonality in literacy terms described in this chapter is their potential link to Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Current trends related to ICTs gain worldwide attention due to potential opportunities and benefits to improve the quality of education globally. These benefits, also recognized as the affordances of technology, impact society in general. According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), “Modern societies are increasingly dependent on information and knowledge, with digital information and communication technologies as main drivers” (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, 2017, para. 1). Global policies promote technology integration in education as a major factor for future economic success. With an increased presence of ICTs in and out of the classroom, educators must understand the impact of technology on literacy and literacy instruction. Regardless of the terms used to describe 21st-century literacy skills, the current perception of literacy includes the use of ICTs, typically the internet, to gather and disseminate information (Leu, Forzani, Timbrell, & Maykel, 2015). Additionally, with increased exposure and access to the internet

Literacy in a Changing World  5

and mobile devices, the new skills needed to navigate in-school and out-ofschool learning are not future-focused, they are how we live and function here and now.

The Shift from Reading to Literacy Growing and changing concepts about what it means to be literate have influenced education in many ways across many disciplines. In the reading and language arts professional community, literacy became the term used to reflect a more broad and contemporary view of reading and writing skills. In 2001, the International Reading Association (now the International Literacy Association, ILA) began transitioning to the use of literacy in their position statements and standards, instead of the term reading. ILA completed this process in order to align with a more encompassing view of literacy that extends beyond traditional reading, writing, listening, and speaking skills. Literacy standards across the nation also reflect changing notions about literacy. For example, ILA’s (International Literacy Association, 2018) Standards for the Preparation of Literacy Professionals include digital literacies. The expanding definitions of literacy address “the multitude of ways we read, write, communicate, and collaborate using print and digital technologies and is referred to in the plural, literacies” (p. 17). The Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010) included literacy requirements in the content areas such as history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. The intent of the literacy standards in the content areas was to complement content standards to enhance skills all students need (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). Literacy terms presented throughout this book are cross-disciplinary because literacy is the foundation for communicating information. The acts of making meaning through listening and speaking, reading and understanding, writing and communicating, and viewing and creating, both with and without technology, occur in all disciplines. “Whether the domain is English language arts, mathematics, sciences, social studies, history, art, or music, 21st-century competencies and such expertise as critical thinking, complex problem solving, collaboration, and multimedia communication should be woven into all content areas” (U.S. Department of Education, 2010, p. 9).

Multiliteracies Multiple ways of communicating have shifted the boundaries of literacy from a singular concept to a plural concept of literacies. This expanded idea also shifts our considerations of how we teach and what materials we use. Multiliteracies correspond with theoretical and pedagogical shifts in thinking about

6  Foundations for Thinking about Literacy

the pluralities of literacies. Multiliteracies involve visual and audio modes of communication represented through print, photos, videos, or graphs (Kress, 2003; New London Group, 1996). Multiliteracies, also called multiple literacies, reflect the idea that we communicate in many ways or many modes. The world around us is multimodal. Think back to the Mind Shift presented at the beginning of this chapter and the ways you are literate. Daily communication encounters of any kind are literacy. Our focus on literacy and technology integration for this textbook is grounded in a multiliteracies perspective.

Literacy Terminology Multiliteracies is one of many new terms associated with changing notions of what it means to be literate. It is also the literacy theory framing this text. We will continue exploring multiliteracies in the next chapter. As literacy terms evolve to reflect new technologies and new literacies, the new terms often overlap in meaning, causing inconsistencies and confusion in our understanding of these changes. Lankshear and Knobel (2008) emphasize the plurality of digital literacies because of the complexities which exist regarding the skills and concepts involved. Some of the overlapping literacy terms related to digital literacy, such as information literacy, network literacy, media literacy, e-literacy, and computer literacy, may complicate matters for teachers (Bawden, 2008). To clarify these often overlapping and similar terms, Pilgrim and Martinez (2013) presented definitions for terms reflective of 21st-century learning (Table 1.1).

TABLE 1.1 Summary of Traditional and 21st-Century Literacies

Multiliteracies—Multiple Ways of being Literate Term

Definition

Traditional literacy

The skills of reading, writing, listening, speaking, viewing, and visual representation are used to exhibit the skills of a literate person by comprehending, evaluating, refining, creating, adapting, engaging, citing, interpreting, and using technology to enhance information while seeking to appreciate diverse cultures (CCSSI, 2010) The ability to find, evaluate, utilize, share, and create content using information technologies and the internet (Cornell University, 2009) The set of integrated abilities encompassing the reflective discovery of information, the understanding of how information is produced and valued, and the use of information in creating new knowledge and participating ethically in communities of learning (ACRL, 2016)

Digital literacy

Information literacy

Literacy in a Changing World  7

Multiliteracies—Multiple Ways of being Literate Term

Definition

Computer literacy

The ability to program and control a computer for personal, academic, and professional efficiency (Watt, 1980) Critical literacy Connecting information in a way that emphasizes an understanding, questioning, and evaluation of attitudes, values, and beliefs presented in written texts, visual applications, and spoken words (ILA, 2018) Web literacy The knowledge and use of specific skills needed to locate, create, and participate online. Three pillars of web literacy are: (a) exploring online purposefully to narrow information, (b) effectively organizing information to build a comprehensive knowledge base, and (c) sharing knowledge with others to participate in making sense of information through collaboration (November, 2008) New Literacies New Literacies include (a) the new social practices, strategies, (upper case) skills, and dispositions required by emerging technologies for gathering information and communicating, (b) basic needs for participating in a global society, (c) multiple iterations as technologies emerge and change, (d) multiple points of view providing benefits for understanding their multifacets (Leu, O’Byrne, Zawilinski, McVerry & Everett-Cacopardo, 2009) new literacies (lower These literacies explore the advances in technology and social practices with five processes related to online case) reading, research, and comprehension: (a) identifying important questions, (b) locating important information, (c) evaluating information critically, (d) synthesizing information, and (e) using reading and writing to communicate effectively (Leu et al., 2004) Transliteracy The ability to read, write, and interact across a range of platforms, tools, and media, reflects the transformational nature of literacy (Vacca et al., 2018) Adapted from Pilgrim and Martinez (2013).

Many of the terms in Table 1.1, such as new literacies, digital literacy, and web literacy, are often used interchangeably by educators and researchers to share ways literacy and technology comingle. In the following sections, we describe the literacy definitions we used throughout this textbook.

Traditional Literacy As visionary Seymour Papert (1993) observed, traditional literacy instruction often focuses on “letteracy.” Interrelationships between the six language arts,

8  Foundations for Thinking about Literacy

i.e., reading, writing, listening, speaking, viewing, and visual representation (Greer, Smith, & Erwin, 1996), and the interdependence among literacy skills, provide a foundation for traditional literacy skills. Common Core State Standards (2010) focus on teaching students how to comprehend, evaluate, critically think, construct arguments, demonstrate understanding, build a foundation of knowledge, adapt to needs for communication, identify reliable sources, critique, cite evidence, use technology, integrate learning into prior knowledge, and communicate effectively as some of the literacy skills taught and assessed in classrooms. Currently, traditional literacy skills are a foundation for school-based learning in both traditional and digital formats. Because students spend an enormous amount of time on the internet, some researchers assert that “online reading and learning should be our focus” (Leu et al., 2015, p. 139). We encourage you to review your concept map created for the Mind Shift to determine if you included any traditional literacies.

Digital Literacy Teaching literacy in the digital age incorporates the use of technology as a means to apply elements of literacy. Jones-Kavalier & Flannigan (2008) defined digital literacy as “…the ability to read and interpret media (text, sound, images), to reproduce data and images through digital manipulation, and to evaluate and apply new knowledge gained from digital environments” (p. 14). Cornell University (2009) narrowed the definition to “Digital literacy is the ability to find, evaluate, utilize, share, and create content using information technologies and the internet” (para. 1). In 2010, the Department of Education defined digital literacy in the National Education Technology Plan and referenced the need for teachers to include technology skills in student assignments to support student mastery of 21st-century skills.

Information Literacy Historically, information literacy references literacy skills used for information problem-solving and access. In 1989, the American Library Association (ALA) defined information literacy as the ability to “locate, evaluate and use effectively the needed information” (p. 1). This definition is a consumeristic view of information literacy. In 2016, ALA extended this definition to reflect a more contemporary view of information literacy that includes ways to ethically communicate, produce, and create information (Association of College Research Libraries, 2016). The expansion of the definition of information literacy moves beyond the use of information to a more collaborative position. An understanding of the core definition of information literacy and the progression of the definition over time provides a foundation for 21st-century teaching and learning.

Literacy in a Changing World  9

Media Literacy Media literacy is “the ability to access, analyze, evaluate and create messages across a variety of contexts” (Christ & Potter, 1998, p. 7). It includes audiovisual literacy, digital literacy, advertising literacy, internet literacy, film literacy, visual literacy, etc. Because children engage with a variety of sources beyond traditional media sources such as television, radio, books, and newspapers, media literacy includes “the ability to identify different types of media and understand the messages they’re sending” (Common Sense Media, n.d., para. 2). In current contexts, media literacy is a focal point in the battle to combat the spread of misinformation. Media literacy and critical literacy (defined below) existed even before the internet explosion and are increasingly important due to new technologies.

Computer Literacy Just as readers and writers must understand how to use pen and paper for traditional literacy tasks, readers and writers must know the basics of using a computer in order to complete digital literacy tasks. At a fundamental level, computer literacy includes knowledge and skills needed to turn on computers, click and scroll with a mouse, and use a keyboard (Anderson, 1983; Corbel & Gruba, 2004). More advanced computer literacy skills include the understanding of hardware and software concepts for data entry, word-processing, etc. (Anderson, 1983). Computer literacy is not a new term, as computers have been around for some time. However, the complexity of computer literacy continues to change with student exposure to coding and other advanced computing skills.

Critical Literacy Not linked solely to digital formats, Critical Literacy has gained importance during a time in society when anyone can create online information. Critical literacy moves beyond the acceptance of an author’s message to analyzing and questioning content, determining authors’ purpose and bias (McLaughlin & DeVoogd, 2004; Stevens & Bean, 2007), and examining which power structures are being privileged (Gregory & Cahill, 2009) and whose voices are heard and whose are omitted (Leland & Harste, 2000). According to Vasquez and Felderman (2013), technology enables students to work beyond traditional ways of gathering and sharing information. Technology extends digital discourse created by critical literacy by providing a means for students to distribute stories and resources both locally and globally.

Web Literacy Web literacy refers to skills used for effective web navigation as well as knowledge students need to be able to locate, evaluate, and analyze content while

10  Foundations for Thinking about Literacy

also evaluating the author and site for reliability (November, 2008). After researching, collaboration and communication require students to connect with others using digital tools to present the information (November, 2008) through various apps (Storybird and Toontastic and experiences such as virtual field trips. Reading and researching online demand different skills than traditional reading or researching using paper-based books. Online connections are available throughout the text using hyperlinks and visuals, making reading online a more complex process (Coiro & Dobler, 2007; Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, Castek, & Henry, 2019). The success of research is directly affected by the effectiveness of students’ abilities to locate, analyze, evaluate, synthesize, communicate, and organize information found online (Leu, et al., 2019; November, 2008). Bridget Dalton (2015) stated, “Web literacy is huge. It’s everything we do on the Web” (p. 605).

new literacies (lower case) The internet has significantly impacted literacy and contributed to changing views of literacy (Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear, & Leu, 2008). New web-based technology tools emerge on the internet constantly, requiring specific, new literacy skills, identified as new literacies (lower case). The lower case new literacies are responsive to rapid social and cultural practice and change, focusing on a particular aspect of this change. Any technique requiring a technological tool to read and write would be considered a new literacy. For example, blogging on the internet instead of journaling with pen and paper is an example of a new literacy (Figure 1.1).

New Literacies (upper case) New Literacies (upper case) is a theory that offers explanations for new ways to communicate due to the emergence of technology. As patterns of findings

FIGURE 1.1 Donald J. Leu–New literacies research lab [Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/zFN81JAugDo.

Source: Donald J. Leu [The Brainwaves Video Anthology]. (2014, March 2).

Literacy in a Changing World  11

evolve from new literacies studies, they form this new theory (Leu et al., 2019). So far, New Literacies theory identifies eight elements: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

The internet is the defining technology for literacy and learning for this generation of the global community. The internet and other new technologies require new, additional literacies to access and leverage their full potential. New literacies change rapidly and contextually. New literacies are multiple, multimodal, and multifaceted. Critical literacies are central to new literacies. New literacies require new forms of strategic knowledge. New social practices are a central element of New Literacies. The importance of teachers becomes even more evident as their roles continue to change in new literacies classrooms.

In general, New Literacies (upper case) is a theory attempting to explain the phenomenon of new literacies (lower case) created by the emergence and constant influence of technology the expanding definitions of literacy.

Transliteracy Transliteracy is the ability to read, write, and interact across a range of platforms, tools, and media (Vacca et al., 2018). It reflects the transition and transformation from one mode of literacy to another. Transliteracy is both an idea and a practice. It “consists of skills, knowledge, thinking, and acting, which enable a fluid ‘movement across’ in a way that is defined by situational, social, cultural, and technological contexts” (Sukovic, 2016, para. 5). The term transliteracy is cross-disciplinary in nature. A transition from paper-based to screen-based and mobile media transform the skills necessary for enhancing personal life and success in school and work. Most teachers and researchers use some or all of these shared literacy terms to describe these evolving skills, but these skills are required for print-based text interactions as well. During this time, when 20th- and 21st-century worlds merge, people develop transliterate practices to navigate both paper-based and digital media. Figure 1.2 illustrates the transition of a traditionally literate person to a transliterate individual. Vacca et al. (2018) explain this transition as the combination of the knowledge of paper-based literacy skills and screen-based literacy skills to describe the function of transliteracy in a changing world. The left side of the image in Figure 1.2 depicts several traditional literacy terms related to skills students use with paper-based text, such as reading a book, newspaper, or thank you note. The middle of the image illustrates screenbased literacy skills reflective of when students communicate using a computer or read using an eBook on a tablet or smartphone. Reading a print book

12  Foundations for Thinking about Literacy

Traditional Paper-based

Technology Influenced

Transliteracies

Traditional Literacy

Computer Literacy

Traditional Literacy

Information Literacy

Digital Literacy

Information Literacy

Media Literacy

Web Literacy

Media Literacy

Critical Literacy

new literacies

Critical Literacy Computer Literacy Digital Literacy Web Literacy new literacies

FIGURE 1.2

Transliteracy: Literacy in a Changing World, from Traditional to Transliteracy.

and reading the web is not the same thing, which is why concepts of literacy have changed (Lankshear & Knobel, 2006; Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, 2004; November, 2008). The right side of the image represents new literacies emerging because of the transition created by the advent of and access to digital technologies. Participation in transliteracies requires the use of foundational literacy skills such as decoding, comprehension, and critical thinking. Foundational literacy skills use Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), but expectations and opportunities for reading, writing, speaking, and listening are expanding. Advances in literacy from the influences of technology transform the context of paper- and screen-based literacy terms. For example, reading a newspaper is a form of media literacy. While media literacy existed before new technologies, the context of the term has changed with the influence of technology.

Revisiting the Multiple Literacies Mind Shift Affordances, or possibilities, of technology provide exciting ways for students to mediate literacy processes in the classroom that are reflective of students’ personal lives. The literacies defined and described in this chapter cannot be an exclusive list since literacies continually change and evolve. Changes in ICTs due to unimagined new technology tools will continue to affect how we live our lives outside and inside of school. Because these tools advance at a rapid rate, teachers need ways of considering, evaluating, and integrating texts and tools to support all learners’ needs, their pedagogical practices, and learning

Literacy in a Changing World  13

goals and objectives. With an increased presence of technology both in and out of the classroom, educators must understand ways to leverage technology to optimize learning. The Mind Shift for this chapter asked you to create a concept map with “Literacy” as the centermost circle from which to branch out as you illustrated the multiple modes of literacy you used today. As you consider how literacy has changed and continues to change with the advances of technology, as discussed in this chapter, revisit your concept map about all the ways you were literate today. Add branches to your map based on knowledge gained about modes of communication. Did you include newly recognized literacies defined and discussed in this chapter? Are there additional literacies that you now recognize you need to add? As you continue to expand your understanding of literacies, apply this new knowledge to instructional considerations for preparing students for real-world tasks that are part of today’s world.

References American Library Association (1989). Presidential committee on information literacy. Final report. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/whitepapers/presidential Anderson, C. A. (1983). Computer literacy: Changes for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 34(5), 7–9. Association of College Research Libraries. (2016). Framework for information literacy for higher education. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ ilframework Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. In C. Lankshear & M.  Knobel (Eds.), Digital literacies: Concepts, policies, and practices. (pp. 1570–1613). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Biancarosa, C., & Snow, C. E. (2006). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Christ, W. G., & Potter, W. J. (1998). Media literacy, media education, and the academy. Journal of Communication, 48(1), 5–15. Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 378–411. Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. J. (2008). Handbook of research in new literacies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/ELA_ Standards1.pdf Common Sense Media (n.d.). What is media literacy, and why is it important? Retrieved from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/news-and-media-literacy/what-ismedia-literacy-and-why-is-it-important Corbel, C., & Gruba, P. (2004). Teaching computer literacy. Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University.

14  Foundations for Thinking about Literacy

Cornell University (2009). Digital literacy resource. Retrieved from http://digitalliteracy. cornell.edu/ Dalton, B. (2015). Charting our path with a web literacy map. The Reading Teacher, 68(8), 604–608. doi:10.1002/ trtr.1369 Greer, M., Smith, R. S., & Erwin, L. (Eds.) (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Newark, DE and Urbana, IL: International Reading Association and the National Council for Teachers of English. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/library/ NCTEFiles/Resources/Books/Sample/StandardsDoc.pdf Gregory, A., & Cahill, M. A. (2009). Constructing critical literacy: Self-reflexive ways for curriculum and pedagogy. Critical Literacy: Theories and Practices, 3(2), 6–16. International Literacy Association. (2018). Standards for the preparation of literacy professionals 2017. Newark, DE: Author. International Reading Association. (2009). New literacies and 21st-century technologies: A position statement of the International Reading Association (IRA PS 1067). Retrieved from http://www.reading.og/General/AboutIRA/PositionStatements/ 21stCenturyLiteracies.asp x Jones-Kavalier, B. R., & Flannigan, S. I. (2008). Connecting the digital dots: Literacy of the 21st century. Teacher Librarian, 35(3), 13–16. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York, NY: Routledge. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). New literacies: Everyday practices and classroom learning (2nd ed.). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2008). Digital literacies: Concepts, policies, and practices. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Leland, C. H., & Harste, J. (2000). Critical literacy: Enlarging the place of the possible. Primary Voices K-6, 9(2), 3–7. Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Rhoads, C., Maykel, C., Kennedy, C., & Timbrell, N. (2015). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement gap. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(1), 1–23. doi: 10.1002/rrq.85 Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Timbrell, N., & Maykel, C. (2015). Seeing the forest, not the trees. The Reading Teacher, 59(20), 139–145. Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. (2004). New literacies: Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 1570–1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2019). New literacies: A dual- level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrou, M. Sailors, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.). Theoretical models and processes of literacy (7th ed.). Newark, DE: International Literacy Association. Leu, D. J., O’Byrne, W. I., Zawilinski, L., McVerry, J. G., & Everett-Cacopardo, H. (2009). Expanding the new literacies conversation. Educational Researcher, 38(4), 264–269. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09336676 McLaughlin, M., & DeVoogd, G. L. (2004). Critical literacy: Enhancing students’ comprehension of text. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc. Media Literacy Now. (2017). What is media literacy? Retrieved from https:// medialiteracynow.org/what-is-media-literacy/ National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy

Literacy in a Changing World  15

in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. November, A. (2008). Web literacy for educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York, NY: Basic Books. Pilgrim, J., & Martinez, E. (2013). Defining literacy in the 21st century: A guide to terminology and skills. Texas Journal of Literacy Education, 1(1), 60–69. Stevens, L. P., & Bean, T. W. (2007). Critical literacy: Context, research, practice in the K12 classroom. London, UK: Sage Publications, Inc. Sukovic, S. (2016). What exactly is transliteracy? Elsevier SciTech Connect. Retrieved from http://scitechconnect.elsevier.com/what-exactly-is-transliteracy/ United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2017). Harnessing the role of information and communication technology (ICT) in education. Regional Office for Southern Africa. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/ harare/education/information-and-communication-technology-in-education-ict/ U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. National Educational Technology Plan 2010: Executive Summary. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010 Vacca, J. L., Vacca, R. T., Gove, M. K., Burkey, L. C. Lenhart, L. A., & McKeon, C.A. (2018). Reading and learning to read (10th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson. Vasquez, V. M., & Felderman, C. B. (2013). Critical literacy with new communication technologies. International Reading Association. doi: 10.1598/essentials.8028 |Retrieved from https://literacy432.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/ira-e- ssentials-8028critical-literacy-with-new-communication-technologies.pdf Warlick, D. F. (2009). Redefining literacy 2.0. (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Linworth Books. Watt, D. (1980). Computer literacy: What should schools be doing? Classroom Computer News, 1(2), 6–27.

2 MULTILITERACIES Theory and Pedagogy that Reflect a Changing World

Mind Shift Literacy has never been singular. We continue the theme of multiliteracies and change in this chapter. How will a focus on multiliteracies in our changing world affect Pedagogies? Change is a constant theme throughout this book. The upper case delta, denoted by the shape of a triangle, means change in mathematics. Let’s borrow this symbol for our Mind Shift. Draft the delta, or a large triangle, on a sheet of paper. Label each vertex with the following words: Literacies, Pedagogies, Technologies. In the middle of the triangle, write a word or phrase that relates to the personal connections you have made with change. Before reading this chapter, predict what multiliteracies theorists say about the multiple ways of being literate and why it is an essential theory for teachers to consider. As you read Chapter 2 about multiliteracies theory and pedagogy, continue to add personal connections, especially those related to your pedagogy, to the center of the triangle.

Theories are the foundations upon which effective teachers build effective practices. They explain aspects of our world based on an abundance of evidence to both support and counter a line of thinking. The more evidence supporting the theory, the stronger the theory is. In education, theories form a belief system about teaching and learning. This belief system results in observable actions from teachers as they design and implement lessons and experiences for students. The application of theory to practice is called pedagogy. Teachers with strong theoretical and pedagogical foundations are better able to make critical decisions about the materials and approaches they use to build their practice.

Multiliteracies: Theory and Pedagogy  17

Culture Shifts Create Literacy Shifts In the opening of his book, The Children’s Machine, Seymour Papert (1993), MIT professor, researcher, and theorist, told a story of time travelers from 100 years ago, who found themselves in the present. They marveled at flying machines transporting many people. They visited a hospital and marveled at the machinery, which they did not recognize. They observed homes with features that responded to voice commands. Then, they visited a school and recognized this place. Even though the “chalkboards” were white and teachers used a writing tool that never made dust or lost its point, children sat listening to teachers, carrying out their work on paper. The point of the parable is that the world outside of schools has experienced rapid cultural change that shifts the way we do things because of technological capabilities. In contrast, many schools have new technology tools but use them to do the same types of work as in the past. At school, children may read eBooks or texts on computers rather than paper books, listen to teacher lectures on video from a flipped classroom design rather than live, face-to-face lectures, and answer multiple-choice questions on computer screens. At home, these same children may be creating worlds in Minecraft and producing YouTube videos to support a cause, explain a complicated concept, or for entertainment. They may solve problems in which they interact with experts. Children are taking an active role in their engagement with multiple types of new Literacies outside of school. With the ubiquity of mobile devices and internet access, learners of today as young as two- and three-year-olds pinch, swipe, and select icons that lead to their choice of media on their parent’s mobile phones and tablets (Guernsey & Levine, 2013; Rosin, 2013). Using imaginative apps, such as the Toca Boca, young children create environments for animals, style hair, experiment in virtual labs, and design clothing in playful and safe ways. These virtual environments are responsive to touch, and objects within the environment encourage manipulation and foster creativity. Coding apps with word-free designs offer a chance for young children to code before they develop literacy. While issues of access and equity lurk beneath these examples, technology needs must be examined and considered from an advocacy stance, just as consideration for the access to books was, and still is, in the 20th century. Lack of access to technology places a heavy responsibility on schools serving lessresourced communities to make technology resources available to all families. The ways children interact with technology tools outside of school reflect constructivist learning theories. These tools support children in ways that illustrate Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget’s view of children as little scientists and active agents in their own learning. New tools provide new avenues for exploration and agency. Additionally, new literacies and ways of being literate keep us connected to friends, family, experts, and influencers through social media and email, thus aligning with the social nature of literacy identified by Lev Vygotsky.

18  Foundations for Thinking about Literacy

While our connected culture provides new contexts, opportunities, and tools to realize these constructivist theories both inside and outside of school, other educational texts describe theorists like Piaget, Dewey, and Vygotsky. Although these theories influence our practice and views on learning in general, our goal is to describe a newer theory that is well matched to the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework described in the next chapter and applied throughout our text. A central idea threaded throughout this book is “multi,” and multiple, and UDL includes multiple ways to consider the diversities and variabilities of learners through representation, action and expression, and engagement. So far, multiliteracies are considered a concept. Now multiliteracies are unpacked as a theory and a pedagogical approach matched with UDL principles. Teaching from a multiliteracies perspective supports an understanding of diverse learners and learning as an expanded notion of literacy. Therefore, this chapter unpacks multiliteracies as an emerging and evolving theory specific to literacy. Also, multiliteracies include a reflexive pedagogical stance supporting school learning, including alphabetic literacy, but is not limited by it.

Multiliteracies as a Theory and Pedagogy We live in a multiliteracy world, and we always have. Even before written language, gestures could accompany oral language or could communicate meaning all on their own (think of the meaning of a shrug or an eye roll). Literate people in early times were orators and storytellers. Depending on the culture, people communicated ideas through stories, art, drama, songs, gestures, and dance. The invention of written language developed from cuneiforms and hieroglyphics as pictorial representations of ideas in cultures from around the world. These pictures often evolved into different alphabetic systems and represented new, more abstract ways of being literate. Historically, the ability to read and write was reserved for the elite until the printing press, the disruptive technology of its time, made print available to the masses. The mass-production of books and pamphlets put the printed word into the hands of ordinary people. It had a powerful influence both in and out of school, and the alphabet and printed word became cultural currency. People who could use it had new forms of power. As ways of distributing the written forms of literacy became available, those literacy forms changed the way people communicated and the distance over which they could communicate. In other words, it improved the way people could do things and what they did. As these new symbolic forms became vital for commerce and culture, they became the foundation for schooling in a more modern and mechanized world. By teaching alphabetic literacies, schools provided the needed skills for communicating and succeeding during that time. In today’s world, alphabetic literacy is just one aspect of a range of communication tools. Many of our powerful communicators are once again orators

Multiliteracies: Theory and Pedagogy  19

and storytellers through TED Talks and podcasts. We are communicating in new ways and with new tools, causing some schools to be out-of-sync with the globally connected world. In addition to teaching alphabetic literacy, we need to offer additional media tools, processes, and opportunities for all learners to communicate their ideas in ways valued in our culture.

History of Multiliteracies Theory and Pedagogy In the mid-1990s, a group of ten literacy researchers and scholars from Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States shared concerns that industrial-age views and practices of literacy did not encompass societal changes and evolving communication tools. They challenged the predominant and static view of literacy as the initial set of conventions for making meaning. They wanted to understand the changing nature of literacy globally. During a meeting held in 1994 in New London, New Hampshire, they developed the term “multiliteracies” to encompass the many ways of being literate across cultures and challenge the static view of literacy as primarily text-based. Multiliteracies also articulate the constantly expanding nature of literacies and outdated theoretical assumptions with both the prefix “multi” and the plural designation of “literacies” (New London Group, 1996). According to the New London Group (NLG) (1996), multi refers to a wide range of literacies valued by particular cultures and social groups as well as literacies within particular professional communities and disciplines. Multi also refers to multimodality, in which many modes communicate and make meaning. Think back to the Mind Shift and the many ways you listed that you communicate daily. Do you consider this as using multiliteracies? The NLG developed a theory and pedagogy referred to as “multiliteracies,” which may help you describe your Mind Shift differently.

Tenets of Multiliteracies Theory The conveners of the NLG, Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis (Kalantzis & Cope, 2000, 2015, 2016), continue to unpack multiliteracies as a new theory of literacy pedagogy (New London Group, 1996). Because the “things we do to know” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2015, p. 33) continue to change, we need new theories to reflect the multiple ways we learn. The tenets of multiliteracies as a theory focus on diversity, multimodality, and designing. These tenets inform a multiliteracies pedagogy, which weaves both traditional and progressive teaching into what Cope and Kalantzis have identified as reflexive pedagogy.

Diversity The theory and pedagogy of multiliteracies recognize that communication varies across cultures and histories. Digital Technologies have influenced our

20  Foundations for Thinking about Literacy

current culture. As a result, the 21st-century culture has made a dramatic shift from the uniformity of the 20th century. Examples of uniformity in the 20th century include the assembly line and mass production. Examples of plurality in the 21st century include variations in “oneness” such as personalized beverages at Starbucks, personalized apps for Technology devices, or personalized social media outlets. The digital age has brought about a culture of high differentiation and personalization (Kalantzis & Cope, 2016). A mass uniformity view of literacy would be singular, focused solely on alphabetic literacy, one language, a set of uniform canonical texts with correct interpretations, and a national set of standards. In contrast, the digital age provides easy access to spaces for highly specialized affinity groups (Gee, 2004), such as shared activity and interest groups, so that the culture of the 21st century is one that focuses on uniqueness and diversity. Kalantzis and Cope (2016) refer to this diversity of uniqueness of experiences as a person’s “lifeworks.” Every student brings his or her lifeworks to the classroom. Literacy teaching from a multiliteracies perspective supports and fosters an active life of meaning-making that digital tools and multimedia elevate in unique and diverse ways. More accessible and easy-to-use tools make multiple ways of learning and creating possible. Those ascribing to a multiliteracies theory find a singular view of literacy limiting and out-ofsync with the effectiveness of multimedia messages ubiquitous in current culture.

Multimodality We make and interpret meaning in a variety of modes. We speak. We write. We read. We gesture. We put together images and sounds and interpret those combinations. The space, or context, in which we communicate, is a consideration for communication. Informal and formal settings reflect varied communication. Literacies are tactile. Many of us have favorite types of pens, preferring the feel of the pen as it drags across the paper or our fingers as they type on the keyboard. Many prefer paper books to digital texts for this same reason. We also interpret sounds from the wailing of an emergency vehicle siren to the ding of an incoming email or text. All of these modes communicate meaning, and they are most often combined. As we unpack each mode, Kalantzis and Cope (2016) suggest one or more of the following questions for consideration when using any of these modes of communication: Reference: What does meaning refer to? Interaction: How does meaning connect those interacting? Composition: How does the overall meaning hang together? Context: In what contexts/situations are the meanings located? Purpose: What are the purposes of these meanings, and whose purposes do they serve?

Multiliteracies: Theory and Pedagogy  21

As you read about each mode, keep these questions in mind. Kalantzis and Cope (2016) identify seven modes of meaning (Figure 2.1): audio, oral, gestural, tactile, written, visual, and spatial. Understanding each mode and their relationship to each other supports the broader sense of literacy that has been part of our literate history and intensified now in digital contexts. Throughout our history as humans, audio meanings have warned us of coming storms or approaching animals. Bells have called people to worship or called people to help put out fires. In current contexts, alarms wake us or remind us, and they alert us to communications in other modes, such as phone calls, emails, or texts. When considering oral meanings, we recognize that most oral language is casual instead of scripted. In most conversations, we speak in phrases rather than sentences, and our structures may be redundant or jumbled. We often use gestural meanings to support and enhance our talk. Hand gestures, shrugs, facial expressions reflect mood and tone and can enhance our spoken language or communicate on their own. Gestural meanings are also prevalent in theater and drama. In addition to gestural, Literacies are tactile. We now have wearable devices, such as a watch or fitness tracker, that give us a gentle thump to communicate when it is time to stand up. Other tactile meanings are communicated by pinching, swiping, and tapping, in addition to traditional pen and paper tasks. When we compare the oral mode to written meanings, the structure of written messages is different. We organize in sentences and paragraphs. We construct blogs, essays, and poems in tight structures to reduce redundancy. Visual meanings often support written meanings. Before photolithography, it was technologically challenging to place images with text. Images were often separate pages included in the center or back of a book. Photolithography made the merging of text and images possible. Today, digital processes simplify communication further. Social media capitalizes on the pairing of images with text, as do picture books. Technical and disciplinary texts would be much more challenging without images to support the written words. Like gestures, images carry meaning alone.

FIGURE 2.1

Seven Modes of Meaning (Kalantzis & Cope, 2016).

Source: Mary Kalantzis and Bill Cope [Education at Illinois]. (2016, April 19).

22  Foundations for Thinking about Literacy

8.3 A grammar of multimodal meaning. Retrieved from https://youtu. be/BUQez2U2Jsc.

FIGURE 2.2

Source: Mary Kalantzis and Bill Cope [Education at Illinois]. (2016, April 19).

The physical and digital spaces in which we communicate shape our language and meaning. Spatial meanings in coffee shops and playgrounds differ linguistically from communications in churches and schools. Since people are now constantly connected to mobile devices and the literacies carried with them (Mills, 2016), digital spaces carry different spatial meanings. The tone of email may be difficult to determine, and social media spaces provide amplified voice used for both the banal and benign to activism and agitation. The creation of spatial meanings illustrated in alphabetic literacy uses white space in poetry, prose, and the placement of visual images in graphic designs and advertising.

Design All learning is design (Kalantzis & Cope, 2016). The concept of design from a multiliteracy perspective recognizes the agency and variability of the learner from a strengths-based perspective. People are born into cultures that have what Cope and Kalantzis (2015) call available designs. These designs (nouns) reflect items such as meaning-making processes and tools, written language, storytelling, the alphabet, songs, art, and dances valued in a culture. Meaning makers engage in the design (verb) process when they are creating and recreating. A resulting re-design is a unique product left for the next learners to use in their meaning-making process. Even in receptive processes, such as reading a text, the reader chooses whether to attend to pictures, graphs, charts, or photos first or to begin with a written message.

Multiliteracies Reflexive Pedagogy Alongside theory development for multiliteracies, NLG wanted to determine pedagogical approaches supporting diversities and multimodalities. They recognized

Multiliteracies: Theory and Pedagogy  23

that no single pedagogy supports learning for all students. In their original work, they identified the following significant dimensions of literacy pedagogy: situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and transformed practice (Cope & Kalantzis, 2015; NLG, 1996). As Kalantzis and Cope continued to apply these ideas in the two decades that followed, they reframed, translated, and refined these ideas into what they called Knowledge Processes: experiencing, conceptualizing, analyzing, and applying (Cope & Kalantzis, 2015; Kalantzis & Cope, 2016).

Experiencing This process provides context and authenticity to the learning situations building in a way to expand students’ life experiences. Experiencing the known provides an opportunity for learners to bring their in- and out-of-school experiences, interests, perspectives, and ways of representing the learning engagement. Experiencing the new exposes learners to purposeful texts, opportunities for observation, and thoughtful situations, so the experience remains understandable, yet different enough to become transformative possibly.

Conceptualizing In this process, learners are typically involved in disciplinary or specialized learning of distinctive concepts and theories, or designs of a discipline. They need to be able to develop concepts and name them as well as to make generalizations and build mental models. The pedagogical approach often associated with conceptualizing is transmission when a teacher organizes the disciplinary frameworks for the learner. Lasting and robust conceptualization requires learners to be active concept-makers and theory-makers, moving back and forth between experiencing and conceptualizing.

Analyzing In this process, analysis means to critically consider and interpret the social and cultural context and perspective. Analysis can include a critical analysis of your perspective and others’ perspectives. It can be a critical analysis of the learning materials, such as texts, videos, images, to understand relationships of power. This analysis can also include a process of reasoning and drawing conclusions, making inferences, and establishing functional relationships, such as sequences and cause and effect.

Applying In this process, applying refers to both appropriate application and creative application. The range of an application process includes the use of knowledge

24  Foundations for Thinking about Literacy

and understanding in expected ways to demonstrating an understanding of concepts in authentic or simulated situations. Applying new knowledge or understanding in creative or innovative ways is an important application process. Creative application is an inventive process, including the learner’s interests, experiences, and curiosity to result in redesign and new meaning-making. These dimensions and categories of pedagogical weave back and forth, across, and between to support teachers in extending their pedagogical repertoires (Figure 2.2) (Cope & Kalantzis, 2015; Kalantzis & Cope, 2016). A multiliteracies pedagogy also helps bridge long-time pedagogical tensions between didactic, or transmission, pedagogy and authentic, or constructivist, pedagogy. Reflexive pedagogy acknowledges and leverages the strengths of both. Additionally, a multiliteracies pedagogy recognizes the importance of teacher professional decision-making, resulting in a reflexive pedagogy, which is responsive and reflective (Cope & Kalantzis, 2015; Kalantzis & Cope, 2016). The NLG articulated strong roles for teachers and a variety of pedagogical approaches. They also espoused a robust, active stance for students to be producers, participators, transformers, and innovators, rather than consumers, spectators, and followers (Gee, 2017). In Table 2.1, the strengths of each teaching approach are bolded and illustrate ways teachers can weave back and forth between approaches, creating a reflexive approach.

Reflexive Pedagogy in Action Most state standards require instruction related to argumentative discourse and interaction with multimodal texts. When exploring these standards and the Progressive Pedagogy

Applied Learning

situated practice experiencing

transformed practice applying

creatively the new

the known by naming

with theory

overt instruction conceptualising Traditional Pedagogy FIGURE 2.3

appropriately

functionally

critically

critical framing analysing Critical Pedagogy

Multiliteracies Pedagogical Dimensions (Kalantzis & Cope, 2016). Used with permission.

Multiliteracies: Theory and Pedagogy  25 TABLE 2.1 Comparative Overview of Pedagogical Emphases

Knowledge Processes

…in Didactic Pedagogy

…in Authentic Pedagogy …in Reflexive Pedagogy

…the known

Weak emphasis as all students are doing the same curriculum, given to them

Strong emphasis, highlighting student interest, identity, and personal experience

…the new

Limited to new information provided by the teacher and text books

Immersion in hands-on experiences: experiments, field trips, investigations in projects, and the like

…by naming

Strong on naming academic concepts

…with theory

Strong on laying out theories, learning rules, deductive reasoning

Categorization and Weak emphasis, classification, hoping that definitions of concepts will concepts develop through exposure Developing Weak emphasis, to disciplinary schemas the extent that and mental models generalizations emerge, these come naturally, via inductive reasoning

Experiencing Regular returns to student lifeworld experiences knowledge, and prior experience, with metacognitive reflections Immersion in the range of information sources such as those now available on the web, as well as hands-on activities and immersive experiences

Conceptualizing

Analyzing …functionally

…critically

Weak emphasis, on the assumption that this will develop incidental to experience No or minimal Strong emphasis, emphasis on on the critical thinking assumption that critical analysis of purpose, interests, and agendas is a key to understanding Strong on presenting functional explanations

Argument and explanation including text, diagram, data visualization Analysis of the interests of people and the purpose of knowledge

(Continued)

26  Foundations for Thinking about Literacy

Knowledge Processes

…in Didactic Pedagogy

…in Authentic Pedagogy …in Reflexive Pedagogy

Applying Putting meanings …appropriately Strong emphasis, Weak emphasis, on and knowledge to the assumption but only to work effectively in that there is no the extent of proximate contexts necessarily “right” demonstrating way to do things with right answers, application of theorems and procedures Transfer of knowledge …creatively Weak to no Strong emphasis, to different contexts, emphasis as student work hybrid knowledge and projects and cultural express individual creations expressing and cultural student voice and perspectives perspective Used with permission Kalantzis and Cope (2016).

learning expectations behind them, we might encourage students to explore world issues. In considering how we might best reach an audience with a message or cause that we are passionate about, a typical school approach would be for students to write a paper. The audience may move beyond just the teacher to classmates, but when we think about the way people in the world communicate their causes, we view TED Talks, follow blogs, or explore Twitter. To use a reflexive pedagogy, we would first engage students in watching Olivia Van Ledgig’s TEDxYouth Talk on #Kidscanteachus, or exploring Kid President’s encouraging messages. This experience of watching videos is familiar, thus experiencing the known, but the topics of the videos could be new. This is experiencing and enacts an experiential pedagogy associated with Dewey (1938) and Bruner (1966). To conceptualize argument, the teacher identifies, names, and defines the elements and writing/speaking moves. She identifies the claim and the evidence in the video arguments. She notes that academic argument is a conversation in which people consider their viewpoints along with others, rather than a debate to be won (Friedrich, Bear, & Fox, 2018). They often include other viewpoints and counter them to make a strong argument. Teachers can demonstrate a choice of moves, identifying them, and naming them. Because students have experienced the concept first through something familiar, direct instruction makes sense. Analysis is a combination of didactic and authentic pedagogy. The teacher provides a set of arguments to analyze, and students look for claims, supportive evidence, and structures to determine the use of the elements and if they were

Multiliteracies: Theory and Pedagogy  27

effective. These could be either written texts or videos. Students consider the purpose and interests of people looking for authentic arguments in their community, within the classroom or playground, or even at home. When applying, students use the elements of argument to address meaningful topics (their interests and purpose). They use their knowledge of argument elements and develop their claim, find supportive evidence (and possible counter-evidence), and determine their best design for creating a compelling argument. They also consider their audience and the mode that will best reach that audience. In a multiliteracies framework, they have choices about their final product. Should it be a video, a blog, a podcast, a letter, or something else? The multimodal choices support the required written argument through storyboards, plans, and drafts. This back and forth weaving of approaches illustrates the need for teachers to keenly observe their students’ lifeworks, to know when to step in with direct teaching and when to let learners struggle just a bit and explore to strengthen an understanding. Various teaching approaches are valued when viewed from a multiliteracies theoretical and pedagogical perspective.

Revisiting the Multiliteracies Mind Shift Multiliteracies is not a new theoretical perspective. We wonder if you were surprised that it dates back to the mid-1990s. Your prediction of multiliteracies probably reflected key components of the perspective. You probably inferred that multi was a part of this concept in terms of varying ways to be literate, as studied in Chapter 1. Thinking back to what you read, how does the prefix “multi” differ from “singular” in terms of literacy? This chapter addressed the tenets of a multiliteracies theory. How do the tenants introduced in this chapter build on the idea of pluralities reflective of society? What additional personal connections did you make to theory and pedagogy? Multiliteracies pedagogy embraces the complexities of the world’s communication system (New London Group, 1996). As we begin to understand multiliteracies as a theoretical perspective, we can appreciate the necessity of opportunities in schools in order to reflect the society around us. Return to your prediction and expand on your thoughts about why it is an essential pedagogy for teachers to consider.

References Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. Cope, W., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London, UK: Routledge. Cope, W., & Kalantzis, M. (2015). What you do to know: An introduction to the pedagogy of multiliteracies. In W. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Learning by design (pp. 1–37). London, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.

28  Foundations for Thinking about Literacy

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience in education. New York, NY: MacMillan. Gee, J. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York, NY: Routledge. Gee, J. P. (2017). A personal retrospective on the New London Group and its formation. In F. Serafini & E. Gee (Eds.), Remixing multiliteracies: Theory and practice from New London to new times. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Guernsey, L., & Levine, M. H. (2013). Tap, click, read. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Friedrich, L., Bear, R., & Fox, T. (2018). For the sake of argument: An approach to teaching evidence-based writing. American Educator. Retrieved from https:// www.aft.org/ae/spring2018/friedrich_bear_fox Kalantzis, M., & Cope, W. (2016). A grammar of multimodal meaning. Literacies: Education at Illinois. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= BUQez2U2Jsc&list=PLV_zfgB7n1yS3-Wk65IC7-Sd4_9lpiU2_&index=30&t=0s Mills, K. (2016). Literacy theories for the digital age: Social, critical, multimodal, spatial, material, and sensory lenses. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. New London Group (1996) A Pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–93. Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking schools in the age of the computer. New York, NY: BasicBooks. Rosin, H. (April, 2013). The touch-screen generation. Atlantic Journal. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/the-touch-screengeneration/309250/

3 UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING WITHIN A MULTILITERACIES PERSPECTIVE

Mind Shift Classrooms are increasingly diverse. Children bring not only their culture, race, and ethnicity, but also their learning needs and life experiences. Teachers must use a variety of strategies and tools to support learners. Using your area of expertise, apply your knowledge of multiliteracies to identify various ways to teach all learners. Also, brainstorm multiple ways a student could demonstrate learning. Use any technology tool to share your brainstorms with a peer.

Most of us become teachers because we are passionate about learning and learners. We want to make school an interesting and engaging place where all learners experience success. Considering the diversity of our students, this is a daunting task. In this chapter, we describe a framework inspired by architectural design, which considers access for all people in the design of physical places and spaces (United States Access Board, n.d.). Intentional design for access benefits people regardless of their level of ability or disability, making newer buildings and public areas accessible to everyone. These accessible design features include flat or ramped building entrances, wide doors, and electric door openers placed, so they are in easy reach of everyone. Restroom accessibility has increasingly included sinks and towel dispensers with touch-free utilities and wheel-chair-accessible stalls. Intentional architectural design for all is called Universal Design (UD) and has provided access options that many of us take for granted and use. Just as UD is applied to buildings to improve accessibility, UD principles apply to the context of the learning environment in order to improve access to content and processes. This chapter introduces

30  Foundations for Thinking about Literacy

Universal Design for Learning (UDL), a framework for lesson design to support diversity and learner variability.

Origin of Universal Design for Learning The history and theoretical framework of UD provide insight into the instructional application of UDL. The term, Universal Design (UD), was initially used by Ron Mace at the Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University to reflect both architectural design and access (Center for Applied Special Technology, 2011a; Rose & Meyer, 2002). Mace and his colleagues defined Universal Design as “the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design” (Center for Universal Design, 1997, para. 1). As part of the Civil Rights Movement in 1968, the Architectural Barriers Act required that new construction and renovations funded by federal money be accessible to people with disabilities (United States Access Board, n.d.). Over the next 22 years, the development of standards for these designs occurred, and in 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) expanded these requirements for access to private-sector spaces (ADA, 1990; WBDG Accessibility Committee, 2019). ADA prohibited the exclusion of individuals with disabilities from access to transportation, employment, public buildings, schools, goods and services, and other basic, everyday activities people without disabilities use (ADA, 1990). With access for all in mind, the concept of UD became evident. The use of curb cuts, ramps, escalators, elevators, large restroom stalls, automatic doors, and similar accommodations provided benefits for individuals with disabilities. Benefits extended to people without disabilities as well, including a parent pushing a stroller, people using crutches after a fall, and people carrying large loads of groceries who lack an extra hand to open the door. Constructing a building to accommodate the needs of people in the margins (Center for Applied Special Technology, 2015) meets the needs of other people without special needs. It is important to remember that people in the margins can be in that state temporarily instead of as a life-long situation. The individual using crutches or the parent pushing the stroller appreciates access because the building design acknowledged the needs of the people in the margins. Because educators strive to increase access to processes and content students need to learn in school, the underlying philosophy of UD aligns well with the goals of education. With UD as the inspirational philosophy, a group of educators founded the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) in 1984. In the 1990s, as CAST educators collaborated with schools to adapt a print-based curriculum, they began applying the concept of UD to instructional materials and approaches (Rose & Meyer, 2002). The organization has been a leader in the development of technology tools used to address learner variability. Learner

UDL within a Multiliteracies Perspective  31

variability is a term used to describe how all individuals are unique in how they learn, and “the goal of education should not be just the mastery of knowledge but the mastery of learning” (Houston, 2018, p. 96). Just as the goal of UD is to design for access to the physical environment, the goal of UDL is to design for access to the curricular goals and learning standards, enabling increased opportunities to reach all children. UDL promotes flexibility in curriculum and the learning environment so that diverse students gain access and opportunities to learn (Rose & Meyer, 2002). The focus of instruction optimizes teaching and learning, which includes the “learning goals, the means of assessment, the teaching methods, and the materials” (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014, p. 3). A one-size-fits-all mentality does not work for architectural design or learning design due to learner variability and diversity. The consideration of learner variability in instructional planning allows educators to apply UDL principles to design ways for all students to engage, understand, and respond meaningfully. Accommodating for learner variability may include attending to the physical classroom space, materials, tools, and assessments to support the learning goals. When instructional design includes students in the margins, like children with physical limitations, language challenges, or visual struggles, then all children benefit from intentional lesson design. In other words, intentional lesson design within the UDL Framework provides increased access to successful learning opportunities. UDL embraces the idea of learner variability as an asset when thinking about their students and their curriculum.

Universal Design for Learning Framework UDL is grounded in neuroscience, and implementation of UDL principles addresses learner variability (Meyer et al., 2014). Using brain imaging technology, scientists confirmed learner variability and identified three sets of nerve networks that play a role in learning. UDL supporters suggest that these three networks—affective, recognition, and strategic (Meyer et al., 2014)—guide the UDL principles described later in this section. First of all, recognition networks are specialized to receive and analyze information—considered the what of learning. In order to address this network, UDL principles encourage teachers to use multiple modes to represent information supporting learners’ understanding. Strategic networks are specialized to plan and execute actions— consider this the how of learning. In order to address this network, UDL principles support various actions and expressions of learning. Finally, affective networks are specialized to evaluate and set priorities—this is the why of learning. Again, in order to address this network, UDL principles function as guides to engage and motivate learners. UDL has come to represent a shift in instructional design, emphasizing the need for curricula to adapt to student needs rather than require the adaptation of learners (Rose & Meyer, 2006).

32  Foundations for Thinking about Literacy

At its core, UDL embraces three principles educators need to consider when planning instruction: multiple means of representation, multiple means of action and expression, and multiple means of engagement. Each of the principles includes guidelines for use. Since the publication of UDL Version 1.0 in 2008, the principles and guidelines have continued to develop (Center for Applied Special Technology, 2018). Feedback from the field and expanding research in the areas of UDL education, cognitive science, psychology, and neuroscience, led CAST to continue to develop different representations of the guidelines over time. Each of these UDL representations reflects a particular goal. CAST (2018) maintains that the last version of the guidelines, Version 2.2, is not the correct version. Instead, it is just the latest iteration. Therefore, as we discuss UDL Principles, we determined Version 2.0 (Center for Applied Special Technology, 2011b) guidelines and checkpoints represented our goal for discussing learner variabilities. Teachers address these principles by providing options for flexible materials, tools, techniques, and strategies and by considering multi-modes of communication. As a result, these options, which include technology-influenced tools, allow students to access and demonstrate their knowledge in multiple ways (Figures 3.1 and 3.2).

Principle 1: Multiple Means of Representation Each UDL principle includes guidelines for instructional planning. Addressing recognition networks provides awareness that all children and learning experiences differ. Therefore, the application of this principle reflects “multiple means of representation,” so students acquire the what of learning. The recognition network involves three guidelines. Guideline 1 addresses options for perception. Students with visual perceptual difficulties may benefit from a teacher who plans lessons to optimize the display of material or uses auditory communication of information. Guideline 2 focuses on students who struggle

FIGURE 3.1

UDL at a glance. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/bDvKnY0g6e4.

Source: CAST. (2010, January 6).

UDL within a Multiliteracies Perspective  33

FIGURE 3.2

Universal Design for Learning Principles. Used with permission.

with language and symbols. It promotes planning for inclusive ways for students to define new vocabulary and symbols, to work with syntax, structure, and decoding strategies, and to demonstrate important information in a variety of formats. Guideline 3 promotes ways to improve comprehension through instruction, which activates prior knowledge, focusing on essential ideas, assisting students with information processing, and aiding in memory and transfer (Gordon, Gravel, & Schifter, 2009). Multiple means of representation align with a multiliteracies perspective when teachers consider the various modes of communication used to facilitate learning. Teachers must ask, What methods and materials will reach all of my students? Teachers must also consider, What learning environment provides the best access to content? An environment rich with physical and digital materials and media and opportunities to interact with others, both peers and content experts, provides many options for accessing content. Multiple means of representation provide for the use of various forms of literacy learning to help students access all disciplines.

Principle 2: Multiple Means of Action and Expression This strategic network emphasizes multiple means of action and expression and is supported by Guidelines 4–6, which aid in the how of learning. Students

34  Foundations for Thinking about Literacy

with physical disabilities may benefit from Guideline 4, which encourages opportunities for physical accommodations. The application of this guideline includes options to respond in a physical manner rather than with traditional pencil and paper activities. Action and expression might include touch screens or speech-to-text software. Students also benefit from a variety of ways to navigate the classroom, materials, and assignments through assistive technology and other tools, such as keyboard commands instead of using a mouse or customized overlays on keyboards or touch screens. Guideline 5 caters to the student with communication challenges. This guideline directs teachers to provide alternative communication tools such as media outlets. Guideline 6 addresses executive functions such as impulsivity, attention issues, poor working memory, emotional difficulties, and more. Students who struggle with executive functioning may have trouble organizing, applying cause and effect, and preparing for assignments. When teachers consider these struggles during the planning stages of lesson development, students are more likely to experience success during implementation. A teacher who identifies the strategic network as a challenge can assist the student with setting goals, planning and organizing assignments, gathering and using resources, and self-monitoring (Gordon et al., 2009). Multiple means of action and expression align with a multiliteracies perspective as teachers consider the various modes of communication used to share knowledge of content and multiple means of action and expression for learners to demonstrate their understanding and convey their ideas in meaningful, yet various, ways. According to early UDL thinking and underlying theory, scaffolds (Rose & Meyer, 2006; Vygotsky, 1978) are initiated and gradually removed as the student becomes competent in the targeted skill and gains independence. Instead of removing scaffolds, we advocate for the original UD perspective, where the focus is on permanent access instead of the gradual release of scaffolds (Pilgrim, Vasinda, & Lisenbee, 2019). This difference in interpretation is influenced by a multiliteracies perspective, in which new types of literacies, such as podcasts and videos, were not designed as scaffolds to alphabetic literacies, although they can be, but are current and valued literacies in and of themselves.

Principle 3: Multiple Means of Engagement The affective network involves multiple means of engagement. Focusing on the why of learning is supported by guidelines 7–9. Guideline 7 identifies the importance of student motivation by offering choices, enhancing relevance and value, and creating environments that reduce frustration and distractions from learning. Providing options such as the creation of podcasts, videos, or blogs posted on the internet, which are created with easy to use digital tools, meet the guidelines for motivation. Guideline 8 includes ways to encourage persistence

UDL within a Multiliteracies Perspective  35

through the reinforcement of goal setting and the implementation of collaborative activities. Working together with peers to create a video or podcast provides motivation and scaffolding. It also alleviates frustration, as roles are assigned, and everyone can be an expert in some part of the process, supporting one another along the way. Guideline 9 provides for self-regulation of skills such as the ability to cope, goal-set, self-assess, and reflect (Gordon et al., 2009). McLeod and Vasinda (2009) and Vasinda and McLeod (2011) found that when students create products with web-based audiences in mind, they set their own goals and standards for success as well as self-assess and reflect on how they will improve the next time they create a new, similar project. Multiple means of engagement align with multiple literacies in that the teacher considers the various modes of communication used for classroom interaction. The teacher must implement instruction in ways that motivate and engage students. Technology offers various ways to promote engagement and collaboration among students (Lisenbee, Hallman, & Landry, 2015). As we develop a multiliteracies perspective, we begin to understand the diversity of our classrooms, not just in terms of ethnographic groups and cultures, but also in lifeworks and experiences. As we consider the UDL framework to think more about learner variability, our increasingly diverse classrooms challenge us to provide learning opportunities that are inclusive and effective for all students (Ralabate, 2011). Since we know that new technologies transform how we do things and what it means for people to be literate, we need to leverage the affordances technology offers to support multiple ways for all learners to achieve learning goals.

Universal Design for Learning and Technology Digital tools provide more ways to access and be successful with alphabetic literacy. Students whose elaborate storytelling was hindered by uncertainties about their spelling or handwriting can now use free voice-to-text tools to dictate their stories and create written texts that can become their personalized reading texts. Creating Readers Theater podcasts provide meaningful fluency practice with a broad, authentic audience that improves reading comprehension as much as a grade level in ten weeks (Vasinda & McLeod, 2011). A sixth-grade student reading on a fourth-grade level may efficiently engage with texts at an appropriate grade level using digital formats with audio options. Access to technology tools provides additional means to alleviate barriers to learning by allowing “alternatives to ‘one-size-fits-all’ academic materials that used only one fixed medium — print” (Ralabate, 2011, para. 8). Research related to UDL has focused on the integration of technology and instruction to create customized materials and assessments for diverse needs (Coyne, Pisha, Dalton, Zeph, & Smith, 2013). Technology affordances play an important role in the implementation of UDL offering flexible instructional options and new opportunities.

36  Foundations for Thinking about Literacy

Affordances of Technology The affordances of technology have impacted education over time, in varying ways. Affordances, or possibilities, of technology tools may be hidden or visible. Consider the literacy practice of the 1800s using blackboard slates and chalk to demonstrate written communication. These erasable slates served as an economical substitute for paper and ink, which transformed effective teaching practices through the inclusion of a visual aid (Buzbee, 2014). This technology also provides a positive affordance to erase and make changes, unlike paper and ink. In the early 1800s, two teachers, James Pillan and George Barron, connected several smaller blackboard slates together to form a large blackboard, creating a visual instructional aid that provided some efficiency to teach the whole class lesson (Buzbee, 2014). By 1809, every Philadelphia public school had implemented this new technology. The commercial production of blackboards began by 1840, offering positive affordances for learning (Buzbee, 2014). This change transformed teaching and learning as the teacher could then illustrate a concept for all students at one time using a visual aid. These changes in the technological tools of the time provided increased access to understanding content through intentional design. In the 20th century, essential tools for teachers consisted of books, paper, pencils, overhead projectors, blackboards, and dry erase boards. These technologies remained relatively stable during a teacher’s career (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) and, therefore, were considered sustainable technologies (Christensen, 1997). When computers were introduced as a new tool in schools, they were few, and typically were stationary computers confined to labs (Foulger & Slykhuis, 2013). This made computer usage an event rather than an everyday, seamless tool in classrooms. In 21st-century classrooms, there are still occasional blackboards in the front of a classroom, but new technologies have replaced most of these boards with whiteboards and interactive whiteboards. In many classrooms, laptops and tablets are replacing individual slates and paper. This rapid influx of mobile devices is a disruptive technology (Christensen, 1997; Magana, 2017). Disruptive technology refers to transformative technologies changing the ways to do things. The increasing pervasiveness of mobile technologies offers a new array of tools and opportunities for teachers to capitalize on learning that happens outside the classroom. What was once expensive and inaccessible is now more affordable and accessible. Disruptive technologies, like smartphones and tablets, are not easily or immediately recognized as tools for classroom use. Nevertheless, educators need to consider the affordances of technology integration. Affordances of technology provide exciting ways for students to mediate literacy processes in the classroom that are reflective of students’ personal lives. Instead of writing traditional compositions for teachers, students can produce videos to share on YouTube, create infographics to post on social media, or write blogs about issues of passion as a way to influence social action. Young

UDL within a Multiliteracies Perspective  37

FIGURE 3.3 Kid President’s 20 things we should say more often. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/m5yCOSHeYn4.

Source: Brad Montague and Robby Novak [SoulPancake]. (2013, November 21).

children, like Kid President, have created a digital presence with thousands of followers serving as an authentic audience (Figure 3.3). These examples of multiliteracies provide educational access for all learners based on legislation enacted for people with disabilities in the 20th century. With the similar intent of equal access that spurred changes in architectural design and access to buildings’ other facilities, a goal of national legislation, policy, and awareness is to provide equal access to technologies for children and youth in schools.

Supportive Legislation and Policy A goal of national legislation is to provide funding to place technology into the hands of children. The National Education Association (NEA) recognizes the need for the same access to technologies in schools as there is for “general use outside of schools” (National Education Association, 2017, para. 2). The U.S. National Education Technology Plan (2017) also has a vision of equity “to make everywhere, all-the-time learning possible” (para. 1). This vision aligns with principles and examples provided in the Activities to Support the Effective Use of Technology (Title IV A) of the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015). The evolution of educational policy on technology continues to reflect the changing nature of technology tools used in regular day-to-day life and work. The United States National Education Technology Plan (NETP) represents efforts to provide equity and access to learners in schools.

United States National Education Technology Plan The U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology’s (OET) charge includes the development of a National Education Technology Plan (NETP) and the establishment of a vision for technology tools that can

38  Foundations for Thinking about Literacy

transform teaching and learn for all levels of education. A significant accomplishment of the OET has been the development of plans related to the impact of technology on education. The OET has published a total of six NETPs since 1996, with the last one published in 2010 titled Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology. The NETP (2010) presented a model of 21st-century learning powered by technology, with goals and recommendations in five essential areas: learning, assessment, teaching, infrastructure, and productivity. Each core component of the plan outlines concepts for using technology to transform education: • • • • •

Learning: Change the learning process, so it is more engaging and tailored to students’ needs and interests. Assessment: Measure student progress on the full range of college and career-ready standards and use real-time data for continuous improvement. Teaching: Connect teachers to the tools, resources, experts, and peers they need to be highly effective and supported. Infrastructure: Provide broadband connectivity for all students, everywhere—in schools, throughout communities, and students’ homes. Productivity: Use technology to help schools become more productive and accelerate student achievement while managing costs (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology, 2010).

The 2010 NETP advocated for technology goals to be updated every five years. The OET released a 2016 NETP report, which was followed by yet another update: Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education: 2017 National Education Technology Plan Update. After these two annual updates, the OET came up with the following explanation: In order to keep pace with the changes we see in schools, districts, and states on an almost daily basis, we are updating the NETP more often. Feedback from our stakeholders indicates that the previous five-year update cycle was not frequent enough. In response, with this 2017 update, we commence a pattern of yearly, smaller-scale updates to the NETP. (OET, 2017, para. 2) The updated National Education Technology Plan acknowledges a continuing need to provide more significant equity of access to technology and learning experiences.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act The historical context for technology use and education policy aligns with legislation for individuals with disabilities, in part because technology tools

UDL within a Multiliteracies Perspective  39

used in educational contexts have historically been adaptive technology, or supplementary aids, specified by national legislation passed in 1973. This legislation, Section 504 of the Americans with Disabilities Law as well as P.L 94–142 (which later became known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, and reauthorized in 2004), made provisions for children with disabilities to gain access to the “least restrictive environment.” The law states: to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in the regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. (20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(5)(A)) A general education classroom is the least restrictive environment for most children with disabilities, which means teaching and learning should occur in this setting. In order to accomplish this goal, the law further calls for the use of supplementary aids and services. In 1997, IDEA revisions included a requirement for local education agencies (LEAs) to consider the need for Assistive Technology during Individual Education Planning (IEP) for children with disabilities. Supplemental aids and assistive technologies may include tools that utilize text-to-speech, speech-to-text, enlarged print, and numerous other technological accommodations to mediate literacy processes to provide access for children to the general education curriculum and the least restrictive environment. IDEA was reauthorized and amended through Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015.

No Child Left Behind Act and Every Student Succeeds Act No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) establish equity in education with mandates related to accountability and high standards. NCLB (2001) was enacted into law in 2001 with the purpose “to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments” (p. 1193). While NCLB reflects general education and IDEA reflects special education law, both laws reflect similar goals regarding high accountability expectations for students and teachers. NCLB requires all students to participate in statewide assessments and demands calculation, with a few minor exceptions, to determine the accomplishment of the school and the school district in meeting the required annual yearly progress (AYP).

40  Foundations for Thinking about Literacy

The Every Student Succeeds Act replaced NCLB on December 1, 2015. ESSA contains significant provisions that impact how federal government spending supports education technology and digital learning. ESSA includes specific professional development and training for teachers, principals, and school leaders on how to effectively use that technology in the classroom. The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) played a significant role in engaging communities in the development of educational technology provisions included in ESSA (International Society for Technology in Education, 2016). ISTE’s vision is “that all educators are empowered to harness technology to accelerate innovation in teaching and learning and inspire learners to reach their greatest potential” (International Society for Technology in Education, 2016, para. 4). This organization consistently promotes best practices in technology integration with the release of ISTE standards for teachers and students. With ESSA in place, ISTE works to influence federal and state regulations to implement ESSA and ensure that leaders are well informed about how to make sound investments in technology that empower educators and amplify digital learning (International Society for Technology in Education, 2016). Using a multiliteracies reflexive pedagogy and the UDL framework for intentional planning for all students makes inclusive, expansive, and transformative instruction possible. Students encounter information in various modes of communication requiring success across disciplines when multiliteracies are paired with technology tools, UDL provides access to success for curricular goals. Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) refers to UDL numerous times, encouraging states to design assessments using UDL principles, to award grants to local education agencies who use UDL, and to adopt technology that aligns with UDL.

Revisiting the Universal Design for Learning Mind Shift UDL principles and legislation have paved the way for all students to be successful in classrooms. We encourage you to return to the Mind Shift at the beginning of the chapter, where you considered planning a lesson using multiliteracies. Now that you have read about UDL, reflect on the lesson using UDL principles to include students “in the margins.” Would your lesson address the needs of a deaf person? A blind person? A struggling reader? If not, think of ways you could support all learners by using other modes of literacy. Finally, now that you have learned about UDL, we encourage you to read Adrian’s vignette to view an application of UDL principles through technology integration to engage a struggling third-grade English Learner in becoming more successful in mastering content in English. Technology integration is a complex topic and addressed using frameworks in Chapter 4.

UDL within a Multiliteracies Perspective  41

Adrian’s Vignette ~ Applying UDL Practices Adrian is a third-grade English learner. His secondary language skills reflect that of a “beginning level” in all areas of language proficiency—speaking, listening, reading, and writing. Adrian is social and enjoys spending time with his classmates at recess and PE. Because Adrian is behind his peers in english language development, he struggles to learn on-level content in his second language. His teacher must find ways to help Adrian learn the material. The principles of UDL will be applied to Adrian’s needs to highlight ways a teacher can intentionally design instruction to encompass all students, including Adrian.

Multiple Means of Representation Adrian and other students may struggle with print barriers. Adrian’s teacher hopes to provide ways for all students to access context. Below are some ways the teacher supports students using technology tools: •

• • •

•

QR codes next to words and pictures on a word wall contain an audio recording of the words pronunciation. Students scan the code to hear the correct pronunciation of the word. Hyperlinked vocabulary lists link words to visuals/images of the target words when possible. Language translators provide access to the students’ primary language as a support, especially in the case of academic language. Newsela (Newsela.com) provides varying reading levels of the same article. Newsela is an educational website focused on building student reading comprehension by providing high-quality news articles for elementary and secondary students. The use of Newsela as a way to represent information for all learners in that it reflects adaptive text, with each article accessible at five Lexile (reading) levels. Speech-to-text tools assist learners who struggle to decode print.

Multiple Means of Expression Teachers support diverse strategic networks by providing flexible models of skilled performance and opportunities to practice with supports (Coyne et  al., 2007). “Offering multiple means of action and expression enables them to demonstrate most effectively what they have learned” (p. 3).

42  Foundations for Thinking about Literacy

Instruction may include the following techniques and tools that allow students to express learning in a variety of ways. •

•

•

Recording devices provide a way for learners to express themselves using oral language proficiency. These types of devices would enable Adrian to share knowledge in his primary language and then listen to the English version of the same information. Video and other media provides a platform for expression that extends beyond written work. Students can produce videos to share on YouTube, create infographics to post on social media, or can create a FlipGrid to demonstrate learning. Cooperative learning strategies may benefit Adrian as well as other students. The think-pair-share strategy enables Adrian to work with his peers to solve problems or answer questions. The strategy allows students to think individually about a topic, to pair up with a classmate to compare ideas, and to share ideas with the entire class. Discussion with a partner engages students through participation and promotes understanding of material (Reading Rockets, 2017). Cooperative learning strategies provide students with ways to express their knowledge in a risk-free environment.

Multiple Means of Engagement Teachers support diverse affective networks through multiple means of engagement. “Motivation, meaning-making, and emotional involvement originate in the affective networks” (Coyne et al., 2007). Students have little choice in what they learn in school (Coyne et al., 2007), but teachers can design activities in a way that includes choice and challenge. Opportunities for Adrian to practice language in fun ways is important. •

• •

Sight words are important for all learners, including Adrian, who may need additional sight word practice. Tablets along with specific sight word apps provide a fun way to practice sight words or decodable stories. Many apps provide sight word practice with a game-like experience. Examples include Play Sight Words or Sight Word Bingo (https:// itunes.apple.com/us/app/sight-words-bingo/id634113828?mt=8). Apps which provide audio features for students support language learning. Examples include Starfall.com, Dr. Seuss, and Bob Books. Another app which may benefit Adrian and his peers includes Vocabulary PCS, which provides picture communication symbols available on

UDL within a Multiliteracies Perspective  43

•

flashcards along with auditory capacity or rainbow sentences to provide images and auditory assistance during sentence creation. Many students, including ELs struggle with idioms in the English language. Kidioms (https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/kidioms/id475844040?mt=8) is an app which provides sample phrases combined with graphics to help students understand common phrases. Through choice and engagement, teachers impact all students by promoting participation and active learning.

References Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended with ADA Amendments Act of 2008. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08htm Buzbee, L. (2014). Blackboard: A personal history of the classroom. Minneapolis, MN: Graywolf Press. Center for Applied Special Technology. (2011a). CAST timeline. Retrieved http:// www.cast.org/about/timeline.html#.Vs3d7UBRqrY Center for Applied Special Technology. (2011b). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.0 [graphic organizer]. Wakefield, MA: Author. Center for Applied Special Technology. (2015). About Universal design for learning. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/our-work/about-udl.html#.VT_d5NJVhBd Center for Applied Special Technology. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2 [graphic organizer]. Retrieved from http://udlguidelines.cast.org Center for Universal Design (1997). The principles of universal design. Retrieved from https://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.htm Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Coyne, P., Ganley, P., Hall, T., Meo, G., Murray, E., & Gordon, D. (2007). Applying universal design for learning in the classroom. In D. H. Rose, & A. Meyer (Eds.), A practical reader in universal design for learning (pp. 1–13). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Coyne, P., Pisha, B., Dalton, B., Zeph, L. A., & Smith, N. C. (2013). Literacy by design: A universal design for learning approach for students with significant intellectual disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 33(3), 162–172. Every Student Succeeds Act (2015). Pub. L. 114–95. Stat. 1177 (2015). Foulger, T. T., & Slykhuis, D. S. (2013). TPACK as a tool for teacher professional learning. Learning & Leading with Technology, 41(1), 20–22. Gordon, D., Gravel, J. W., & Schifter, L. A., Eds. (2009). A policy reading in universal design for learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Houston, L. (2018). Efficient strategies for integrating universal design for learning in the online classroom. Journal of Educators Online, 15(3), 96–111, doi: 10.9743/ jeo.2018.15.3.4 International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). EdTekWhitePaper: Breaking down ESSA A guide to the new ed tech provisions in the federal education law.

44  Foundations for Thinking about Literacy

Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/docs/advocacy-resources/edtekwhitepaper_ advocacy_nclb-essa.pdf Lisenbee, P. S., Hallman, C., & Landry, D. (2015). Geocaching is catching students’ attention in the classroom. The Geography Teacher, 12(1), 7–16. McLeod, J., & Vasinda, S. (2009). Electronic portfolios: Perspective of students, teachers and parents. Education and Information Technology, 14(1), 29–38. Magana, S. (2017). Disruptive classroom technologies: A framework for innovation in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. National Education Association. (2017). NEA positions on technology and education. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/58795.htm No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). Pilgrim, J., Vasinda, S., & Lisenbee, P.S. (2019). Universal design for learning: Examining access afforded by children’s search engines. Journal of Literacy and Technology, Manuscript accepted for publication. Ralabate, P. K. (2011, August 30). Universal design for learning: Meeting the needs of all students. The ASHA Leader. Retrieved from http://www.readingrockets.org/ article/universal-design-learning-meeting-needs-all-students Reading Rockets (2017). Think-pair-share. Retrieved from http://www.readingrockets. org/strategies/think-pair-share Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A., Eds. (2006). A practical reader in universal design for learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. United States Access Board. (n.d.). Architectural Barriers Act of 1968. Retrieved from https://www.access-board.gov/the-board/laws/architectural-barriers-act-aba U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. National Educational Technology Plan 2010: Executive Summary. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education. 2017 National Education Technology Plan Update. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/ NETP17.pdf Vasinda, S., & McLeod, J. (2011). Extending readers theater: A powerful and purposeful match with podcasting. The Reading Teacher, 64(7), 486–497. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. WBDG Accessibility Committee. (2019). History of accessibility facility design. Whole Building Design Guide. National Institute of Building Sciences. Retrieved from https:// www.wbdg.org/design-objectives/accessible/history-accessible-facility-design

SECTION 2

Frameworks for Thinking about Technology Integration

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group

http://taylorandfrancis.com

4 TECHNOLOGY-INFLUENCED FRAMEWORKS FOR THINKING ABOUT LITERACY INSTRUCTION

Mind Shift Imagine you are teaching in a school where every student uses a mobile technology device. Think of a literacy concept you need to teach. Jot down your lesson idea, the teaching approach you will use, and the tools that will support your learners. How will students demonstrate their understanding? What kinds of teacher knowledge do you need to integrate this tool?

Often teachers receive resources that may or may not align with their beliefs about teaching and learning. For example, teachers receive basal series for teaching reading that have embedded pedagogies or philosophies that may not align with theirs. Technology devices provided for teachers may not align with their teaching philosophies. Teachers operating from a teacher-centered perspective when the introduction of Interactive Whiteboards (IWB) occurred in schools, found teachers using the IWB as a large, expensive screen projector to show lectures, presentation slides, videos, or other visual images. In many cases, students rarely touched or interacted with the screen. Conversely, teachers operating from a learner-centered perspective may have designed a virtual exploration in which small groups of students engaged in hands-on interaction with the IWB. More recently, another learner-centered teacher may advocate for the use of tablets noting that their size and mobility provides more interaction and tools for learner variability and personalization. Knowing that digital tools will change, teachers must develop mindsets for thinking about, enhancing, amplifying, and transforming learning. Teachers now have to consider how to leverage technology effectively to support learning goals. Decision-making processes may include pedagogical approaches that best support and enhance student learning. The term technagogy reflects this

48  Frameworks for Thinking about Technology

integration of technology, pedagogy, and content, with the intent to transform technology use to foster student learning. Although technagogy is a term predominantly used in blogs, the 5th International Educational Technology Conference included technagogy as a conference topic (Stevens, 2011). Where pedagogy involves decision-making and implementation of instructional strategies, technagogy involves decision-making and strategic instruction with embedded technology to create learning opportunities not previously possible. The idea of technagogy implies that pedagogy and technology go hand in hand. Because of rapid change, there are no maps to guide us in this work. Therefore, theoretical models and frameworks for considering technology interaction provide a compass to support this decision-making process. Teacher decision-making is more effective in providing ways to improve teaching and learning when there is a framework to use as a guide. Just as multiliteracies theory expands what it means to be literate, UDL helps us carefully consider the context of our classrooms and the learner variabilities. The Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge model (TPACK) helps us understand the complex role of the teacher in effective technology integration.

A Framework to Describe New Knowledge Domains for Teachers: TPACK Effective teaching has always involved more than just strong content knowledge. Effective teachers also understand the how of teaching, or pedagogy. How should content concepts be organized? What experiences are necessary for best understanding? Is there a sequence that is most effective for conceptual development? What are common confusions within a discipline that can be avoided or mediated with particular teaching strategies? Then there are decisions supporting beliefs about learning that include how students will be engaged in the process. Which teaching model best supports the targeted content goals: Problem-based strategies? Modeling and explicit instruction? Lecture and discussion? Will students be grouped in partners, trios, or small groups? How will time be allocated for whole groups, small groups, and individual instruction, practice, and creation? Teaching and learning are also context-dependent. In addition to typical contextual differences such as socioeconomic status, student backgrounds, subject area, or grade level, access to devices and internet bandwidth affects the context for teaching and learning.

TPACK When designing lessons, teachers first consider the content and its organization. This type of understanding is called Content Knowledge (CK). Strong content knowledge includes both an abundance of knowledge and deep understandings

Technology Frameworks for Instruction  49

FIGURE 4.1 What is the TPACK Model? Retrieved from https://youtu.be/yMQiHJsePOM.

Source: Common Sense Education. (2016, July 12).

of disciplinary structures and syntax—in this case, literacy. It includes the why, or theoretical underpinnings of the discipline. Teachers also consider how to organize the instruction best and what approaches work best for student understanding. This type of teacher knowledge is called Pedagogical Knowledge (PK). Pedagogical Knowledge reflects an abundant and deep understanding of teaching and the instructional strategies to facilitate learning content or processes, such as reading and writing. The intersection of both is a specialized teacher knowledge that Shulman (1986) identified and called Pedagogical Content Knowledge, or PCK (Figure 4.1). PCK builds upon research on both teaching and learning (Shulman, 1986). Teachers with PCK understand which content-specific concepts and subprocesses challenge the learner, and they use particular pedagogical strategies to mediate learning. PCK occurs when pedagogy strengthens a teacher’s ability to competently teach content and often distinguishes an effective and engaging teacher. Without strong CK, misconceptions may perpetuate. On the other hand, without strong PK, the most learned experts in a field may be unable to make concepts and content clear and comprehensible to the novice learner. Until recently, the tools of teaching and learning might also have been part of PCK. For example, PCK included the importance of thoughtful text selection as a tool to support emergent readers or to demonstrate a particular writing technique. Now teachers also consider leveraging digital tools as additional supports for teaching and learning traditional literacy skills or new literacies. Just as CK and PK were initially considered as separate silos of knowledge, Technology Knowledge (TK) was initially considered a separate domain of knowledge and skills. Mishra and Koehler (2006) recognized TK as a new teacher knowledge. They extended Shulman’s idea of Pedagogical Content Knowledge and included TK as another knowledge domain. TK includes the knowledge of using information technology productively in both personal and

50  Frameworks for Thinking about Technology

FIGURE 4.2

The TPACK Model. Reproduced with permission of the publisher, © 2012 by tpack.org

work lives, knowing when it supports or hinders the attainment of a goal, and the ability to continue to adapt to technological change. Because of this continuous change, there is no endpoint. Teachers will always be developing their TK. Including and integrating TK with PCK created a new framework for understanding the complexities of the knowledge domains teachers now need for 21st-century teaching: Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) (Figure 4.2). TPACK creates additional knowledge intersections, as well: Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), and the complete integration of all three knowledge domains resulting in Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge, or TPACK (Koehler & Mishra, 2007; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Understanding the intersections of these teacher knowledge domains affects successful technology integration (Koehler, Mishra, & Cain, 2013, p. 13). Table 4.1 describes these intersections. Koehler et al. (2013) realized that the complexities of context in teaching are at the forefront of lesson design. The context, depicted by the dotted circle around TPACK’s intersecting diagram, represents the specific learning and teaching contexts in a classroom, including the needs of particular students in a

Technology Frameworks for Instruction  51 TABLE 4.1 Brief Description of Knowledge Domains Represented in the TPACK

Model Knowledge Domain

Description

Pedagogical (PK)

Knowledge of nature of teaching and learning, including teaching methods, classroom management, instructional planning, assessment of student learning, etc. Knowledge of the subject matter to be taught (e.g., earth science, mathematics, language arts, etc.) Continually changing and evolving knowledge base that includes knowledge of technology for information processing, communications, and problem solving and focuses on the productive applications of technology in both work and daily life Knowledge of the pedagogies, teaching practices, and planning processes that are applicable and appropriate to teaching a given subject matter Knowledge of the relationship between subject matter and technology including knowledge of technology that has influenced and is used in exploring a given content discipline Knowledge of the influence of technology on teaching and learning as well as the affordances and constraints of technology with regard to pedagogical designs and strategies Knowledge of the complex interaction among the principle knowledge domains (content, pedagogy, technology)

Content (CK) Technology (TK)

Pedagogical Content (PCK) Technological Content (TCK)

Technological Pedagogical (TPK)

Technological Pedagogical and Content (TPACK)

Used with permission (Abbitt, 2011; Koehler, Mishra, & Yahya, 2007; Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

classroom. It also includes contexts such as 1:1 initiatives, shared devices, onceper-week computer labs, or Computers On Wheels rolled into the classroom for unique learning opportunities (Figure 4.2). Finally, the importance of this intersected knowledge cannot be underestimated. As Mishra and Koehler (2006) caution against separating the components of content, pedagogy, and technology, as they exist in a “state of dynamic equilibrium” and viewing them in isolation is a “disservice to good teaching” (p. 1029). The idea is to bring these three concepts together as a new teacher knowledge. Lisenbee’s (2009a) reflection on a teaching experience with young children using content, pedagogy, and technology increased students engagement in storytelling, changed their choice of representations, and influenced their collaborative behaviors as members of a small group. Good teaching is complex, and the way we use tools for teaching requires intentional thinking.

52  Frameworks for Thinking about Technology

TPACK, Universal Design for Learning, and Multiliteracies As we consider the context (dotted circle) surrounding the knowledge domains of TPACK, we think about our students and their unique and diverse needs from both a multiliteracies perspective and the UDL framework. Our multiliteracies perspective reminds us of all the ways we are literate, and learner variability reminds us of all the experiences students bring with them. Carefully considering student variability in terms of specific learning aligns with the UDL model for lesson design. Benton-Borghi (2015) addresses the alignment of TPACK and UDL and its impact on teacher preparation. This research indicates that “general and special education teachers should be prepared to graduate with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to teach all students in the digital age” (p. 287). The TPACK framework identifies specific and integrated domains of teacher knowledge needed, but technology integration requires more than knowledge. It requires the transfer to methodical and useful instructional planning (Hutchison, Beschorner, & Schmidt-Crawford, 2012; Hutchison & Reinking, 2011). Lesson design for all learners requires the teacher to consider multiliteracies’ reflexive pedagogy, UDL framework in terms of the learner variability in the class, and ways to plan learning opportunities to optimize both exploration and modeling. Literacy is an integral part of lesson design because it is the essence of how classroom communication takes place. In order to make literacy content easily accessible to students, efficient communication is necessary. Additionally, in order to assess content, learning must be demonstrated. As teachers implement intentional lesson design, they must consider the principles of UDL introduced in Chapter 2. Principle 1, the what of instruction, refers to the recognition network and provides for various ways to represent instruction of the content that makes it most accessible to the students in the classroom. This also calls for strong Content Knowledge. Principle 2, the how of learning, refers to the strategic network and enables options for action and expression. Principle 3, the why of instruction, reflects the affective network and addresses student engagement by answering the why of instruction (Center for Applied Special Technology, 2015). Teachers must use flexible materials, techniques, and strategies and present information in multiple ways. One challenge for educators is to provide learning opportunities that are inclusive and effective for all students, regardless of the content taught (Ralabate, 2011). Teachers encounter varied reading abilities in the classroom. For example, a fourth-grade teacher may have a classroom of students ranging from emergent readers with limited alphabetic understanding to fluent readers who can read and understand texts well above their grade level. The teacher may have students whose oral literacies are fluent, and written literacies are emergent, whose visual literacies are strong, but auditory literacies are weak.

Technology Frameworks for Instruction  53

Supporting the needs of all learners has never been a simple goal, but when considering literacies through a multiliteracies perspective and a UDL lens, intentional lesson planning makes learning accessible to all. Often, leveraging technology tools supports all learners in all content areas. Introducing new ideas and concepts through visual and nonlinguistic media provides experiences of a reflexive pedagogy and supports new knowledge building. Magana (2017) maintains that technology tools enhance learning experiences through multisensory interaction, discussion, feedback, and reflection. Both TPACK and UDL highlight the need to plan instruction considering the unique context of student needs within every classroom. TPACK also reminds us to consider the effectiveness of technology integration in terms of supporting a learning goal or hindering it. Teachers must consider how and when to integrate technology. The next sections of the chapter provide a continued focus on technology integration and literacy instruction. We place attention on two frameworks aligned with TPACK, which may help teachers plan for and implement technology: The Technology Integration Planning Cycle (TIPC) and the Exploration, Modeling with Mistakes, Scaffolded Exploration, Classroom Problem-Solving, and Independent Activities (EMSCI).

A Framework for Instructional Planning and Implementation: TIPC Technology integration starts with planning (Harris & Hofer, 2009; Niess, 2005). Harris and Hofer (2009) recommend the following when planning instruction that includes technology integration: 1 Choose learning goals, 2 Make pedagogical decisions, 3 Select activities to combine, 4 Select assessment strategies, and 5 Select tools and resources. Building from both TPACK and Harris and Hofer’s recommendations for planning, Hutchison and Woodward (2014) developed an instructional planning framework: The Technology Integration Planning Cycle, or TIPC (Figure 4.1). The TIPC framework begins with the learning goal and pedagogical approach. The teacher then selects technology that best complements both—even if that technology, or tool, is analogue rather than digital. Their goal was to support teacher planning for both the literacy learning objective as well as digital literacy goals. They identified seven critical elements of this process to form TIPC

54  Frameworks for Thinking about Technology

for Literacy and Language Arts (Hutchison & Woodward, 2014). Teachers need the ability to: 1 select and stay focused on a clear instructional goal, 2 identify an appropriate pedagogical approach for the selected goal, 3 select appropriate digital or non-digital tools to support the instructional goal and pedagogical approach, 4 imagine or predict how the selected tool can enhance the instructional goal, 5 identify possible constraints of the selected tool use and navigate possible workarounds, 6 understand how the instruction may need to be modified or adapted because of the selected tool use, and 7 reflect upon the results of implementation and determine what changes to make or something more to learn about the tool if needed.

Instructional Goal The instructional goal is the first consideration in the planning process. This part of the process taps into teachers’ Content Knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Shulman, 1986) and how teachers plan to achieve these goals (Figure 4.3). In other words, do students need to develop similar understandings (convergent) or develop their thinking (divergent) (Harris & Hofer, 2009)? The instructional goal is both the entry point of the lesson design process and the exit point. After all parts of the lesson are designed, do they all adequately address the original goal (Hutchison & Woodward, 2014)?

Instructional Approach In order to determine the best instructional approach to facilitate the selected goal, teachers draw from the knowledge domain of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Shulman, 1986). The instructional approach includes decisions about lesson design and whether learners should be more teacher-centered or student-centered. Other pedagogical considerations may include student background knowledge, duration of the lesson, amount of structure, and grouping decisions (Harris & Hofer, 2009). Multiliteracies must be considered as well, in order to equip students for the goal.

Tool Once the planning cycle includes tool selection, the triad knowledge domain of TPACK must be called upon to support this decision-making. Teachers must determine whether their tool selection will support or enhance the learning goal and pedagogical approach. If this means analogue tools better support the

Technology Frameworks for Instruction  55

REFLECTION Instructional Goal

Exit if the barriers will overwhelm the instructional goal.

Instructional Approach

Instruction Can you overcome the constraints?

Tool Selection

Constraints

Contribution to Instruction

FIGURE 4.3

Exit if using pencil & paper only.

Technology Instructional Planning Cycle. Reprinted from “A Planning Cycle for Integrating Digital Technology into Literacy Instruction,” by A. Hutchison and L. Woodward, 2014, The Reading Teacher, 67(6), p. 459. Copyright 2014 by the International Reading Association. Reprinted by permission.

goals, then this planning cycle would no longer be needed. If digital tools support, complement, and possibly enhance the learning goals, then new thinking as part of this cycle continues.

Contribution to Instruction Because this is a reflective and recursive model, revisiting TPACK will assist in determining how the learning goal and the digital tool contribute to the instruction. This requires a critical look at specific affordances of the tool rather than the tool as a whole. While the next step is considering the constraints of the tool, exploring its potential contributions and enhancements first affords viewing the tool from a strength-based stance focused on potential and possibilities. This initial strength-based look “reduces the impact that potential barriers have on instruction” (Hutchison & Woodward, 2014, p. 461). Two important considerations at this point in this technology integration cycle are:

56  Frameworks for Thinking about Technology

(1) Will this lesson or unit facilitate both digital and traditional literacy skills? and (2) Will this lesson or unit provide opportunities for multimodal creation or consumption that aligns with state and national technology standards identified in Chapter 3?

Constraints We reiterate that the learning objectives are always central to any technology integration. Therefore, teachers must also consider the constraints of technology integration so that the technical aspect does not overshadow the learning goals. While considering the contributions as a guide for what is possible for literacy learning when using a particular technology, teachers should also consider whether aspects of the tool could reduce the possible contributions. After identifying potential constraints, teachers may ask: (1) Do the constraints overwhelm the instruction? and (2) Can these constraints be overcome? If the answer to the first question is “yes,” and it is not possible to mitigate the constraints, then the selected digital tool may not support the learning goal appropriately, and teachers may return to the Tool step in the planning process.

Instruction Before implementing the lesson, teachers need to envision, or imagine, how the lesson will unfold. This includes the pedagogical decisions made previously in terms of student groupings, but may also include classroom physical space arrangement, time allotments, and assessment. This mental rehearsal serves as a potential trouble-shooting exercise and also includes another revisit of the learning goal to make sure all engagements, interactions, and tool use support the intended learning outcome.

Reflection As indicated in Figure 4.1, reflection encompasses the entire model. Within each element of the model, there are opportunities for reflection that both utilize and develop TPACK. Reflecting on each aspect of the cycle and especially contributions and constraints of technology use build the Technological Knowledge that integrates with PCK to continue to develop TPACK. Continually revisiting the learning goal and identifying exit spots in the cycle make this not only a continuing reflective process but also a recursive process. This model is distinctive in several ways. First, the reflective process is recursive. Teachers continuously revisit their learning objectives, so the novelty of a particular technology does not overwhelm the lesson purpose. Second, if a technology tool does not amplify or transform the learning opportunity or if it is not available, Hutchison and Woodward (2014) recommend using an

Technology Frameworks for Instruction  57

analogue tool that is well-matched to the literacy learning goal. Third, when considering student background knowledge, the teacher should also consider technology access, opportunities, and experiences. If students lack access and experience with technology as learning tools, teachers must factor in time for exploration and instruction, leading to student independence with tools as described in the next model.

A Framework for Encouraging Independent Use of Technology: EMSCI The primary objective of this model is to provide a method for teachers to plan how to integrate technology into classroom instruction while gradually releasing responsibility to students so students can use technology independently. The five phases of this model, illustrated in Figure 4.2, are Exploration, Modeling with Mistakes, Scaffolded Exploration, Classroom Problem-Solving, and Independent Activities, EMSCI (Lisenbee, 2009b). Over time, this technology integration model assists teachers in moving students’ skills from the centermost circle, Exploration, to the outermost circle, Independent Activities, as quickly or slowly as necessary for students to gain mastery of technology tools. All EMSCI phases are recursive, offering the possibility to oscillate back and forth to any other phase of the framework as needed to increase student confidence and competence with technology tools. This reflexive model is similar to the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model of teaching (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983) in which students increase their independence as teachers gradually release support along a continuum. Each phase of the EMSCI model described below provides an understanding beginning with the Exploration Phase (Figure 4.4).

Exploration This phase encourages teachers to allow students to explore technology tools, individually, without prescribed directions or interference from the teacher. The teacher’s role is that of a careful observer of student interaction and manipulation of the tool. This time offers space for exploration and discovery since it is a natural way for students to foster their independence with technology. Student curiosity intensifies with digital tools due to the interactive and intuitive nature of technology. It also provides experiences that support a multiliteracies reflexive pedagogy.

Modeling with Mistakes After an initial observation of students as they explore tools, teachers Model with Mistakes using technology tools. Teachers purposefully make mistakes

58  Frameworks for Thinking about Technology

EXPLORATION

Modeling with Mistakes

SCAFFOLDED EXPLORATION

Classroom Problem-Solving

INDEPENDENT ACTIVITIES

FIGURE 4.4

EMSCI Model (Lisenbee, 2009b).

to demonstrate ways to recover from typical missteps that occur with particular tools. The inclusion of purposeful mistakes allows teachers to model not only how to use technology but that even teachers have to take risks to figure out how to use technology. This phase shifts students’ focus towards an understanding that taking risks can be an opportunity to learn and can help students conceptualize solutions to common problems. Lastly, this phase encourages collaboration with others and possibly a choice for students to fluctuate back to exploring the tool again before moving on to Scaffolded Exploration.

Scaffolded Exploration This phase combines scaffolding, the term associated with Lev Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), and exploration.

Technology Frameworks for Instruction  59

Scaffolded Exploration offers time and space for a small group of students and a teacher to explore and practice using a technology tool collaboratively. During this phase, a teacher stands near each small group of students in the classroom and listens to their discussions as they try to use a technology tool. The teacher steps in to scaffold any issues if students are unable to solve a technological issue. The teacher creates a list of all resolved and unresolved issues observed during the small groups, so the list of issues provides an agenda during whole group instruction in the next EMSCI phase. The teacher determines which groups of students improved in their skills and understanding as they worked through issues collaboratively and which groups of students need to return to this or any of the previous phases to gain more experience using technology. This phase is the first time students begin demonstrating their ability to use technology tools independently.

Classroom Problem-Solving This phase allows students to participate in discussing the problems solved in the previous two phases and resolve any problems left unresolved during small group scaffolded exploration. The teacher conducts this phase as a whole-group collaborative problem-solving activity. Any, and all, issues using technology during the Scaffolded Exploration phase provides an opportunity for students to share their feelings of competence and confidence in using technology tools independently with the whole group. This phase is similar to the purpose of classroom meetings, which are “…to create an intentional community devoted to a common project…” (Gartrell, 2004, p. 94). Student’s participation provides an opportunity to instill a sense of community among students in the classroom as they discuss and merge perspectives of how to use specific technology tools determined as they explored, observed modeling, and problem-solved with guidance in small groups. This phase provides an experience for students to feel confident in their understanding of how to use a variety of technology tools.

Independent Activities The phase Independent Activities offers students the chance to determine if they can independently use the technology tool. If students are unable to demonstrate independent use of the tool, a teacher needs to encourage students to revisit any phase that might assist the student(s) in practicing how to use the tool independently. The phases of the EMSCI are not linear but oscillate as needed for each student and each technology tool until students’ achieve independence. This phase provides vital information to teachers in the digital age about their students, the lesson design, and the context of their classroom learning environment. Now that technology is an added element in pedagogy; it is vital for teachers to provide time and instruction to students on how to independently use all

60  Frameworks for Thinking about Technology

technology tools. Once students use a tool, teachers cannot assume students can use it independently. The EMSCI Model offers teachers an interactive and recursive framework for students to learn how to use technology tools independently. The frameworks included in this chapter, TPACK, TIPC, and EMSCI, complement teachers’ decision-making processes for lesson design, instructional materials, and technology tools. In this manner, the affordances of technology integration in classrooms provide for innovation and inspiration as students engage with technology during learning activities. These frameworks provide ways of thinking about technology integration that will endure beyond rapidly changing tools. They guide and support teachers’ planning and reflections on how to best support student literacy learning. These thinking frameworks help teachers keep learning goals foremost while supporting the use of new and unfamiliar tools for instruction and learning. As we continue our discussion of frameworks in Chapter 5, we will examine taxonomies that evaluate if and how student learning is enhanced or transformed by the use of technology.

Revisiting the Technology-Influenced Frameworks Mind Shift Consider the school with mobile technology provided to every student shared in the Mind Shift at the beginning of this chapter. Do you think all of the students know how to use their mobile devices effectively? If not, what framework can you use to help students become independent with their mobile devices? What framework would you use to plan the lesson you jotted down? What framework would you use to implement the pedagogy you listed? What framework will support the technology tools chosen to include in your Mind Shift? Now that you have finished reading the chapter, do you have a better understanding of how to use these frameworks to integrate technology? Do you understand how students can demonstrate their understanding through the use of technology tools and frameworks of thinking? This chapter may need to be re-read if you were unsure of your answers to these questions? Revisit each framework to understand the difference between TPACK, TIPC, and EMSCI. Also, read the following lived experience of a teacher enjoying the affordances of technology integration in her classroom during a storytelling activity.

Pre-Kindergarten Teachers’ Lived Experience: Affordances of Technology Integration This is my lived experience as a Pre-Kindergarten teacher using an interactive whiteboard (IWB) in my classroom. Funding from a technology grant supplied my school with three IWBs on wheels to allow movement from classroom to classroom. I signed up to use the IWB as often as allowed on the check-out list, but not all of my students were able to independently

Technology Frameworks for Instruction  61

explore the IWB since so many other teachers were using it, too. One day, the principal offered me a chance to keep the IWB in my classroom for a month. The affordances of technology integration are illuminated in a narrative of my experience on the first day of the month I had the IWB in my classroom. While I was working with a small group of students for literacy instruction, I explained to my four students that they were going to use the IWB to re-tell a story. All of my students were familiar with using a flannel board for storytelling, so I described the IWB as a large flannel board, but they would use the images available on the IWB to re-tell the story. The first thing I did was allow students to explore the IWB without direct instruction. The students made images appear, disappear, turn in circles, and used the IWB pens to write on the IWB while giggling and laughing the entire time. After about ten minutes, I instructed them to choose a story offered by the IWB software for them to re-tell. The students recognized the wolf and the pigs in the available images and chose The Three Little Pigs. I asked the students to line up so they could take turns on the IWB. The first student began dragging an image of a brick house onto the IWB screen. As the student struggled dragging in the image, I suggested he try his knuckle instead of his fingertip to drag the image. When he tried that, the image moved easily. The rest of the students in this small group began saying and shouting at him that the straw house was not how The Three Little Pigs begins. The next student studied the list of images shown on the left side of the IWB and found the straw house to drag onto the IWB. As she started dragging the image with her fingertip, she accidentally dragged her finger over a new folder of images and a Ferris wheel appeared on the screen instead. After the other three students saw the Ferris wheel, they told her that there isn’t a fair in the story of The Three Little Pigs story. She explained that she tried to pull in the straw house not the Ferris wheel. Following a long discussion of how the wrong image showed up on the screen, the students began discussing how they had just attended the fair with their families. One of the students asked, “Why can’t the three pigs go to the fair instead?” I agreed that the pigs can go to the fair as long as the students re-tell the narrative of the story. So the students kept the fair image with a Ferris wheel, two tents, and a carousel in the background on the IWB. As the students continued to build the set and cast of characters, one of the students placed a fourth pig in the fair. The discussion ensuing from the addition of the fourth pig in The Three Little Pigs story caused the students to discuss the storyline. This led them to talk about the wolf not being a friend of the pigs, and they decided that the fourth pig would be a friend of the three pigs. I was proud of my students’ collaboration, communication, and creativity, but I was also proud of their agreeing to re-tell the story with additional characters and a different setting. This wouldn’t have been possible using the flannel board to re-tell the story. Beyond being

62  Frameworks for Thinking about Technology

engaging and interactive, I hadn’t considered an affordance of integrating the IWB into my classroom was the ability of students to challenge the boundaries of a story. However, at this point, I didn’t even know that there would be an even more amazing, unexpected moment occur with these students and the IWB. While the students were dragging in pigs, pig clothes, and bales of hay, they accidentally found out that the images can increase or decrease in size by touching on the outline box surrounding each image. So, when a student began dragging in an image of a wolf drawn as if in the action of blowing (as in, blowing down houses), the wolf was projected on the screen as large as the Ferris wheel. The student that dragged the wolf onto the screen actually jumped back in surprise. He reached up to decrease the size of the wolf and the other three children told him to leave the wolf big. I asked the group to tell me what would happen to the Ferris wheel if the wolf tried to blow it down since two of the pigs were sitting in the Ferris wheel? They talked one over the other, but their collective answer was that the wind from the wolf would blow the Ferris wheel, tents, and maybe even the carousel down. I was surprised by the representations of thought they made in relation to the size of the wolf and how it would affect the items at the fair. These representations were transformative since the students had never seem a wolf that big, and they had no frame of reference to make that statement. I decided to ask if the student that wanted to make the wolf smaller to change the size of the wolf. So I could ask another question. The other students agreed to let him make the change, and he made it the size of the pigs. Once more, I asked the students to tell me what would happen to the Ferris wheel if the wolf tried to blow it down now that he is the size of the pigs? Their prediction was accurate for the strength of the wind coming from a smaller wolf. They commented that the pigs might not even notice the wind from the wolf and the tents, Ferris wheel, and carousel would be okay. It seemed the answer must have been generated from their previous understanding of cause and effect with the big wolf. I knew we had recently been discussing weather and our state is very windy, but their ability to consistently represent transformative thoughts was beyond my teaching and their experiences. The student that just manipulated the size of the wolf on the IWB asked the other students if it was okay to leave the wolf this size. He commented to them that this size of wolf wasn’t as “scary.” As I listened to the voices of these fouryear-olds represent their understandings while critically thinking, collaborating, communicating, and being creative, I was impressed with the affordance that the IW had provided for this small group of students. It seemed that an IWB was more than a large flannel board. During this experience, I observed students use the IWB to generate new boundaries, generate thinking, and interact socially in a transformative way (Lisenbee, 2009b, pp. 1–4).

Technology Frameworks for Instruction  63

References Benton-Borghi, B. H. (2015). Intersection and impact of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) on twenty-first century teacher preparation: UDL-infused TPACK practitioner’s model. In C. Angeli & N. Valanides (Eds.), Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge (TPACK) (pp. 287–304). Boston, MA: Springer. Center for Applied Special Technology. (2015). About Universal design for learning. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/our-work/about-udl.html#.VT_d5NJVhBd Gartrell, D. (2004). The power of guidance: Teaching social-emotional skills in early childhood classrooms. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum- based TPACK development. In C. D. Maddux (Ed.), Research highlights in technology and teacher education 2009 (pp. 99–108). Chesapeake, VA: Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education (SITE). Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt-Crawford, D. (2012). Exploring the use of the iPad for literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 66(1), 15–23. doi: 10.1002/ TRTR.01090 Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of integrating information and communication technologies into literacy instruction: A National survey in the United States. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 312–333. doi:10.1002/RRQ.002 Hutchison, A., & Woodward, L. (2014). A planning cycle for integrating digital technology into literacy. The Reading Teacher, 67(6), 455–464. Koehler, M., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Journal of Education, 193(3). 13–18. Lisenbee, P. S. (2009a). Digital whiteboards, websites, and photography: Enhancing early childhood curriculum. Young Children, 64(6), 92–95. Lisenbee, P. S. (2009b). Influences on young children’s behavior, engagement level and representation during storytelling using an interactive whiteboard. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Magana, S. (2017). Disruptive classroom technologies: A framework for innovation in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 509–523. Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317–344. Ralabate, P. K. (2011, August 30). Universal design for learning: Meeting the needs of all students. The ASHA Leader. Retrieved from http://www.readingrockets.org/ article/universal-design-learning-meeting-needs-all-students Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. Stevens, V. (2011). Transforming learning with creative technology: Achieving the aha! moment. TESL-EJ, 14(4), 1–9. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

5 EVALUATION OF TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION Technology-Influenced Taxonomies

Mind Shift Taxonomies can be a way to evaluate the impact of selected technology tools to determine the potential transformation of student learning. In essence, did the use of digital tools change the possibilities of lesson outcomes? Consider how students use Google Docs in most classrooms. Students can use it as a word processor, which has no functional difference than using a typewriter, or students can collaborate and communicate with co-authors across town or the globe. Communication in this manner was not possible with a typewriter. What are other ways could you leverage Google Docs as a tool for learners? Create a Google Doc and explore the Tools tab. The dropdown box offers many options. Explore their affordances. How would you leverage these tools to support all students’ learning? How could these affordances transform your learning? How might they transform other group members’ learning? As you read this chapter, consider the learning opportunities that were not possible before Google tools became available.

When we consider how technology has changed the way we live our lives and how we communicate, we would expect to see significant changes in the way children interact with information, each other, and the teacher in the classroom. Principal and innovator George Couros observed that: A school with all the latest technology may well be a twenty-first-century school—modern in every way—and still not offer twenty-first-century learning. If we are only accessing the same information that previously existed in textbooks and handing in assignments with this technology, computers are no more than the equivalent of $1,000 pencils. (2019, para. 6)

Evaluation of Technology Integration  65

Bloom’s Taxonomy create

Produce new or original work

evaluate analyze apply understand remember

Design, assemble, construct, conjecture, develop, formulate, author, investigate

Justify a stand or decision

appraise, argue, defend, judge, select, support, value, critique, weigh

Draw connections among ideas

differentiate, organize, relate, compare, contrast, distinguish, examine, experiment, question, test

Use information in new situations

execute, implement, solve, use, demonstrate, interpret, operate, schedule, sketch

Explain ideas or concepts classify, describe, discuss, explain, identify, locate, recognize, report, select, translate

Recall facts and basic concepts

define, duplicate, list, memorize, repeat, state Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching

FIGURE 5.1

Bloom’s Taxonomy. Reprinted with permission under Creative ­Common Attributes.

In the early days of technology integration, Reinking (1997) also noticed that technology continued in a “business as usual” manner in classrooms. Early use of computers included drill and skill for learning letters, sounds, and sight words, replacing worksheets and flashcards with a digital version. For many schools, well into the 21st century, technology usage may still look the same, while serving a world that continues to move at a fast pace. Reinking’s article is more than 20 years old, yet concerns about technology integration continue to exist. During planning and after implementation of technology into instruction, taxonomies help evaluate the impact of lesson design. A well-known scheme for classifying educational goals is the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, better known as Bloom’s Taxonomy. Bloom’s Taxonomy, developed in 1956 and revised in 2001, provides a common language for teachers to discuss and exchange learning and assessment methods (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). The goal of an educator using Bloom’s ­Taxonomy is to encourage higher-order thought in their students by building on lower-level cognitive skills. Most educators are familiar with the framework’s hierarchical design of increasingly complex levels of thinking. The skills and abilities build upon one another, moving from recall to higherorder thinking skills, like evaluation or creativity. Bloom’s Taxonomy evaluates lesson design (Figure 5.1). For example, teachers can extend a lesson beyond the recall of facts to a more authentic scenario for real-world use, such as using facts to identify or solve a problem. Solving community or world problems requires higher-order thinking. This same rationale applies to the evaluation of technology integration and intentions for learning transformation. When a teacher uses an iPad for students to submit grammar exercises, the action reflects a notion of doing the same old things with new tools. Instead of transforming learning, the activity is, in essence, a “digital worksheet” (Magana, 2017, p. 11). With transformational

66  Frameworks for Thinking about Technology

learning through technology integration as the goal, teachers need ways to reflect on the impact of their lesson design. In this chapter, we examine several frameworks designed to evaluate technology integration in K-12 classrooms.

Taxonomies for Technology Integration Frameworks for technology integration have been used by teachers to analyze the effectiveness of the technology tools. These frameworks typically suggest increasingly complex ways in which technology impacts learning. Therefore, they serve as a type of taxonomy for teachers to use as they examine various uses of technology tools. Three popular frameworks, out of many, will be introduced as possible ways to evaluate technology integration: SAMR, RAT, and the T3 Framework.

Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, or Redefinition (SAMR) Although Puentedura (2006) does not provide a research base for his taxonomy, it is one of the models used most often by teachers to evaluate the ways technology supports learning. The Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, or Redefinition (SAMR) taxonomy increases the evaluation of technology from merely enhancing to transforming learning. Developed through his observations of technology usage in both business and educational environments, Robert Puentedura (2006) identified and categorized the ways that technology integration enhanced or transformed the process or product of work using technology. Puentedura identifies Substitution and Augmentation as enhancing learning and Modification and Redefinition as transforming learning. The SAMR taxonomy provides a framework designed for the evaluation of activities or tasks involving levels of technology integration to support learning objectives (Figure 5.2). In SAMR, Substitution and Augmentation levels of technology integration will enhance learning. Substitution reflects ways technology acts as a direct replacement for another tool, without significant changes in the application. An example of substitution is completing a math worksheet on an iPad since this activity is the same as a paper activity with no changes in functionality. Augmentation reflects ways technology replaces another tool and increases functionality. Using a web-based dictionary, such as dictionary. com, rather than a hard copy of a dictionary, offers scaffolding in the form of an instant search feature or audio pronunciations unavailable with traditional print resources. Modification and Redefinition levels of technology integration are considered transformative learning. Modification reflects ways technology enables the redesign of a task, providing transformation of the activity at hand. Interactive whiteboards and storybook apps with voice capabilities enable users to record

Evaluation of Technology Integration  67

FIGURE 5.2

SAMR Model. Reprinted by permission (Puentedura, 2006).

the activity and produce a link to the recording online. This level of technology integration reflects the modification of learning because the goals attained with technology were unavailable before the introduction of the tool. Finally, Redefinition reflects ways technology allows for the creation of new tasks that would be impossible without a computer. Creation-based apps, or generative apps, like iMovie, offer opportunities for transformative learning since they are open-ended in nature, offering students the ability to create content to demonstrate understanding in a variety of multimodal ways. Transformative learning through technology tools provides students with more agency.

Replacement, Amplification, or Transformation (RAT) The Replacement, Amplification, or Transformation (RAT) framework has a documented research base, developed as an evaluative framework for teachers to use when integrating technology into lesson design. Its beginnings came from Joan Hughes’s (2000) doctoral research to determine teachers’ enacted use of technology for teaching and learning. A continuation of this research led to the development of the RAT framework (Hughes, Thomas, & Scharber, 2006). To examine technology’s contribution, teachers consider technology use by students during “instructional events” (p. 1616), which include instructional methods, student learning processes, and curriculum goals (Figure 5.3). According to the RAT Framework (Figure 5.4), technology is used in one of three ways: Replacement, Amplification, or Transformation. When used as a Replacement, like substitution in the SAMR framework, the technology offers no functional difference from the traditional task. For example, when interactive whiteboards project a slideshow or instructional video, they replace

68  Frameworks for Thinking about Technology

FIGURE 5.3 The RAT technology integration model. Retrieved from https://youtu. be/RDGsLoahDDM.

Source: Ka Yang. (2016, December 18).

a fabric screen but offer no difference in the students’ experience. Technology as Amplification means that technology integration increases the effect on student learning, instructional practices, or content goals. For example, using a word processor rather than a typewriter provides affordances for easy revisions through the cut and paste feature, spelling and grammar check, word counts, and thesaurus. The task is not necessarily different, but digital tools make the work more productive and efficient. When technology provides opportunities to do work and create products that were previously not possible, Transformation occurs. Hughes et al. (2006) articulated how transformation occurs (p. 1618): 1 2 3 4 5



The actual mental work is changed or expanded, The number of variables involved in the mental processes are expanded, The tool changes the organization in which it had been used, New players become involved with the tool’s use (or expanded use of the tool), New opportunities for different forms and types of learning through problem-solving, unavailable in traditional approaches, are developed.

Transformation is not new to learning processes. Even in the late 1990s, Reinking (1997) noticed teacher and student transformations in literacy classrooms with the advent of multimedia book reviews. In creating multimedia reviews, students took over more of their learning, not only about the books they were reading but in learning how to communicate using the multiliteracies perspective to design and redesign with new tools. Transformation leads to less teacher direction and more student interaction and collaboration, which leads to an increased agency, engagement, and learning for students. As a result, learning processes transform student understanding as they regularly use digital tools and are open to “new possibilities of thought

Evaluation of Technology Integration  69

FIGURE 5.4

R.A.T. Reprinted with permission (Hughes, n.d.).

and action” (Pea, 1985, p. 175). For example, the ability to add voice comments, voice type, and collaboratively and simultaneously complete a Google Document with colleagues around the globe was previously impossible. Technology integration leads to transformations in lesson design, communication, and pedagogy in classrooms.

T3 Framework A recently developed model for categorizing student learning using technology is the T3 Framework. In his book, Disruptive Classroom Technologies, Magana (2017) challenges teachers to elevate instructional practices with technology to maximize student learning. Disruption presupposes change, and Magana supports the need to adapt to change. His concern is that we are in a significant period of disruption marked by digital technologies (Christensen, 1997; Magana, 2017), and schools have “an overabundance of low-value technology use and little high- or very-high-value technology use in our classrooms” (p. xxiii). According to Magana, the two dominant frameworks guiding efforts to integrate technology in most schools are the TPACK and SAMR. Magana developed the T3 Framework (Figure 5.5) to provide more precise, timely, and actionable feedback to guide educational technology use. The T3 Framework enables teachers to sort through low-impact technology applications to reach high-impact technology usage (Magana, 2017). It may guide teachers and leaders in self-assessing technology use to set professional growth goals and achieve continuously higher levels of mastery (Magana, 2019a).

70  Frameworks for Thinking about Technology

FIGURE 5.5

T3 Framework for Innovation: Stages of Educational Technology Use (Magana, 2017). Refer to www.maganaeducation.com. Used with permission.

The framework extends beyond stages of technology, providing an insight into ways learner autonomy and learning environments may change through technology integration. The categorization of technology integration in this manner adds complexity to evaluation. Due to his focus on innovation, Magana refers to the T3 as a next-generation framework (Magana, 2019, personal communication, December 12). The three domains of the T3 Framework are translational, transformational, and transcendent. Magana organizes each domain into elements and strategies that are concrete, actionable, observable, and measurable. According to Magana (2019b), implementing the strategies in the T3 Framework “will likely increase the impact of digital technologies to unlock students’ limitless capacities for learning and contribution” (p. 1). In describing the T3 categories and strategies, Magana focuses on the value technology adds to instructional tasks for student learning.

Translational (T1) Translational uses of technology apply the use of digital tools to tasks typically completed without technology. The affordance of technology tools increases the speed at which tasks are completed and improves the ease and accuracy of tasks. In terms of instruction, translational uses of technology relate to completing old tasks in a new way. An example of translational uses of technology is the use of a Google Form for a survey instead of a pen and paper survey. Within the T1 domain, there are two subcategories or steps.

Evaluation of Technology Integration  71

T1.1 Automation Automation takes place when a teacher or student uses technology to automate instruction or learning tasks. Learners apply digital tools to traditionally analogue activities to save time, increase efficiency, and improve accuracy. An example of automation is a word processor since the efficiency and accuracy exceeds that of using a pen and paper or a typewriter. Automation is the most common type of technology in classrooms. T 1.2 Consumption The second step of T1 occurs when using digital technology for the consumption of information. Digital tools used for consumption reflect added value because digital media provides multiple means of representing knowledge. Digital content, including information on the Internet and in eBooks, is abundant and multimodal. The nature of multimodal texts alleviates the need for teachers and students to depend on traditional textbooks, newspapers, or encyclopedias (Figure 5.6).

Transformational (T2) The transformational domain involves technology use that reflects substantive disruptions or changes in either the nature of the task, the role of the individual engaged in the task, or how others perceive the task. Transformation is “the intentional application of digital technologies to unleash students’ learning expertise, in ways not possible without technology, to achieve ever-higher levels of knowledge and mastery” (Magana, 2017, p. 39). This domain suggests a shift of control from teachers to students allowing students to use technology as a way to express their understanding of new content knowledge. Technology

FIGURE 5.6 The T3 framework for innovation in education explained in 5 minutes. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/RTQjEPmex8E.

Source: Sonny Magana. (2018, January 2).

72  Frameworks for Thinking about Technology

tools provide ways for teachers and students to express knowledge and engage in multiliteracies aligned with the UDL principle, multiple means of representation. In order to determine the effectiveness of the strategies in the transformation domain of the T3 Framework, Magana (2019a) aligned T2, Transformation, with Hattie’s Visible Learning Model (Hattie, 2008). The alignment indicated an effect size of 1.6 (ES = 1.6), suggesting significant growth in student achievement. The two subcategories of Transformation are Production and Contribution. T2.1 Production Production is when students engage in the design process to create digital artifacts representing their understanding. Magana describes three production strategies: (1) student goal-setting, (2) student tracking of growth and mastery, and (3) student production of authentic artifacts. These strategies include a variety of digital tools such as Doceri, EduCreations, PowToon, and ShowMe (Magana, 2017) to transform learning and produce digital artifacts. An example of production is when students use Google Drive and Microsoft Office 365 to maintain and track goals when creating digital representations of their growth and mastery. T2.2 Contribution Contribution is the second transformational step allowing students to use their artifacts to teach others. This stage requires a shift in learning environments. According to Magana (2017), teachers and students must develop interdependent learning environments that function more like learning communities so that students contribute to a collaborative learning process using digital tools. The shifting role between being a student and a teacher makes this a transformational process. As such, it incorporates all of the previous subcategories in T3. Magana (2017) promotes the use of digital tools to enable students to produce, share, and curate authentic tutorials to contribute to others’ learning. For example, production tools like ShowMe demonstrate ways to solve math problems. Students could post their math tutorial on the class website or blog as a tutorial for students who were absent or even for others outside the walls of the classroom.

Transcendent (T3) The transcendent stage represents the most challenging domain to accomplish because it includes concepts of experiences that “go far and above the normal range of experiences and expectations” (Magana, 2017, p. 63). Transcendence

Evaluation of Technology Integration  73

reflects a consideration for technology application not present in other frameworks for technology integration. Magana encourages teachers to extend learning opportunities that happen outside the walls of the classroom. Transcendent technology is challenging to explain since it is difficult to know what experiences exceed the norm. How can we transcend using technology if we are aiming to do something we have never done before? What does this mean? According to Magana (2017), “Transcendent technology use results in authentically original and unprecedented growth in knowledge, contribution, and value-generating performance” (p. 65). Applying Magna’s explanation of this domain to classroom environments means that digital technologies have the power to create new learning environments, amplify knowledge, and contribute to the design of new learning tools through the application of digital information. Transcendence is further explained with the two steps for this domain, Inquiry Design and Social Entrepreneurship. T3.1 Inquiry Design Magana (2017) emphasizes the importance of learning opportunities where students investigate problems of personal relevance, design questions to address these problems, and use digital tools of research and inquiry to generate solutions. Inquiry design is reflective of how research is conducted in the real world. It shifts students’ roles from passive followers of curricula to active designers and problem solvers. This domain moves students through a process similar to project-based learning where students select a problem, investigate, and communicate a resolution. T3.2 Social Entrepreneurship Social Entrepreneurship, the last subcategory of T3, builds on Inquiry Design. It contextualizes students’ use of technology tools into experiences driven by an authentic desire for social good. Social entrepreneurship activities serve many purposes, including building leaders and encouraging service to society through problem-solving. Social Entrepreneurship also requires a shift in the traditional role of the student because students need to become autonomous thinkers. Magana (2017) notes that this shift adds a human value rather than a technological value to evaluation of student learning even if the social entrepreneurship is viewed through the use of digital tools or evolves from the creation of new tools to solve problems and implement solutions.

Taxonomies and Universal Design for Learning These taxonomies, as well as many others designed for similar purposes, guide teachers and schools in the thoughtful process of technology integration and

74  Frameworks for Thinking about Technology

intentional lesson design, as well as evaluating transformative aspects of the learning processes and products to support the diverse students. Transformative, and transcendent, affordances of technology offer students ways to be successful with traditional literacies and new literacies that were not possible in the past. Since the UDL provides a framework to create and implement lessons with goals, methods, materials, and assessments that support leaners, the intentional planning with technology evaluation tools may help teachers meet the needs of the widest range of students. When teachers consider students’ needs as they design lessons, options for materials and tools (including technology tools) will be available to help all learners. Perhaps the technology tools are readily available at all times, with tools for students to access as needed. An English Learner may have access to translation apps or a struggling speller may have access to speech-to-text tools. Students need to be equipped with the agency to select and use tools for learning tasks. “Learners should have the opportunity to develop a sense of agency in their learning and the belief that they are capable of succeeding in school” (U.S. Department of Education, 2017, p. 14). According to legislation and our experiences as teachers, technology engages and empowers learning (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). We realize that learners need an opportunity to develop a sense of agency in their learning, which is enhanced with the inclusion of technology tools (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). SAMR, RAT, and the T3 Frameworks for technology integration may equip teachers to leverage the affordances of technology to transform learning.

Revisiting the Taxonomies Mind Shift Think back to the Mind Shift for this chapter. You explored the affordances of a Google Doc as a tool for student use. You were also tasked with considering the transformative affordances for student learning. The intent of this task aligns with the goal of the chapter, the evaluation of technology integration. Technology use should be intentional and should add value to the instruction teachers provide daily. Additionally, technology use should be evaluated for effectiveness. Teachers should consider ways to integrate technology for transformational purposes. How do some of the tools you discovered under the Google Tools tab transform learning in the sense that students are able to think, create, and produce learning artifacts that may have been previously impossible? Now evaluate these learning opportunities with SAMR, RAT, and T3.

References Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives: complete edition. New York: Longman.

Evaluation of Technology Integration  75

Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Couros, G. (2019a, October 22). Leaners are the driver of innovation in education. Retrieved from https://georgecouros.ca/blog/ Couros, G. (2019b, October 22). Going beyond the “cool” factor. Retrieved from https:// georgecouros.ca/blog/ Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge. Hughes, J. E. (n.d.). Replacement, amplirication, and transformation: The RAT model. Retrieved from https://techedges.org/r-a-t-model/ Hughes, J. E. (2000). Teaching English with technology: Exploring teacher learning and practice. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University. Hughes, J. E., Thomas, R., & Scharber, C. (2006). Assessing technology integration: The RAT – replacement, amplification, and transformation – Framework. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Orlando. Magana, S. (2017). Disruptive classroom technologies: A framework for innovation in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Magana, S. (2019a). Disrupting low-impact technology use aligning visible learning and the T3 framework for innovation. Seattle, WA: Corwin Press. Retrieved from https:// maganaeducation.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Magana_Disrupting-LowImpact-Technology-Use_FINAL.pdf Magana, S. (2019b). Disruptive classroom technologies. In G. W. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of education (pp. 1–28). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.423 Magana Education. (2019). Disruptive classroom technologies. Retrieved from https:// maganaeducation.com/disruptive-classroom-technologies/ Pea, R. D. (1985). Beyond amplification: Using the computer to reorganize mental functioning. Educational Psychologist, 20(4), 167–182. Puentedura, R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education. Retrieved from http:// hippasus.com/resources/tte/ Reinking, D. (1997). Me and my hypertext: A multiple digression analysis of technology and literacy (sic). The Reading Teacher, 50(8), 626–643. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education. 2017 National Education Technology Plan Update. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/ NETP17.pdf

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group

http://taylorandfrancis.com

SECTION 3

Applications for Classroom Instruction Section

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group

http://taylorandfrancis.com

6 THE USE OF THE INTERNET IN LITERACY INSTRUCTION Web 2.0 Tools

Mind Shift Think about the ways you communicate on the internet. Make a list of social media sites you visit frequently. What are the most common social media platforms used by adults? What are the most common platforms used by children and teens? In addition, what social media sites can teachers use in the classroom? Add the answers to these previous questions to your list of social media sites. After you have completed your list of social media sites, make a T-chart with the labels “Pros” and “Cons” across the top. On the left side of the T-chart, add pros or benefits of using social media sites on your list. On the right side of the T-chart, add cons, or negative aspects, of using social media sites. As you read Chapter 7, continue adding to your pros and cons T-chart.

Social connections have evolved with technology. Before the internet, students secretly circulated paper notes to friends during class. Now, people connect through texting, sharing images, and sending email communications on their smartphones, so note-passing in schools has taken new forms. This evolution of distracting behavior creates new challenges for schools, as they desire to leverage the power and possibilities of the internet and digital tools to transform education. Early adopters of 1:1 initiatives found that students continued to be creative about ways to connect with friends using email during class for non-academic purposes. This digital note-passing caused one school district to restrict student access to email during school hours. Students at this school were socially determined and found another method to continue their efforts to communicate with one another during class using Google Docs! Social connections motivate students to engage with their peers using any mode of communication available, which in today’s world includes the internet.

80  Applications for Classroom Instruction

In 2015, 71% of Americans ages three and above used the internet (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). Internet use in both the home and classroom affects the social skills of young learners. Today’s students enter the classroom with technology skills influenced by internet surfing, blogging, movie making, texting, messaging, networking, gaming, and coding. Web-based social practices call for literacy instruction that includes the use of authentic digital forms of communication (Mills & Levido, 2011) that better reflect our connected lives outside of school. The purpose of this chapter is to describe ways the internet has changed from strictly information retrieval to information and social interaction, with a focus on critical thinking, collaboration, creativity, and communication. This change affects classroom practices.

Web 2.0: The Read-Write Web One way in which technology has influenced both literacy and social practices in the classroom is the evolution of Web 2.0 technology. Web 2.0, or the read-write web, is a term coined by Tim O’Reilly (2005) used to describe the capability for two-way communication and collaboration on the World Wide Web. Previous internet technologies, defined as Web 1.0, refer to the readonly internet in which most users participated in a consumer context (Davies & Merchant, 2009). Although Web 1.0 tools helped students locate and access information using web pages connected by hyperlinks, Web 2.0 technology enables participation and interaction within web pages (Gunning, 2013). The capability the World Wide Web offers for creating, communicating, and sharing shifts to using two-way communication and collaboration for users. In terms of society in general, Web 2.0 tools have enabled people without technical training to produce and share their thinking with free, user-friendly technology tools. Because of the participatory and social nature of Web 2.0 technology, literacy tasks in this environment differ from Web 1.0 and traditional reading and writing tasks. Sometimes referred to as Literacy 2.0 ( Knobel  & Wilber, 2009), new literacy tasks and opportunities continue to evolve and expand with technology, reflecting varying levels of innovation. For example, writing fan fiction involves fans of popular books, movies, television, and other media, creating new episodes, adventures, or storylines using favorite characters and scenarios. These remixes, created collaboratively or individually, are published on public sites, such as Fanfiction.net. Fanfiction publishing on Wattpad engaged more than 2 million writers producing 100,000 pieces of material a day for more than 20 million readers across this social network (Streitfeld, 2014). As chapters, books, and other materials created, uploaded, and read, comments begin to appear, further promoting the “twoness” or collaborative and social nature of Literacy 2.0 (Knobel & Wilber, 2009, p. 21). Elementary-age children use Web 2.0 to communicate their passions and concerns. Olivia Van Ledtje started blogging at age nine to share her passion

Web 2.0 Tools  81

FIGURE 6.1 #KidsCanTeachUs | Olivia Van Ledtje | TEDxYouth@BHS. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/g5Je9a4vSaI.

Source: Olivia Van Ledtje [TEDx Talks]. (2017, June 1).

for sharks and her love of books. By age 11, she blogged to promote activism for sharks and the ocean as well as to promote awareness of social issues such as bullying. Robbie Bond’s mission began at age eight with efforts to save national monuments in his home state of Hawaii, using his website, Kids Speak for Parks. Amariyanna Copeny, born in 2007, used her Twitter account, @ LittleMissFlint, to bring children’s voices to the Flint, Michigan water crisis. These children understand the power of Web 2.0. This participatory stance differs significantly from a traditional literacy stance, where children are assigned tasks by teachers and write for teachers. Web 2.0 provides a global and authentic audience that amplifies the creator’s voice (Figure 6.1).

Web 2.0 and Pedagogy An affordance of Web 2.0 technologies is thoughtfully leveraged opportunities to create, edit, and collaborate through web-browsers (Bower, 2015). Key pedagogical affordances of Web 2.0 technologies include the ability to establish connectivity and social rapport, collaboratively discover and share information, create content, and aggregate and remix information. The use of Web 2.0 tools equips students to exercise new modes of inquiry, develop contemporary digital literacies, amplify their voices, and demonstrate transformed learning. Knowing that descriptions, categories, and lists of digital tools are outdated almost as soon as written, we provide examples of these tools but caution readers to understand the rapid advances that occur with technology tools may impact the durability of this list (Table 6.1).

Social Media Platforms Bower et al.’s (2010) categories for educational use (adapted for Table 6.1) include a Web 2.0 category called microblogging. The social media platforms listed as examples have become a part of our everyday lives. According to a

82  Applications for Classroom Instruction TABLE 6.1 Web 2.0 Technologies for Educators

Web 2.0 Technology

Affordances

Examples

Social bookmarking

Enables users to store bookmarked websites online for access anytime and anywhere. Some bookmarking sites allow for group collaboration Collaborative authorship

Delicious, Diigo

Wikis Shared document creation

Blogs

Microblogging

Presentation tools

Image creation and editing

Podcasting/audio

Video creation/sharing

Mindmapping Digital storytelling

Collaborative authorship that allows users in different locations to access the same file while editing and commenting on documents Allow individuals to post, sequence, and organize information on the web Enables communication of information in real-time Allow for the nonlinear organization of information that can be shared Online image repositories and tools that allow users to create with visual representations Free audio tools that enable people to create, edit, and enhance audio recordings so they can be made available to others as podcasts or audio files Online video sharing sites which make the exchange and use of video and comments a mainstream event Enables the organization and creation of visuals Enables story creation and sharing using online image and audio mixing tools

Adapted from Bower, Hedberg, and Kusware (2010).

Wikipedia, Wikispaces Google Docs, Microsoft OneNote, Google Slides

Blogger, Edublogs

Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Pinterest Prezi, CoolIris, Nearpod, Keynote Flickr, Photoshop Express, Canva, VoiceThread GarageBand, VoiceThread, WavePad

YouTube, Vimeo, TeacherTube, iMovie, FlipGrid, VoiceThread FreeMind, Inspiration Maps Animoto, Toodoo, Adobe Spark

Web 2.0 Tools  83

report by the Pew Research Center (Smith & Anderson, 2018), a majority of Americans use social media. In a study of teens, researchers found that 95% have access to smartphones (Anderson & Jiang, 2018). Of these teens, 85% use YouTube, 72% use Instagram, 69% use Snapchat, and 51% use Facebook (Anderson & Jiang, 2018). It is no surprise that YouTube leads social media platforms in teen use. Elementary students use this platform regularly as well (Common Sense Media, 2019), as YouTube contains many age-appropriate videos for young children to watch. Children gain skills from watching Do It Yourself (DIY) videos, such as how to make the latest craft or a new maneuver in video gameplay. Other forms of social media engage our youth, as well. After YouTube, Snapchat and Instagram are the most popular social networking apps (Anderson  & Jiang, 2018). New social media sites continually appear and appeal to youth, like TikTok, a popular app for creating music videos, or GroupMe, a popular app for group messaging. These apps are typically associated with teen use, but elementary students and tweens alike communicate on multiple social media platforms. A report of social media use by children aged 8–18, released by Common Sense Media in 2016, found that 56% of youth have their own social media account (Lauricella et al., 2016). Among those youth, 80% of all teenagers (ages 13–18) in the group had their own social media account, compared with 23% of all tweens (ages 8–12). Of those tweens, the average age they got their account was about 9.6 years old (Lauricella et al., 2016). Our readers may wonder how this is possible—many Americans are under the assumption that it is against the law for children to sign up for an app that is supposed to be for children older than 13 years old. While it is not technically against the law, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA, 1998) imposes restrictions on social media sites to prevent the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information from children under 13 years of age, without parental consent. Therefore, social media sites like YouTube and Facebook indicate that the social platform requires everyone to be at least 13 years old before they can create an account. Even with restrictions for children, social media use is all around them surrounding children both at home and at school. Children watch parents, teachers, and administrators engage in social media, including the use of Facebook, Instagram, and Remind, to share events occurring in the classroom.

New Ways of Teaching and Learning in a Web 2.0 World To take advantage of all that is possible in a Web 2.0 world, people must be competent critical thinkers, communicators, collaborators, and creators (National Education Association, 2010). As an advocate for these competencies, referred to as the 4 Cs, the National Education Association (NEA) founded the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21) in 2002 and began the development of the Framework for 21st Century Learning, emphasizing these skills.

84  Applications for Classroom Instruction

FIGURE 6.2

What are the 4Cs? Retrieved from https://youtu.be/QrEEVZa3f98.

Source: Common Sense Education. (2016, July 12).

In collaboration with the NEA, several other organizations, including the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), National Association for Music Education (NAfME), National Council for Geographic Education (NCGE), National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), Mathematical Association of America (MAA), National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), and National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), published An Educator’s Guide to the “Four Cs” (National Education Association, 2010). Although the Four Cs exist without technology, their reach is greater and their power is amplified with digital tools. In 2016, the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) embedded the 4 Cs in the ISTE Standards for Students, further highlighting the need to consider learning that occurs in digital environments (Figure 6.2).

Critical Thinking Critical thinking is not a new cognitive skill. Progressive educator and theorist, John Dewey, referred to it as a disposition that he called reflective thinking, in which learners actively persist in careful consideration of information and a rationale to establish a belief. This weighing of evidence to determine facts from opinions, and commentary from news, is amplified in the world of Web 2.0. With the incredible opportunities afforded by our read-write web in which everyone can contribute, comes greater responsibility and need for critical thinking and ways for students to develop “reliability reasoning” (Pilgrim, Vasinda, Bledsoe, & Martinez, 2019, p. 85). Students need a critical thinking stance to approach all the information available on the web as they form ideas and beliefs about it (International Society for Technology in Education, 2016). The use of social media platforms or wikis requires knowledge about authorship and

Web 2.0 Tools  85

how to critically examine posts and content for credibility. According to the P21 framework, “today’s citizens must be active critical thinkers if they are to compare evidence, evaluate competing claims, and make sensible decisions” (National Education Association, 2010, p. 8).

Communication Communication includes traditional academic, social, and work-related skills for expressing thoughts and opinions clearly, articulating coherent instructions, and motivating others through persuasive speech (National Education Association, 2010). Multiliteracies remind us of all the ways we have communicated throughout time, from gestures and oral language to written language and visual representations and the ways digital tools expand, mix and remix communication modes. The internet offers many ways to share thoughts and products privately with friends, classmates, and family or publicly to a wide, global audience. It also involves the potential to call people to action for a cause or give pause to reconsider an issue from a new angle through internet sharing. ISTE (2016) standards indicate that students should “communicate information and ideas effectively to multiple audiences using a variety of media and formats” (p. 2).

Collaboration Collaboration is the process of working together to accomplish a goal. While collaboration has always been a valuable skill, the skill, along with literacy in general, has evolved with digital communication tools. The internet and Web 2.0 technologies make collaboration more accessible and convenient, allowing for further reach. Projects like Wikipedia demonstrate inter-connectedness and collaboration on global levels, reflecting written products from millions of contributors, and illustrating the significant work that can be accomplished by teams. In the process of writing this book, we used video conferencing to talk, think, envision, and plan. We used Google Docs to compose and share resources collaboratively. Even though none of us lived near each other, we were able to work together to accomplish this goal. Web 2.0 tools support collaboration across town and the world. Connecting with other teachers through avenues such as #globaledchat and Teachers’ Guide to Global Collaboration (https://www.globaledguide.org/) enables teachers and students to find collaborators for every grade level to explore topics from water quality to digital book clubs. Collaboration promotes connections to the unknown, extending learning to an audience previously out of reach. With digital tools, students broaden their perspectives and enrich their learning (International Society for Technology in Education, 2016).

86  Applications for Classroom Instruction

Creativity A multiliteracy lens refers to creativity as design and redesign, producing new or original works from multiple perspectives. Educational practices that foster creativity include exploration, challenging problems, and opportunities to make productive mistakes (International Society for Technology in Education, 2016; Voogt & Roblin, 2012). As with collaboration, digital tools make creating and innovating more accessible with less technical expertise. In addition to the communication and collaboration skills needed in today’s workforce, people also need to be creative (International Society for Technology in Education, 2016; Voogt & Roblin, 2012). The use of digital tools affords the production of multimedia messages that create awareness or coding opportunities to create games, tell stories, and solve problems. Digital tools expand the options for the P21 definition of thinking creatively as “Using a wide range of idea creation techniques (such as brainstorming); creating new and worthwhile ideas (both incremental and radical concepts); and elaborating, refining, analyzing, and evaluating original ideas to improve and maximize creative efforts” (National Education Association, 2010, p. 25).

4 Cs in Classroom Practice The 4 Cs provide a framework for teachers to select the most effective Web 2.0 tools for students to demonstrate their mastery of curricular concepts. It is essential to realize that Web 2.0 tools are not distinctly separate when considering the 4 Cs. Table 6.2 illustrates the overlap in the 4 Cs using Web 2.0 tools TABLE 6.2 Web 2.0  Tools

Communication Tools

Collaboration Tools

Creativity Tools

Facebook Twitter Snapchat Instagram Edmodo Pinterest Blogs Wikis SeeSaw VoiceThread Podcasts Flickr Evernote Popplet YouTube and more…

Google Docs Google Forms Diigo Blogs Wikis SeeSaw QR Codes Padlet Flickr Evernote Popplet YouTube Podcasts and more…

Animoto Wordle Vokis Popplet VoiceThread QR Codes YouTube Flickr Podcasts ShowMe and more…

Web 2.0 Tools  87

through the illustration of tools in bold. Critical thinking is not in this table, but instead, it is addressed in the next chapter through the use of strategies. The following two examples illustrate curricular connections using Web 2.0 tool: A seventh-grade class conducted collaborative research around the topic of social justice by reading Lockdown by Water Dean Myers. The teacher had students search the internet for other types of texts around the same topic. During the process, each student set up a Diigo account to bookmark, annotate, and share sources such as articles, videos, images, and more about the topic. Students not only stored online information, but they were also able to collaborate as a class to gain deeper understandings (Bass & Sibberson, 2015). Another example involves a fourth-grade teacher who created a class blog so her students could participate in online literature discussions. Working in groups, students read short pieces of text utilizing a literature circle format. Each student then blogged about a strike (something that stood out) and a wonder (a question) on their class blog. The documented blog incorporated additional accountability and ensured that no student refrained from participating in the discussion. Students shared ideas online with a group of more advanced readers who lived more than 100 miles away. Both teachers noticed that blogging helped young readers and writers share ideas and literature responses. The teachers reported that students often exceeded the expectations of the assignment due to their engagement with technology tools (Lisenbee, Hallman, & Landry, 2015).

Web 2.0 Tools and Inclusive Practices When framed from a multiliteracies perspective, Web 2.0 tools and UDL practices prompt teachers to think about student access to content through their planning. Just as curricular planning needs to consider the 4 Cs, inclusive practices need to include UDL’s three principles: (1) multiple means of representation, (2) multiples means of action and expression, and (3) multiples means of engagement.

Representation Learners perceive and comprehend information in many different ways (Center for Applied Special Technology, 2018), and children learn concepts through meaningful experiences (Vygotsky, 1978). To provide the most inclusive access to learning, teachers share content by providing options available to everyone, including students with learning variabilities and language diversity. For example, for students with language diversity and challenges with print, the teacher can begin with a compelling video that introduces a concept, which leverages experiencing from a multiliteracy pedagogy. All learners get an audiovisual message that can activate background knowledge before reinforcing

88  Applications for Classroom Instruction

the concept with a lecture or text-based resources. Collaboratively, students and teachers can make an analysis chart with content vocabulary in the languages represented in the class alongside the English vocabulary words. If the chart is digital, the availability of hyperlinks to pronunciations and definitions is important. If the chart is paper-based, QR codes could do the same. Once moving to alphabetic texts, text-to-speech applications and translation apps provide more comprehensive access to text reading. If a student has visual impairments, the teacher may use larger fonts and touch equivalents. As part of a multiliteracy pedagogy, once students have several experiences with a concept, the teacher can support their conceptualization because of their sufficient experience and background knowledge. Students will also be equipped to engage in critical thinking around the topic.

Action, Expression, and Engagement A multiliteracies pedagogy and consideration of the Four Cs support both UDL’s action and expression and engagement principles by drawing on children’s strengths. We want children to think critically as they analyze new information and communicate, collaborate, and create on equal footing to apply what they have learned in both expected and creative ways. For example, some students excel at oral storytelling but struggle with written language skills. Using the Voice Typing tool that is part of Google Docs supports their ability to contribute to a collaboratively written text. They might also choose to circumvent alphabetic literacies and create a video that focuses on the same message and includes gestural, visual, and oral modes to communicate the message. Allowing for student choice is not only motivating and engaging but supports learner variability. Table 6.3 shows the integration of UDL Principles and the 4 Cs into the reflexive pedagogy of multiliteracies.

Revisiting the Web 2.0 Mind Shift Communication, one of the 4 Cs, is a skill we use daily. In many cases, our communication occurs on the internet in the form of social media. In our Mind Shift, we listed social media platforms used personally and for instruction. Revisit your list and add to it, using knowledge gained from Chapter 6. Make a second list of sites you would like to explore for classroom use, in order to promote the 4 Cs. Using the 4 Cs described in this chapter, teachers can incorporate technology tools to engage students in fun and authentic ways. In the Mind Shift, we also initiated a conversation about the pros and cons of social media. Teachers and parents alike voice concerns about social media. We will revisit potential pros and cons of Web 2.0 technology when we discuss digital citizenship.

Web 2.0 Tools  89 TABLE 6.3 Integration of UDL and the 4 Cs into a Multiliteracies Reflexive Pedagogy

Multiliteracies Reflexive Pedagogy

Universal Design for Learning

4 Cs

Experiencing Experiencing the known: Regular returns to student lifeworld experiences and knowledge, and prior experience, with metacognitive reflection Experiencing the new: Immersion in the range of information sources such as those now available on the web, as well as hands-on activities and immersive experiences

Developing the Considerations for UDL background knowledge representing: The teacher and conceptualization considers the learner needs so that there is a in the class and offers a knowledge base for variety of entry points critical thinking into a concept or content through videos, virtual and augmented reality experiences, podcasts, accessible text sets, text-to-speech reading support, digital texts with adjustments to fonts, background, text color, augmented or virtual reality

Conceptualizing The teacher (and more The teacher continues Conceptualizing knowledgeable peers) UDL representing and by naming: support learning deep understanding of Categorization through communicating Pedagogical Content and classification, and sharing their Knowledge to support and definitions of concepts knowledge with clarify conceptualization by Conceptualizing with others This is also naming concepts emerging theory? Developing collaborating as students from the experiences disciplinary schemas work together towards and mental models a common goal of understanding Analyzing The students begin Analyzing Functionally: engaging with the content Argument and and expressing their explanation including understanding through text, diagram, data multiple modes in visualization conceptually relevant ways Critical Analysis: Analysis of the interests of people and the purpose knowledge

As understanding deepens, students can engage and express from a more critical thinking stance looking for author bias, stance, and purposes

(Continued)

90  Applications for Classroom Instruction

Multiliteracies Reflexive Pedagogy

Universal Design for Learning

4 Cs

Applying Using all available With greater understanding, Applying Appropriately designs and modes, engagement and Putting meanings and students use their expression deepen as knowledge to work creativity to apply the students apply meanings effectively in proximal knowledge in original within the context of contexts ways communicating knowledge making using Applying Creatively from multiple or all available modes and Transfer of knowledge unique perspectives tools to demonstrate their to different contexts, demonstrating a critical knowledge and original hybrid knowledge stance. This may be thought through media and cultural creations done collaboratively such as videos, podcasts, expressing student communicating with visual images and art, voice and perspective experts and peers written compositions keyboarded or using speech recognition software

References Anderson, M., & Jiang, J. (2018). Teens, social media & technology 2018. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewinternet.org/2018/05/31/ teens-social-media-technology-2018/ Bass, W. L. II, & Sibberson, F. (2015). Digital reading: What’s essential in Grades 3–8. Urbana, IL: National Council for Teachers of English. Bower, M. (2015). Deriving a typology of Web 2.0 learning technologies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 763–777. Bower, M., Hedberg, J. G., & Kuswara, A. (2010). A framework for Web 2.0 learning design. Educational Media International, 47(3), 177–198. doi:10.1080/09523987.2010. 519911 Center for Applied Special Technology. (2018). 5 examples of Universal Design for Learning in the classroom. Understood. Retrieved from https://www.understood. org/en/learning-attention-issues/treatments-approaches/educational-strategies/5examples-of-universal-design-for-learning-in-the-classroom?view=slideview Common Sense Media. (2019). The common sense census: Use by tweens and teens, 2019. Retrieved from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/the-common-sensecensus-media-use-by-tweens-and-teens-2019?utm_source=morning_brew COPPA. (1998). Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule “COPPA.” Retrieved from https:// www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/ childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule Davies, J., & Merchant, G. (2009). Web 2.0 for schools: Learning and social participation. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Gunning, T. G. (2013). Creating literacy instruction for all students. Boston, MA: Pearson. International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). ISTE standards for students. Retrieved from ISTE.org/standards

Web 2.0 Tools  91

Knobel, M., & Wilber, D. (2009). Let’s talk 2.0. Educational Leadership, 66(6), 20–24. Lauricella, A. R., Cingel, D. P., Beaudoin-Ryan, L., Robb, M. B., Saphir, M., & Wartella, E. A. (2016). The common sense census: Plugged-in parents of tweens and teens. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media. Lisenbee, P. S., Hallman, C., & Landry, D. (2015). Geocaching is catching students’ attention in the classroom. The Geography Teacher, 12(1), 7–16. Mills, K. A., & Levido, A. (2011). iPad: Pedagogy for digital text production. The Reading Teacher, 65(1), 80–91. National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Children’s access to and use of the internet. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cch.asp National Education Association. (2010). Preparing 21st century students for a global society: An educator’s guide to the “four c’s.” Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/ docs/A-Guide-to-Four-Cs.pdf Pilgrim, J., Vasinda, S., Bledsoe, C., & Martinez, E. (2019). Critical thinking is CRITICAL: Octopuses, online sources, and reliability reasoning. The Reading Teacher, 73(1), 85–93. doi:10.1002/trtr.1800 Smith, A., & Anderson, M. (2018). Social media use in 2018. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/ Streitfeld, D. (2014, March 23). Web fiction, serialized and social. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/technology/web-fictionserialized-and-social.html Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competencies: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(3), 299–321. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process (pp. 79–91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

7 THE USE OF THE INTERNET IN LITERACY INSTRUCTION Online Reading and Research

Mind Shift Consider instances where you have encountered misinformation on the Web. How do you know? Critical thinking adds an element of reliability reasoning to information found online, so that text is not accurate just because it was from the internet. What would your students do if they encountered suspicious information? Try the following task: visit the following website: https://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/ Make a T-chart with the labels Reliable and Unreliable across the top. On the left side of the T-chart, add anything from the website that seems suspicious. On the right side of the T-chart, list anything from the website that seems real. We will return to this Mind Shift later in this chapter when we discuss critical thinking.

In 2016, more than 45% of the global population considered themselves to be internet users (Dutton & Reisdorf, 2017), and in the USA, 90% report they are internet users (Anderson, Perrin, Jiang, & Kuman, 2019). Internet use in the workplace and across all academic disciplines requires new sets of literacy skills (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Since the internet is the “defining technology for literacy and learning within our global community” (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, Castek, & Henry, 2013, p. 1158), an understanding of its features, use, and instructional applications benefit teaching and learning. Navigating search engines and websites requires complex web literacy skills and critical thinking skills in order to be efficient and savvy consumers of information (Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear, & Leu, 2008; International Society for Technology in Education, 2012).

Online Reading and Research  93

The Search Process: Traditional and Digital Parallels

FIGURE 7.1

library system

Internet

library

browser

catalog system

search engine

call number

URL

book

website

table of contents

menu

chapter

webpage

index

search bar

bookmark

favorite

The Search Process: Traditional and Online Parallels (Bledsoe, Pilgrim, Vasinda, & Martinez, 2019). Used with permission.

The Internet: A Global Library System In general, the internet can be likened to a global library system, as it includes the largest repository for locating information (Leu, Forzani, Timbrell, & Maykel, 2015). In order to clarify the components of the internet and its networked design, Bledsoe, Pilgrim, Vasinda, and Martinez (2019) developed an analogy comparing and contrasting the internet to the library system ( Figure 7.2). They noted similarities and differences of a known system and a newer system, providing a baseline of understanding for teachers to support strategic online research techniques and strategies for navigating dynamic, digital resources.

Library Systems and the Internet Bledsoe et al.’s (2019) parallels begin with the concepts of how information is housed traditionally versus digitally, comparing library systems to the internet. Library systems link individual libraries and provide access to published resources from multiple locations within the system. In contrast, the internet, as a

94  Applications for Classroom Instruction

global system, enables a participatory culture of contributing authors who can easily publish online with no approval or editing process. Traditional resources undergo review and editing processes by publishers, while online resources may lack editing, cohesiveness, or accurate information (Coiro, 2005).

Libraries and Browsers The next parallel compares the public library to a browser in order to demonstrate differences in access points for information (Bledsoe et al., 2019). The public library traditionally served as a physical access point to the available resources found within its system. Librarians serve the community and help patrons find books or other media (ALA, 2016). In contrast, browsers provide access to internet information. Browsers are software applications that interpret code (i.e., HTML, Java) to locate online resources. When using browsers, people had to type the desired URL, such as google.com or yahoo.com, to access a search engine. With modern browsers, users can set a preferred search engine enabling terms or questions passed from the URL box to the search engine, removing a step from the former process. The CCSSI (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010) requires that students continue to learn traditional research methods using libraries, but they must also learn to locate information in an online environment. Our brick and mortar libraries serve as host and hub for equitable internet use in communities, providing both traditional resources and access to the internet.

Card Catalogs and Search Engines The replacement of the card catalog with a digital catalog classification system (Blakemore, 2015) offers a parallel between the card catalog and a search engine. This comparison is relevant because the card catalog is considered the first search engine (Blakemore, 2017). Card catalogs enabled patrons to locate library material within the library system through a unique call number. Internet search engines such as Google and Yahoo are software programs that locate websites on the internet based on user-selected terms or questions, input directly into either the search bar or, more recently, the address bar. Students can find topics using a search engine, such as Google or Safari, and specify the file type, such as images and videos (Figure 7.2).

FIGURE 7.2

Search Engines and File Types.

Online Reading and Research  95

“Within the search engine, web-crawler background programs, also called spiders or bots, systematically and continually explore and examine internet data to match search terms with information” (Bledsoe et al., 2019, p. 14). Once resources are found, their locations are returned and listed as links on the screen (Butterfield & Ngondi, 2016). The affordances of digital search engines empower the user to locate multiple sources of information with the stroke of a key.

Call Numbers and URLs Another parallel involves a library call number and the Universal Record Locator (URL). A library call number, associated with a numeric classification system (Library of Congress Classification or Dewey Decimal Classification), reveals a physical location in a library to locate a resource. A URL serves as a readable address represented by a numerical code, or Internet Protocol (IP) address. This code identifies the location of resources on the internet, similar to call numbers on library books. The URL provides insight into information about a website’s origin, content, author, etc. Figure 7.3 illustrates the different elements contained in the URL. The URL, https://storylineonline.net/activities, is interpreted in the format of protocol://domain/other_information. The first few letters, https, indicate the hypertext transfer protocol is a secure site due to the “s” included at the end. The domain, or IP address, is next and represents the host, the owner of the website. The last part of the URL, called the top-level domain or extension, identifies the source of the content, such as commercial, non-profit, or educational (Table 7.1). The final section of the URL, when included, provides

FIGURE 7.3

Components of the Uniform Resource Locator (URL).

TABLE 7.1 Top-Level Domain Codes and Meanings

Top-Level Domain Code

Initial Source of Content

.com .edu .gov .net

Commercial or business Education, usually higher education Government Networked computers and storage (to connect users to an array of computers and services) Non-profit organizations

.org

96  Applications for Classroom Instruction

other information. For this example, it indicates activities, thus completing the unique web address for the resource found on the internet (November, 2008).

Books and Websites The next parallel between books and online texts is the physical components of a book versus the digital components of a website (Bledsoe et al., 2019). A print-based book is a collection of pages bound together around a story, topic, or theme in a linear sequential form typically read from left to right and top to bottom (Clay, 2002, 2005, 2016; Warlick, 2009). Even when printed texts include visuals and captions, the presentation of content flows from one page to the next. In comparison, a website typically presents a homepage, usually the domain of the URL, to organize content and contains multiple layers of webpages accessed from that website. Rather than reading webpages sequentially, the navigation from webpage to webpage requires clicking a mouse or tapping a touchscreen. Online navigation requires Web literacy knowledge and skills as well as critical thinking skills necessary for evaluating information. The navigation of both books and websites require knowledge about how to use a table of contents. The table of contents, found at the beginning of a printed publication, helps readers find chapters or sections using page numbers. Also, a table of contents offers a visual representation of the author’s organizational plan. In contrast, the location of a table of contents on a website lacks consistency. Web designers use various techniques for content organization, using options, such as clickable tabs, drop-down menus, or icons. Website navigation is different but not necessarily difficult because most menus reflect an intuitive design.

Chapters and Webpages The parallel for chapters in a print book is the multiple webpages associated with a website. In other words, instead of “two-dimensional reading” (Warlick, 2009, p. 22), webpages do not have the same limitations of space and dimensions as printed books. In addition, the layout of a webpage contains a variety of multimodal information, including clickable headings, advertisements, and images. This digital environment enables readers to search for desired content quickly, but young readers may become distracted by irrelevant hyperlinked resources. By clicking on a hyperlink or an advertisement, the reader can inadvertently open a new website similar to picking up an entirely new book to read.

Indexes and Search Bars The index is a useful print feature since it helps to find specific content within a text. It is generally at the end of a book, alphabetically arranged by important

Online Reading and Research  97

FIGURE 7.4

Website Search Bar Example.

terms. Next to each term is a page number or range of pages where the reader can find that specific information. The parallel for an index on the internet is the search bar. It is usually found on a homepage (Figure 7.4), enabling readers to locate specific terms or information on a website. The search bar allows choosing any terms for input to search within the website or even beyond.

Bookmarks and Web 2.0 Bookmarking Tools The parallels continue with bookmarks. Bookmarks for print-based materials help readers flag relevant sections, mark where information is that they want to revisit or to keep their place while reading simply. For example, readers place tabs, flags, clips, or commercial bookmarks between pages so they can return to specific spots in a book. In the online environment, readers use a variety of bookmarking options. The best-known option is the star icon that saves websites digitally so that users can relocate a website without conducting a full search. Bookmarking in the web environment utilizes Web 2.0 to provide an interactive platform. Social bookmarking tools, like Diigo, provide places to store located information, offer ways to take and organize notes about websites, and ways to share digital information and communicate during online collaboration. These are just a few of the bookmarking skills available for research.

Hyperlinks The hyperlink is an internet text feature without a traditional parallel. Hyperlinks connect online text documents (Butterfield & Ngondi, 2016) and reflect a hypertext, multidimensional reading environment. In online environments, hyperlinks are words, phrases, or images, underlined or in a different color, which link to content on a new webpage, document, or other multimedia elements. Warlick (2009) describes this action as three-dimensional reading, as opposed to traditional two-dimensional reading, because hyperlinked texts move readers across, down, and through content connecting to supporting and related media. “By clicking through words, phrases, and images, we can dig deeper into the information, moving deeper into greater understanding, or into greater distraction” (Warlick, 2009, p. 22).

Online Reading: The Changing Rules of the Road While adults and students have navigated the internet for years and have a working knowledge of how to use it, the lack of a parallel analogy and understanding

98  Applications for Classroom Instruction

of the metalanguage makes it challenging to teach the complexities associated with online reading to novice readers and internet users. The online environment complicates reading. It amplifies the understanding that literacy is more than a single set of cognitive skills and that reading in online environments includes understanding the way hypermedia texts interact. Just as Marie Clay (2000) profoundly and explicitly examined concepts about analogue print to support emerging and novice readers, our goal is to clarify these processes through the use of the library analogy. When considering traditional texts in 20th-century contexts, Clay (2000) reminded us that “Teachers must teach so that all children become knowledgeable about the essential concepts, so they open doors to literacy” (pp. 24–25). The essential concepts of online texts have additional layers of complexity and opportunity. The traditional “rules of the road” (Clay, 2000, p. 24) have shifted to rules of the information superhighway.

Changes in Online Reading Our global, digital world requires students to be efficient consumers of information. When reading online, learners navigate hypermedia, threedimensional texts, in which they can click on images and words that take them to additional pages or media with the potential for an enriched experience. This experience includes the potential to lead readers away from their goals by connecting to unrelated content (Warlick, 2009). Flexible, manipulative online options afford readers more control of how they will approach and read the text (Leu, 2009), involving more “open-ended cycle[s] of linkages” (Mills, 2016, p. 87). The integration of visual and audio modes of communication, such as text, photos, videos, graphs, and podcasts, provides a multimodal experience for readers (Kress, 2010). Multimodal, networked information environments add to the complexity of online learning and expand the ways readers acquire information and comprehend concepts beyond what was possible using printed books and journal articles. Overall, reading online texts present unique challenges for readers as they develop and extend foundational literacy skills to various media (Coiro, 2005; Coiro et al., 2008; Leu et al., 2015; November, 2008; Pilgrim, Vasinda, Bledsoe, & Martinez, 2018, 2019). Because there are ever-growing varieties of digital texts from eReaders and pdfs, to webpages and videos, in this chapter, we purposefully narrowed our discussion to online, internet-based, informational reading, which still provides many types of text and media to read and view. These include linear texts in digital formats, such as online pdfs, nonlinear texts that include hyperlinks, such as webpages; texts with integrated media, such as videos or podcasts; and texts with response options, such as comments or liking (Dalton & Proctor, 2008). Students must use both traditional and online text features to locate key facts or information in a text efficiently (Common Core State Standards Initiative,

Online Reading and Research  99

2010). Text features such as titles, headings, authors, and copyrights change little from paper to online format, but other online text features require new literacy skills. For example, the orientation of a page and navigation of text differ in online environments because the text offers dynamic features, like hyperlinks and back arrows, not possible in traditional print resources. Some of the most significant challenges of online text require the same skills readers need for consuming paper-based text. Let’s revisit the challenge that Glister (1997) regarded as an essential skill when using the internet—critical thinking.

Critical Thinking Evaluation of both paper-based and web-based information requires critical thinking skills, including analyzing, assessing, and reconstructing information (Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2017). Critical thinking is a stance or disposition of being actively reflective (Dewey, 1933). Students’ inability to evaluate online information has concerned educators for some time. In 2006, researchers from the University of Connecticut assessed 25 seventh graders’ abilities to determine the credibility of the tree octopus website you used in this chapter’s Mind Shift. All 25 students, identified as the most proficient online readers in the school, believed the content was authentic and lacked the skills to determine the credibility of the information (Krane, 2006). Besides, when told the website was a fake, the students struggled to produce evidence of a lack of credibility. Pilgrim et al. (2019) revisited the study with students in Grades 1–5. In the study, only 65% of the elementary students fell for the hoax website. Not only did a higher percentage of students distrust the tree octopus website at a younger age, but they also could articulate strategies they used to determine the credibility of a website. A concern of the investigators, however, aligns with reasons students believed the hoax. For example, many students believed the pictures were real. Using student responses as evidence, the researchers suggested that students who believed the website would have believed it whether the information was on the internet or reported in a paper. The one skill lacking for students who fell for the hoax was critical thinking skills. In the next few sections of this chapter, we provide strategies students can use to help them evaluate online information, enhancing critical thinking skills.

Online Research Online research and its associated skills are essential because internet use will continue to increase. Web literacy skills, which enable students to be productive and savvy consumers of this information as they apply knowledge and skills to locate, evaluate, synthesize, organize, and communicate information is required to find information online (Leu et al., 2015; November, 2008). For example, students who demonstrate web literacy proficiency have acquired

100  Applications for Classroom Instruction

knowledge regarding the purpose of search engines for research. These same students can determine strategies to narrow searches using Boolean terms (keywords with operators to increase the specificity of search results), quotation marks, or advanced search features (November, 2008; Pilgrim & Martinez, 2018). After locating information, students must evaluate a website and its content for validity and reliability, applying critical thinking skills to this multimodal platform. Evaluation begins with reading the URL to determine information about the source. The student may then critically examine online content within the website for reliable information. This process includes determining the author’s credibility or examining forward and backward links to view other pages associated with it (November, 2008). Once locations of valid websites are known, students must synthesize information. Synthesizing the information requires the student to determine important details, to analyze information across a variety of sources, to summarize information (possibly presented in multimedia formats), and to paraphrase or cite content (November, 2008). Such skills are necessary to convey what has been learned about a topic, while at the same time avoiding plagiarism. Online tools support organization and reorganization of vast amounts of information. Finally, collaboration and communication require students to connect with others using online networks or Web 2.0 tools to present a final product sharing the synthesis and redesign of the information in unique and personalized ways (Kalantzis & Cope, 2019; November, 2008). Redesigned and remixed content may be represented and communicated through a variety of digital and print formats, including video, multi-media presentations, or written arguments. As students conduct searches for information, teachers relinquish sole control of content delivery and become facilitators of student research. The success of the research process and product will depend on the students’ web literacy skills (Table 7.2). Research undertaken in the 20th century was conducted in a library using the Dewey Decimal Classification system to locate primary and secondary reference books and periodicals for information. These resources are trustworthy because they underwent vetting and supervised editing processes. They were also limited in number and scope because of the physical and monetary capacity of the library. Student researchers had fewer resources from which to choose. Conversely, the limitless bounds of a general internet search may return millions of sources varying in relatedness and reliability. Because of the participatory nature of Web 2.0, determining the credibility of sources is one of the most critical skills of the 21st century. Understanding bias and the ways information can be angled and altered requires the development of healthy skepticism (Leu, 2017) and reliability reasoning (Pilgrim et al., 2019). Children need to understand how to narrow a search and find credible information on the internet as they encounter information within wikis, websites created by unknown sources, or websites that sell products and target internet users, as well as websites created by trusted sources. Below, we offer one strategy to guide and scaffold internet research.

Online Reading and Research  101 TABLE 7.2 Transforming Literacy Skills with Technology

Literacy Skill

Traditional Materials and Methods

Online Tools and Methods

New Skills

Locating and organizing

• Card catalog • Glossary • Encyclopedias, periodicals, informational books • Index • Filing static information • Note cards • Presentations • Paper books, journals, and newspapers • Letters

• Search engines • Web sites • Open resource journals • Online journals and resources

• Knowledge of Boolean terms • Use of hyperlinks • Evaluation of authentic and accurate information • Use of mobile devices • Knowledge of digital environments and Web 2.0 tools • Appropriate use of real time communication • Use Cloud computing • Digital citizenship • Knowledge of internet features required to evaluate author information

Communicating and collaborating

Evaluating

Creating

• Critical thinking • Cross referencing books • Library skills • Multimodal, and openended products using physical materials and tools

• • • • •

Social media Blogs Wikis Video Email

• Critical thinking • Cross referencing online sources • Internet skills

• Multimodal, open-ended products using digital materials and tools

• Digital fluency

Adapted from Bledsoe and Pilgrim (2013).

SEARCH Strategy The SEARCH strategy, developed by Pilgrim and Martinez (2018), is one way to provide explicit Web literacy instruction in the elementary grades. When students “reSEARCH,” they must apply their knowledge of the internet. Each letter in the SEARCH acronym provides direction related to effective internet searches (Figure 7.5).

102  Applications for Classroom Instruction

FIGURE 7.5

The SEARCH Steps.

The S in SEARCH stands for “Select Keywords.” Regardless of the search engine students use (Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo, Yahoo, Dogpile, KidRex), applying appropriate keywords produces successful search results. Keywords should reflect what students want to know about a topic. A student assigned a research paper on the Alamo might try a keyword search such as History of the Alamo instead of Alamo. Although a variety of keyword combinations may provide effective search results, discussing keywords with students helps them become more intentional in their searches. The E in SEARCH stands for “Evaluate Hits and Content.” This part of the search entails two different tasks. An internet search produces an overwhelming number of results for students to examine. For example, a search for web literacy results in about 17 million hits. Therefore, the first task in evaluations involves a close look at the types of websites a search generated. Students will not have time to visit each website and often default to the first sites listed. This tendency is not based on quality but rather convenience. Competent researchers skim the results to find promising websites that will likely provide quality information. They might avoid commercial websites and seek out websites from respected organizations. For example, a student searching for information about the ocean may decide to select the link associated with the National Ocean Service or a National Geographic link, as both of these organizations would be deemed reliable. Content on websites must be evaluated as well. Students must evaluate the content of selected websites for accuracy. The evaluation may involve determining the author or publisher of a website. Students may locate a website’s publisher information by using the Whois database (November, 2008). If a website’s content seems questionable and students want to know who owns the site or has published the material, they can go to www.easywhois.com. The A in Search stands for “Add Quotation Marks or Boolean Terms.” Because initial searches may result in over a million hits, teaching students tools to narrow searches enables them to significantly narrow searches. For example,

Online Reading and Research  103

students may use quotation marks with keyword phrases to ensure a search on the exact words entered and in the exact order entered. A search for “blue whale” should include quotation marks around the phrase to produce the desired results about blue whales instead of results that include all references to the words “blue” and “whale.” An example of simple Boolean term students may apply to a search is the plus or minus sign. Students may use the plus sign to join words or phrases or to require common words (often ignored in searches) to be part of the words in the search. For example, when searching about diabetes, the plus sign may be used to add “type one,” or the minus sign could be used to omit type 1 diabetes from the search (e.g. “juvenile diabetes”—type 1). Other standard Boolean terms include the use of these limiting words: OR (broadens a search), AND (narrows a search). The R in SEARCH stands for “Refine Results.” A search can be narrowed further by using tools such as the Google toolbar, which enables internet users to conduct advanced searches using criteria such as language, readability, file type, usage rights, or other settings. For example, a Google search for “Web literacy” yields approximately 17,000,000 results. By conducting an advanced search, the results requiring the words “Web literacy” in the title are either inclusionary or exclusionary terms. A search of this nature yields 16,000 results, which may be more manageable and specific than the number found during the initial inquiry. The C in SEARCH stands for “Check the URL” for clues about a website’s content. November’s 2008 book, Web Literacy for Educators, presents many tips relating to URLs. Internet users must understand the domain and extension (.edu, .org, .com), find the author, and utilize many other clues URLs may provide. For example, the tilde (~) is a clue that the website is a personal page authored by any person without review or validation of content. Finally, the H in SEARCH stands for “Hunt for Key Information.” Wading through online text to find target information can be tedious. As students hunt, teachers may teach them to skim the text for important information, examine multiple sources, or try alternative keywords when necessary. Students are searching for the main idea of the text, which requires them to navigate through hyperlinks and other internet features successfully. While hunting for crucial information, bookmarking the information provides a way for students to revisit information at a later date efficiently. Bookmarking tools provide many options for students, including a place to store located information, ways to take and organize notes about websites, and ways to share digital folders and post notes during online collaboration.

Universal Design for Learning Connections Internet tools conveniently provide scaffolding for all learners and align well with UDL principles. Even educators unfamiliar with UDL have probably experienced its’ principles in action with internet use. Let’s examine internet

104  Applications for Classroom Instruction

and screen-based tools that promote success for all learners when using the SEARCH strategy on the internet.

Multimodal Searching Search engines allow for multiple means of engagement and multiple means of representation. First of all, internet users may select from a variety of search engines, including those designed to appeal to everyone and those for young learners. In terms of UDL and accommodations available during online research, Google, Yahoo, and Safari, among other search engines, provide speech-to-text searching access through a microphone in the search bar and on the keyboard. Users can just use their voice to search. Those choosing to type during a search receive support from artificial intelligence (AI) features of many search engines, referred to as Autocomplete (Sullivan, 2011) or Google Suggest. Google has been offering this feature since 2008, allowing all users to bypass the need for accurate spelling to locate resources online. As soon as users begin typing in the search bar, these tools offer additional options related to the search inquiry (Figure 7.6). Also, internet browsers and search engines allow users to change language settings in order to conduct searches using a preferred language. This type of accessibility provides access for learners of most languages (Figure 7.7). If you have spent any time watching a child search on the internet, you have probably watched them go straight to images after a search. Visuals appeal to younger students by offering multiple means of representation, action and expression, as well as engagement, through pictures, videos, and other engaging multimedia internet features (Lisenbee & Ford, 2018). Older learners with more background knowledge may use image searches to see how well images represent a particular concept or topic, with opportunities to compare any reinforcements of stereotypes, biases, or misconceptions. The multimodal nature

FIGURE 7.6

Google Suggest Image (or Autocomplete on Other Websites).

Online Reading and Research  105

FIGURE 7.7

Image of How to Change a Language Setting to a Preferred Language.

of the internet provides opportunities for readers of all types and developmental needs to access content on the internet.

The Difference in Search Engines for Children Search engines designed for children typically engage the learner with bright colors, user-friendly formats, and interactive designs. Also, built-in safe searches not only provide filters from distractions, but they also provide fewer results for students to sift through following a search. Table 7.3 presents popular search engines designed specifically for children. Unfortunately, these child-friendly websites do not provide the same accommodations that universal websites provide (Pilgrim, Vasinda, & Lisenbee, 2019). In other words, the standard online search engine may best provide multiple means of access for learners.

Multiple/Multimodal Options to Access and Text-Based Support of Content In addition to the speech-to-text feature on search engines, many websites enable text-to-speech options, as well, so that text-based information is read aloud. For example, the Chrome extension Read Aloud offers text-to-speech capabilities to make webpages a read-aloud experience. This affordance provides access for readers who struggle with decoding or for multi-taskers, as well. From web-based content from course materials and information to blogs and fanfiction, students can either read content as text or listen to it as an audio file. Another way to adapt text-based web content for diverse learners is to adjust the reading level of the text. Google Advanced Search used to support user adjustment of reading level. Even though this feature is no longer available, many websites use Lexiles to address the need for adjusted reading levels. For example, Newsela.com, an educational source for up-to-date, adaptable web-based

106  Applications for Classroom Instruction TABLE 7.3 Search Engines for Children

Search Engine

Website Address

Description

DuckDuckGo

https://duckduckgo. com/?t=hp

GoGooligans

https://www.lures.info/ childrens_search/ gogooligans.html

Kiddle

Kiddle.com

Kidtopia

https://www.kidtopia.info/

KidRex

https://www.alarms.org/ kidrex/

Provides a search venue with no tracking, no advertising, and no targeting Provides a simple, safe, and kidoriented platform with a pop-up accessible keyboard for our friends with disabilities Provides “a safe visual search engine for kids” Provides only websites recommended by teachers, librarians, and library and educational consortia Provides “a fun and safe search for kids, by kids! KidRex searches emphasize kid-related webpages from across the entire web and are powered by Google Custom Search™ and use Google SafeSearch™ technology” Provides a filtered search result, powered by Google Provides screened, kid-related webpages from across the web, powered by Google Custom Search™ and use Google SafeSearch™ technology

SafeSearchKids https://www.safesearchkids. com/ WackySafe https://wackysafe.com

content, enables teachers or students to adjust the Lexile, or reading level, of an article (Figure 7.8). This feature makes it possible to assign the same article to a classroom of students and differentiate the reading level for each one so that the content accessed is personalized. Online text features such as hyperlinks and multimedia also provide ways to scaffold readers’ variabilities (Rose & Dalton, 2006). The Engaging the Text Project, grounded in UDL, used hypertext Web links to support the reading comprehension environment by leveraging interactivity and multimedia (Rose & Dalton, 2006). Students have options to click on links that lead to multimodal supports. The support links may include features like short videos that provide background information, or they may present the content of an article through audiovisual formats. According to these researchers, online scaffolding is promising, but only if an instructor explicitly teaches students how to use them.

Online Reading and Research  107

FIGURE 7.8

Newsela Website Offers Adaptations of Lexiles, or Reading Levels, to Personalize Reading Content for Learner Variabilities.

The Teacher’s Role: Continued Parallels Just as early exposure to books and literature is a necessary component of early literacy skills for young children, exposure to online searches is a necessary component of early research skills and web literacy. In the same way, parents and primary teachers model reading practices with books through repetitively having students use their fingers to track print, notice illustrations, and participate in engaging discussions during read alouds, students need to practice their web literacy skills beginning with their first questions about the workings of the world. Questions such as “How many teeth does a shark have?” or “How do ants live underground?” are prime examples of authentic experiences for students to witness parents and early primary teachers modeling how to search for answers on the internet. This recommendation aligns with research stating the importance of early exposure to online experiences as a means to develop literacy skills (Baildon & Baildon, 2008; Leu et al., 2015; Pilgrim et al., 2019). Experts suggested that schools begin this type of learning about online information as early as possible to provide the sort of transliteracy practices needed for success as described in Chapter 1. All students need to be allowed to move seamlessly among and between analogue, print, digital, and media use as best needed to suit their purposes (Bass & Sibberson, 2015; Leu, Zawilinski, Forzani, & Timbrell, 2014). We continue our discussion of parallels between print-based and screen-based text by sharing ways teachers can apply effective search strategies.

Mentor Texts and Modeling Mentor texts are book selections of quality literature that teachers use as models to demonstrate good reading and writing (Dorfman & Cappelli, 2017; Harvey & Goudvis, 2007, 2017). Mentor texts traditionally apply to print-based text. Considering the vast amount of information available at the fingertips of young children, guiding students through online texts must become a priority. However,

108  Applications for Classroom Instruction

online information, as noted, is NOT always quality, or even filtered, as anyone can publish information on the internet. Therefore, we borrow the idea of a mentor text as a way to expose students to reading and analyzing online texts. Just as teachers carefully choose mentor texts for explicit teaching of reading and writing (Dorfman & Cappelli, 2017; Harvey & Goudvis, 2007, 2017), teachers must select online mentor texts to develop critical literacies (Pilgrim et al., 2019). When choosing digital mentor texts, teachers need to focus on their teaching objectives. If modeling when to click on and explore a hyperlink and when to skip it, the teacher must preview a webpage to make sure some links lend themselves to more information while pointing out others to skip. Modeling may also include a demonstration of clicking ineffective links and returning to the source to prevent getting “lost.” Think alouds, in which the teacher verbalizes a rationale for each search move, support reliability reasoning skills. When teaching students to analyze the credibility of online texts, it is important to select texts with hyperlinks, ads, and other distracting features in order to model navigation of internet searches, again sharing reasoning through the think-aloud, or self-scaffolding process. Students need Web literacy skills to navigate the web in the wild—past the distraction of ads and how to return to a previous page when finding themselves reading unrelated content through hyperlink link explorations (Vasinda & Pilgrim, 2019). Finally, teachers may apply the EMSCI model (Lisenbee, 2009) to support student independence with tools described in Chapter 3. The EMSCI model offers students a chance to explore, observe modeling, participate in scaffolding, and problem-solving as strategies for improving their independence with Web literacy skills. Other practical lessons for determining the reliability of websites involve using one of several well-designed hoax websites that make great mentor texts for this purpose (Table 7.4). One of the websites listed in Table 7.4 is the one you visited at the first of the chapter when you read the Mind Shift. Modeling the use of back arrows, About tabs, copyright information, and other messy features is a part of literacies and literacy instruction needed in today’s classroom. TABLE 7.4 Mentor Texts for Teaching Reliability Reasoning Using Hoax Websites

Hoax Website

URL

Save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus All About Explorers Bureau of Sasquatch Affairs Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie Dog Island The Time Travel Fund

https://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/ https://www.allaboutexplorers.com/ https://zapatopi.net/bsa/ https://zapatopi.net/afdb/ http://www.thedogisland.com/ http://www.timetravelfund.com/

Online Reading and Research  109

FIGURE 7.9

Image of How to Turn on the Safe Search Tool.

Internet safety is also a concern when conducting online searches. Most schools and districts communicate information about their safety infrastructures, such as firewalls, to teachers and families. Other considerations include the use of child-friendly search engines like KidRex or GoogleKids. Finally, teaching students how to use the Settings tab to select a safe search option is a way to support safety during the search process (Figure 7.9). However, as in all teaching, teachers need to be vigilant “kid watchers,” not only for safety but to be present for and impressed by the often surprising thinking of their students. We end this chapter with further considerations about internet safety and the need to develop digital citizenship.

Developing Digital Citizenship The need to address appropriate online behavior has become a part of classroom instruction at the earliest stages of education. The elements of digital citizenship align with traditional citizenship as it relates to responsible behavior towards others (Fingal, 2017). Fingal (2017) suggests, Just as all kids throughout the centuries have needed help from their parents, teachers and mentors along the path to becoming good citizens, our digital natives need guidance as they learn how to apply the elements of citizenship to the realities they encounter in a connected world. (para. 5) Internet safety is a priority for emerging readers who engage in online activity.

Internet Safety The internet is fraught with safety concerns regarding the potential for compromising students’ privacy or exposing students to inappropriate content through external links. Additional fears range from internet addiction to cyber-bullying. The need to protect young children is of the utmost importance. The International Society for Technology Education (ISTE) promotes

110  Applications for Classroom Instruction

internet safety and provides five tips for internet users (Zumpano, 2019). The first tip is to teach students to conduct data mines on themselves. In other words, students need to dig on the internet to see if they can find information about themselves. This type of digging provides an awareness of the types of personal information that exists on the web. ISTE suggests that this type of investigation occurs every three to six months and that data mining should extend beyond a simple Google search of one’s name. Other mining strategies include the following (Zumpano, 2019, para. 3): • • • • •

Log out of internet browsers before searching (staying logged in can affect the results). Search (using quotation marks) full legal names, nicknames and usernames. Search Google Images with names/usernames. Use multiple browsers, such as Chrome, Bing, Yahoo, Safari, and Firefox. Look beyond the first page of results. Go at least five pages deep until the name/username no longer appears. Take note of what kind of results appear (presentations/social media/images/etc.).

The second tip is to check privacy settings on social media accounts. Because social media sites are off during school hours, teachers may need to use screenshots to demonstrate how to access and adjust privacy settings, so that students can check settings at home. Students need to check privacy settings to see who can view posts, check friend lists and remove people who should not be there, search posts and remove any that they would not want a parent, teacher, employer, or college official to see, and examine tagged images that others have posted (Zumpano, 2019). The third tip from ISTE is to teach digital literacies. This umbrella term encompasses many skills. To reiterate those related to Web 2.0 technologies, students need to know social skills related to how to interact in an online environment. These skills often referred to as netiquette, will be revisited in the next section. Safety falls into this category, as students need to know, understand, recognize, and apply knowledge of safe passwords, scams, and data tracking. We will address additional instructional techniques for digital, or web literacy, in the next chapter. The fourth tip is digital maintenance, which includes technical skills needed to download and backup online information, reminders to log out of accounts, and skills needed to remain safe. The last and final tip is to start teaching these skills early in order to prepare learners for a Web 2.0 world best (Figure 7.10).

Digital Citizenship Web 2.0 has created a need for digital citizenship, as students are communicating and collaborating in new spaces that may include bullies or predators. With digital access and communication comes the need for digital citizenship, sometimes referred to as netiquette. According to ISTE Standards for Students (2012),

Online Reading and Research  111

FIGURE 7.10 

We the digital citizens. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/-N7lRY MmbXU.

Source: Common Sense Education. (2019, August 8).

being a digital citizen means that “Students recognize the rights, responsibilities, and opportunities of living, learning and working in an interconnected digital world, and they act and model in ways that are safe, legal and ethical” (p. 1). In addition, students need to: a. cultivate and manage their digital identity and reputation and are aware of the permanence of their actions in the digital world. b. engage in positive, safe, legal and ethical behavior when using technology, including social interactions online or when using networked devices. c. demonstrate an understanding of and respect for the rights and obligations of using and sharing intellectual property. d. manage their personal data to maintain digital privacy and security and are aware of data-collection technology used to track their navigation online. (p. 1)

Revisiting the Online Reading and Research Mind Shift In the Mind Shift, you analyzed a hoax website. Students may or may not be able to determine the credibility of this website. As you analyzed information about the Tree Octopus, you noted suspicious content on the Unreliable column of your T-Chart. You noted reliable text on the right side of your T-Chart. How could you model web literacy skills using this website? You already conducted one of the toughest parts of the teacher’s role. Now, think about how you would model web literacy skills for your students, using this website’s content.

References American Library Association. (2016). Definition of a library: General definition. Retrieved from https://libguides.ala.org/library-definition

112  Applications for Classroom Instruction

Anderson, M., Perrin, A., Jiang, J., & Kuman, M. (2019, April 12). 10% of Americans don’t use the internet! Who are they? FactTank: News in the Numbers. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/22/ some-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/ Baildon, R., & Baildon, M. (2008). Guiding independence: Developing a research tool to support student decision making in selecting online information sources. The Reading Teacher, 61(8), 636–647. doi:10.1598/RT.61.8.5 Bass, W. L. II & Sibberson, F. (2015). Digital reading: What’s essential in Grades 3–8. Urbana, IL: National Council for Teachers of English. Blakemore, E. (2015). The card catalog is officially dead: Long live the card catalog. Smithsonian.com: SMARTNEWS. Retrieved from https://www.smithsonianmag. com/smart-news/card-catalog-dead-180956823/ Blakemore, E. (2017). The Librarian of Congress weighs in on why card catalogs matter. Smithsonian.com. Retrieved from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/ smart-news/card-catalog-dead-180956823/ Bledsoe, C., & Pilgrim, J. (2013). Teaching literacy with technology through instructional models. In J. Whittingham, S. Huffman, W. Rickman, & C. Wiedmaier (Eds.), Technological tools for the literacy classroom (pp. 243–262). New York, NY: IGI Global. Bledsoe, C., Pilgrim, J., Vasinda, S., & Martinez, E. (2019). Making connections: An analogy between traditional and online text. Texas Journal of Literacy Education, 7(1), 10–24. Butterfield, A., & Ngondi, G. (Eds.). (2016). A dictionary of computer science (7th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Clay, M. (2002, 2005, 2016). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Coiro, J. (2005). Making sense of online text. Educational Leadership, 63(2), 30–35. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/oct05/ vol63/num02/Making-Sense-of-Online-Text.aspx Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D. J. (2008). Handbook of research in new literacies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for English/ language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf Dalton, B., & Proctor, C. P. (2008). The changing landscape of text and comprehension in the age of new literacies. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. Leu, (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 297–324). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery. Dorfman, L. R., & Cappelli, R. (2017). Mentor texts: Teaching writing through children’s literature, K-6. Portland, ME: Stenhouse publishers. Dutton, W. H., & Reisdorf, B. C. (2017). Cultural divides and digital inequalities: Attitudes shaping internet and social media divides. Information, Communication & Society, 22(1), 18–38. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2017.1353640 Fingal, D. (2017, December 14). Infographic: Citizenship in the digital age. ISTE. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/explore/articleDetail?articleid=192&category= Digital-citizenship&article=Infographic%3a+Citizenship+in+the+digital+age Foundation for Critical Thinking. (2017). Our concept and definition of critical thinking. Retrieved from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/our-conceptionof-critical-thinking/411

Online Reading and Research  113

Glister, P. (1997). Digital literacy. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2007). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension for understanding, engagement, and building knowledge (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Stenhouse Publishers. Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2017). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension for understanding, engagement, and building knowledge, grades K-8 (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Stenhouse Publishers. International Society for Technology in Education. (2012). National education technology standards for students. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/netsfor-students Kalantzis, M., & Cope, W. (2019). A grammar of multimodal meaning. Literacies: Education at Illinois. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUQe z2U2Jsc&list=PLV_zfgB7n1yS3-Wk65IC7-Sd4_9lpiU2_&index=30&t=0s Krane, B. (2006). Researchers find kids need better online academic skills. University of Connecticut. Retrieved from http://advance.uconn.edu/2006/061113/06111308.htm Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. New York, NY: Routledge. Leu, D. (2017). Schools are an important key to solving the challenge of fake news. Retrieved from https://education.uconn.edu/2017/01/30/schools-are-an-importantkey-to-solving-the-challenge-of-fake-news/ Leu, D. J. (2009). The new Literacies: Research on reading instruction with the internet and other digital technologies. In S. J. Samuels & A. F. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Timbrell, N., & Maykel, C. (2015). Seeing the forest, not the trees: Essential technologies for literacy in the primary grade and upper-elementary grade classroom. The Reading Teacher, 69(2), 139–145. Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2013). New literacies: A dual level theory of the changing nature of literacy. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 1150–1180). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Leu, D. J., Zawilinski, L., Forzani, E., & Timbrell, N. (2014). Best practices in new literacies and the new literacies of online research and comprehension. In L. M. Morrow & L. B. Gambrell (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (5th ed., pp. 343–364). New York, NY: Guilford. Lisenbee, P. S., & Ford, C. (2018). Engaging students in making connections between pedagogy and real world experiences using traditional and digital storytelling. Early Childhood Education Journal, 46(1), 129–139. Lisenbee, P. S. (2009). Influences on young children’s behavior, engagement level and representation during storytelling using an interactive whiteboard. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Mills, K. A. (2016). Literacy theories for the digital age: Social, critical, multimodal, spatial, material and sensory lenses. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. November, A. (2008). Web literacy for educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pilgrim, J., & Martinez, E. (2018, February 28). Media literacy starts with SEARCHing the internet. International Society for Technology Education. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/explore/Digital-and-media-literacy/Medialiteracy-starts-with-SEARCHing-the-internet Pilgrim, J., Vasinda, S., Bledsoe, C., & Martinez, E. (2018). Concepts of online text: Examining online literacy tasks of elementary students. Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 57(3), 68–82.

114  Applications for Classroom Instruction

Pilgrim, J., Vasinda, S., Bledsoe, C., & Martinez, E. (2019). Critical thinking is critical: Octopuses, online sources, and reliability reasoning. The Reading Teacher, 73(1). doi:10.1002/trtr.1800 Pilgrim, J., Vasinda, S., & Lisenbee, P. S. (2019). Universal design for learning: Examining access afforded by children’s search engines. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 20(4), 14–45. Rose, D. H., & Dalton, B. (2006). Engaging the text: Brain research and the universal design of reading strategy supports. In D. H. Rose & A. Meyer (Eds.), A practical reader in universal design for learning (pp. 133–148). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Sullivan, D. (2011). How Google instant’s autocomplete suggestions work. Retrieved from https://searchengineland.com/how-google-instant-autocomplete-suggestionswork-62592 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. National Educational Technology Plan 2010: Executive Summary. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010 Vasinda, S., & Pilgrim, J. (2019). Are we preparing students for the web in the wild? An analysis of features of websites for children. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 20(2), 97–124. Retrieved from http://www.literacyandtechnology.org/ Warlick, D. F. (2009). Redefining literacy 2.0. (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Linworth Books. Zumpano, N. (2019). 5 things students should do to stay safe and secure online. International Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved from https://www. iste.org/explore/Digital-and-media-literacy/5-things-students-should-do-to-staysafe-and-secure-online

8 CHANGING LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS Transformational Practices

Mind Shift Think about the word transform. Throughout this book, we have focused on ways technology transforms learning, when applied effectively. Recall from Chapter 1 that transformation occurs when technology provides opportunities to do work and create products that were previously not possible (Hughes, Thomas, & Scharber, 2006). One of our goals in writing this textbook is to help teachers understand the many opportunities technology tools present. Imagine your school district has moved to a one-to-one technology initiative, in which each student receives a technology device to use at school and home. What are the ways a one-to-one initiative might reinforce traditional 20th-century classroom practices? In what way could a one-to-one initiative transform the learning environment? Use the frameworks from Chapters 3, 4, and 5 to support your thoughts. As you read this chapter, consider additional ways technology tools affect learning environments.

The popular fictional television show Star Trek presented many futuristic scenarios to its avid fans. Among the futuristic devices seen on Star Trek was the holodeck, first introduced as the recreation room in 1974. The holodeck was most commonly depicted as a sort of empty stage, transformed by futuristic technology in which users interacted with virtual-reality environments and its characters. One episode featured a 19th-century American West adventure, with Captain Jean-Luc Picard playing the part of one of his boyhood heroes. These futuristic scenarios are now present-day possibilities when we examine technology tools and simulation environments used for educational, training, and entertainment purposes. For example, with Virtual Reality (VR)

116  Applications for Classroom Instruction

technology, teachers can take students on field trips around the world. How do technology tools such as VR transform the classroom environment? This chapter focuses on aspects of the learning environment, including traditional ideas of environment and space supporting 20th-century teaching and learning with technology, as well as those that harness technology for transformation through a student-centered focus. We address expanding notions of classroom space, materials, and instructional approaches that utilize technology and its potential benefits.

Learning Environments In the preprimary schools of Reggio Emilia, Italy, the learning environment is the third teacher, as its role is to enhance and optimize learning with creative and meaningful challenges that engage students (Gandini, 2012). The space allows for collaborations of large and small groups as well as places for independent thinking. Thoughtful attention to materials and tools widen opportunities for the diverse needs and unique variabilities of a group of learners (Gandini, 2012; Malaguzzi, 1998). “A classroom that is functioning successfully as a third teacher will be responsive to the children’s interests provide opportunities for children to make their thinking visible and then foster further learning and engagement” (Fraser, 2012, p. 67). Some researchers are working towards the development of new physical and digital spaces in which school-based literacies and out-of-school–based literacies meet, allowing teachers and students to work together in this new Third Space (Levy, 2008; Pane, 2007). Pane identifies this Third Space as a zone of transformation which develops when teachers and students integrate social and academic cultures (2007, p. 74). Negotiations in a Third Space include and develop the 4 Cs of communication, critical thinking, creativity, and collaboration. In this book, we have addressed new literacies, theories, and frameworks based on the advancements of technology. We have suggested that technology’s effect on school experiences has changed at a much slower pace than technology’s effect on other aspects of our lives. Educational advocates have long promoted the need for a change to schooling, pedagogy, and various ways to think about teaching and learning (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; New London Group, 1996; Reinking, 1997). For example, the U.S. Office of Educational Technology (2017) states that Technology can be a powerful tool for transforming learning. It can help affirm and advance relationships between educators and students, reinvent our approaches to learning and collaboration, shrink long-standing equity and accessibility gaps, and adapt learning experiences to meet the needs of all learners. (p. 3)

Transformational Learning Environments  117

In this chapter, we address the role of the learning environment in transformational technology practices. One goal for this chapter is to introduce you to possibilities for re-thinking the learning environment, as a third teacher, in ways that foster collaboration, communication, creativity, and critical thinking. We will introduce ways to organize physical space and consider new spaces that blend the physical, digital, and out-of-school literacies with school-based literacies. We have equipped you throughout this textbook with theories, frameworks, and taxonomies to support decision-making about technology integration. We encourage you to consider the possibilities for emerging, transformative classrooms, which may be very different from what most learners have experienced. We encourage you to use your developing Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) to determine whether new classroom designs, materials, and approaches align with your pedagogy. We want you to consider multiliteracies and a UDL mindset as you read about new approaches aligned with technology tools. Finally, consider SAMR (Substitution Augmentation Modification and Redefinition), RAT (Replacement Amplification Transformation), or T3 (Translation, Transformational, Transcendent) to decide if these designs or approaches are transformative. We organized the following sections into three major areas of change related to learning environments and technological advances: Transforming Classroom Space, Transforming Classroom Materials, and Trending Models and Approaches.

Transforming Classroom Space Changing practices and advanced technologies affect more than just how we teach and the tools we use to teach; it affects the space in which we teach. In 2014, the theme of the Literacy Research Association conference, “The Dialogic Construction of Literacies,” focused on the spaces actively constructing literacies. To promote emerging practices and learning styles in classroom designs while preparing students for the workforce, teachers no longer use the traditional, forward-facing rows of desks arranged in a rectangle, where the teacher is on stage at the front of the classroom. Instead, learning spaces are often modular and arranged in ways that support collaboration, self-directed learning, active learning, and inquiry, and creation (New Media Consortium, 2017). One example of the redesign and transformation of classroom space comes from Australian researcher David Thornburg, who applied metaphors to contemporary learning spaces (Davis & Kappler-Hewitt, 2013, para. 7). For example, the “campfire” metaphor reflects classroom design in which the learners sit in a circle. In early elementary classrooms, where teachers have circle time, morning meetings, or whole group instruction while students sit on carpet squares as a group would be the contemporary equivalent to a campfire.

118  Applications for Classroom Instruction

This analogy and organization models the practice where, in the past, our wise elders shared knowledge through storytelling. The circle supports the importance of everyone seeing and being seen. It also supports collaboration. A “cave” signifies a private space and time for independent and reflective work, similar to spaces for independent work in a classroom. A “mountaintop” applies to demonstrate an understanding, so a learner’s thinking and learning are visible from great distances. The space where teachers post student’s work on the classroom walls signifies the importance of students’ thinking. The “watering hole” metaphor represents the informal space where peers share information and discoveries, acting as both the learner and teacher simultaneously. This organization also uses a circle configuration to increase collaboration. Learners need time to work through an idea or create an understanding on their own. These metaphors provide an image of the spaces needed in classrooms for teaching and learning. Another example of new thinking about classroom space is the advent of makerspaces. Makerspaces offer an informal, interdisciplinary place where arts and science processes blend into each other and where learners can come together to tinker, create, and work iteratively with ideas and processes, materials, and tools in increasingly complex ways. These physical spaces, equipped with tools, supplies, and people, foster a shared community of creating with the understanding that learning happens through the making process and social interactions. “Makerspaces are physical environments that foster opportunities for hands-on learning and creation, often enabled by emerging technologies” (New Media Consortium, 2017, p. 40). The space configurations promote active learning and may be found in classrooms, libraries, or community centers as vehicles for promoting student exposure to technological disciplines and by presenting challenges for innovative thinking. A makerspace may be any sort of room, or corner of a room, offering a wide range of creativity and expression both with low-tech and high-tech items. Low-tech and traditional tools and construction materials, such as paper, wood, and plastic, are available. Digital or high-tech tools may include a green screen for the creation of videos, a 3D printer for the creation of 3D objects from 2D images, or manipulatives for coding practice. The making in makerspaces aligns with the 4 Cs— communication, collaboration, creating, and critical thinking.

Beyond Physical Classroom Spaces The learning environment extends beyond the physical space provided for students and includes the social spaces they encounter (Fraser, 2012; Ontario Ministries of Education, 2012). The addition of technology to the learning environment requires educators to think beyond the physical classroom space to opportunities available due to Web 2.0 technology. Learning environments might extend beyond the physical classroom to cyberspace, as students engage

Transformational Learning Environments  119

with peers both inside and outside of the classroom using technology tools like Google Docs or Skype. These tools allow communication and collaboration with peers around the world. Many classroom teachers use social media to share events occurring in the learning environment with parents and students, such as a private class Facebook page or a Twitter hashtag specific to a class. Google Classroom is another example of a free web service that benefits the learning environment. Developed by Google for schools, the Google Classroom platform streamlines many aspects of classroom management. The tool simplifies the work of the teacher by enabling them to create, distribute, receive, and grade assignments in a paperless manner. File sharing with Google Classroom also supports communication between teachers, parents, and students. This extension of the classroom environment enhances communication outside of the classroom. Other uses of technologies that extend beyond the classroom walls include Learning Management Systems (LMSs) like Schoology or Canvas. LMSs were primarily used by institutions of higher education to store and deliver course content. They are now commonly used in secondary schools for teachers to share content, assignments, grades, and more. LMSs may be accessed at anytime and anywhere and enable students to access content information with ease. They offer affordances like immediate feedback on assignments and information about lectures that enhance the learning environment in new and exciting ways. The student who always lost paperwork can now locate assignments on the LMS, as can the student who is absent frequently due to illnesses. The student who needs repetition of a lecture can re-watch or reread information for retention purposes, and the student who is worried about performance on a test can gain immediate feedback for ease of mind. Conceptually different from an LMS, SeeSaw, a learning journal app, creates a shared digital space that showcases student thinking, learning artifacts, and reflections to share with teachers and parents (https://web.seesaw.me/). This free, web-based app can be used on mobile devices across many platforms as a way for students to create digital portfolios that document their learning process. Children as young as preschool can access the app through a class-specific QR code, so typing is not necessary, and learners can access the learning space in seconds. Within the app, students have an array of tools to choose from to demonstrate and document their understanding of classroom concepts or inquiries they are pursuing. Students use a camera to take videos and photos of physical artifacts that can be annotated by typing, drawing, or by using the microphone to narrate their thinking processes and discoveries. Seesaw offers a whiteboard drawing space where students can narrate their thinking and record a problem-solving process. Students can upload their work samples or reflections into their learning journal space that is shared with the teacher, the class, and even their parents, providing a wider audience for their work. The teacher approves all posts and artifacts, noting any developing competencies,

120  Applications for Classroom Instruction

or misconceptions, which provides an opportunity to give individual feedback quickly and plan next steps for learning. Using Seesaw, parents not only have access to their child’s learning journal but to class news, notifications from the teacher, and any group classroom work approved for sharing. The mix of physical and digital tools and materials provides a myriad of options that support diverse learners and creates a digital space in which the mobile tools found in many homes document learning in school. This broader audience motivates students to post their best work and thinking (Vasinda & McLeod, 2011).

Digital and Literacy Rich Environments and Universal Design for Learning Literacy-rich spaces, including the atmosphere and the décor of a classroom, have always been an influential factor in learning environments. The physical environment for literacy learning should include spaces for whole-class discussions, small group work, collaboration, word walls, anchor charts, student work, writing centers, and more. The purpose of a literacy-rich environment is to enable students to explore the elements of literacy—speaking, reading, writing, and listening. According to Gunn, Simmons, and Kameenui (1995), the room arrangement should encourage repeated literacy opportunities that enhance student engagement with learning as students practice skills required for reading and writing. For example, a word wall may promote retention of sight words and serve as a widely visible spelling resource. Technology tools can transform and extend the traditional purposes of a word wall. For example, a teacher may create auditory bar codes on Vocaroo (https://vocaroo.com/) on the word wall so that students can scan the barcode to hear the pronunciation of the word they are seeing. This practice is reflective of UDL’s multiple means of representing information as well as multiple means of engagement. It needs addressing when setting up a classroom with all learners in mind. UDL provides a framework to design lessons with flexible goals, methods, materials, and assessments that support learning for all students. With intentional lesson design comes a need to re-consider classroom design and the learning environment. UDL founders promote the importance of the learning environment in lesson design, as teachers seek ways to make content accessible to students. Thoughtful attention to classroom space can support learning goals for a given learning event or support a particular pedagogy. Once the goal is determined, the teacher should consider how the physical spaces could shift to align with the target goals. For example, if collaboration is part of the goal, desks, chairs, and other parts of the environment may be arranged to foster collaboration. This arrangement may be different than if the goal was to have a full class discussion or independent learner work time. Center for Applied Special Technology (n.d.), CAST, encourages teachers to reflect on the flexibility of classroom configuration for the learning goals and the relevance of materials and resources.

Transformational Learning Environments  121

Also, posting goals and success criteria in digital and physical spaces helps students know the learning targets and when they have achieved it. For example, lesson goals for specific lessons may be posted on chart paper, on a dry erase board, shared digitally in the LMS, or on SeeSaw for all students to view. Students might also write down or insert lesson goals in their physical or digital journals, and the teacher may refer to these goals during the lesson itself. When goals are made clear, students can use digital or traditional tools to demonstrate or document their evidence of understanding (Center for Applied Special Technology, 2018). Finally, UDL promotes flexibility in the learning environment. This flexibility includes spaces for quiet individual work, small and large group work, and group instruction.

Transforming Classroom Materials The implementation of transformational learning pedagogies occurs with facilitation by the teacher to consider materials and tools for children both in and out of the classroom are accessible. Some schools have transitioned from chalkboards and easels to interactive whiteboards and tablet computers. Over 90% of public schools house computers within their walls, a number which has been steadily rising (Mayclin, 2016). Laptops, tablets, and smartphones are commonplace tools for many students. The tools and materials teachers choose are both ethical and pedagogical decisions. Choosing interactive whiteboards over individual devices may represent and reinforce a teacher-centered pedagogy of lecture versus a student-centered, hands-on approach to teaching and learning. It is important to note that both can reinforce and recreate traditional approaches. The 2017 National Educational Technology Plan (NETP) focuses on using technology to transform learning experiences to provide greater equity and accessibility. The NETP defines equity and accessibility as follows: •

•

Equity in education means increasing all students’ access to educational opportunities with a focus on closing achievement gaps and removing barriers. Many students face barriers based on their race, ethnicity, or national origin; sex; sexual orientation or gender identity or expression; disability; English language ability; religion; socioeconomic status; or geographical location. Accessibility refers to the design of apps, devices, materials, and environments that support and enable access to content and educational activities for all learners. In addition to enabling students with disabilities to use content and participate in activities, the concepts also apply to accommodate the individual learning needs of students, such as English language learners, students in rural communities, or from economically disadvantaged homes. Technology can support accessibility through embedded assistance,

122  Applications for Classroom Instruction

for example, text-to-speech, audio and digital text formats of instructional materials, programs that differentiate instruction, adaptive testing, built-in accommodations, and assistive technology. (U.S. Department of Education, 2017, p. 5) Educators in many school districts have addressed these goals through the adoption of one-to-one technology initiatives, in which students receive a personal technology device. Students then use these devices in their everyday classroom activities.

One-to-One Initiatives Effect on Learning Environments The definition of one-to-one (1:1) typically refers to a school that provides a take-home laptop computer or tablet for every student within some grade span of the school system (Sauers & McLeod, 2012). The issued device supports student learning in the classroom and at home. According to the New Media Consortium Horizon Report, mobile apps and tablet computing are significant contenders to change the face of classroom learning through K-12 technology adoption (Freeman, Adams-Becker, Cummins, Davis, & Hall-Giesinger, 2017). A Speak Up survey conducted during 2018–2020 academic years with data from over 450,000 K-12 teachers, students, parents, and community members, revealed that 33% of 6–12 grade students, and 12% of 3–5 grade students reported having access to 1:1 devices at school and at home (Project Tomorrow, 2020). Evans (2018) reported that school computer labs provide access to a computer for only 35% of K-2 students and 23% of high school students. The change is likely due to the availability of tablets or laptops in classrooms and the deployment of 1:1 devices. The 2017 Horizon Expert Panel stated that as 1:1 mobile initiatives expand, students have a more exceptional ability to learn anywhere allowing for more access, collaboration, and facilitation between and among peers and experts (Freeman et al., 2017). High school students that have school-issued laptops report that they take more notes, collaborate more with their peers, email their teachers with questions, and check on their grades more than students surveyed that do not have school-issued mobile devices (Evans, 2018). Google Maps and GPS tools offer experiential and engaging learning opportunities for students in classrooms. Students can collaborate and create presentations about their community, other countries, and specific landmarks around the world by using Google Maps linked to location waypoints during oral presentations to provide context students would not have without this technology (Elliot, 2009; Ragupathi, 2013). Geocaching lessons empowered teachers to engage students in exploring school grounds with a GPS receiver as a way to motivate students to practice reading and writing skills in all subject areas (Lisenbee, Hallman, & Landry, 2015).

Transformational Learning Environments  123

FIGURE 8.1

Mount Evans on Google Maps with 360° Camera.

Source: used with permission of J.M. Pilgrim (2017).

Other technology tools enhance the learning environment, as well. There was a time where the concept of the holodeck, mentioned at the start of this chapter, was purely science fiction. As simulated environments become a reality, learners can gain knowledge and experiences. With technology tools such as Virtual Reality, teachers can provide opportunities for students to engage with environments. This instructional strategy reflects experiential learning (Dewey, 1938; Kolb, 1984). John Dewey (1938) promoted the benefits of experiential learning, explaining, “there is an intimate and necessary relation between the processes of experience and education” (p. 7). He asserted that experiential learning enables students to develop their own opinions of a concept based on interaction with the information. In addition, he suggested that each situation is individualized, based on past experiences. When classroom learning provides individual opportunities for experiences and reflection, varying viewpoints are supported. Three powerful technology applications, described below, include Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, and Mixed Reality.

Virtual Reality The notion of Virtual Reality (VR) refers to “computer-generated environments that simulate the physical presence of people and/or objects and realistic sensory experiences” (New Media Consortium, 2016, p. 42). VR utilizes interactive 3D images that users can experience with a mouse and a keyboard or with headsets designed to immerse the user in a virtual environment (Figure 8.1). So far, the most common applications for VR tools have been for military training and gaming environments (New Media Consortium, 2016). The lifelike simulations provide authentic experiences for these users. Alternative applications for using this powerful tool expanded to other fields, including education. On an educational level, viewing and experiencing lifelike simulations

124  Applications for Classroom Instruction

FIGURE 8.2

Virtual reality revolution article.

Source: Used with permission of http://thenetwork.cisco.com/. Retrieved from https:// newsroom.cisco.com/feature-content?type=webcontent&articleId=1757975

complements classroom instruction in many ways. For the classroom teacher, the ability to share experiences relevant to an object or place may provide the background knowledge necessary for a student to gain an understanding of content or text. Imagine the instructional applications of such a tool. Instead of a traditional field trip, students can go on a virtual field trip. For example, a teacher introducing text about the Egyptian pyramids may provide an opportunity for students to tour a pyramid using VR tools (Pilgrim & Pilgrim, 2016). This type of activity is becoming easier with the support of companies like Google. Google launched its Google Expeditions Pioneer Program in 2015 (https://www. google.com/edu/expeditions/). The program enabled schools to pilot kits that contained tools for virtual trips to far-away places like Mars and the Great Wall of China as well as settings of various professions in order to learn about careers (Mak, 2016). The materials required for the VR tours include cellphones and Google Cardboard. The Google Cardboard devices, resembling goggles, attach to a smartphone and become a VR headset that enables everyone to experience places as if they were actually at the site (Figure 8.2). The purchase of one of these cardboard headsets is less than ten dollars. Google Expeditions is one of many VR apps that may be downloaded on your mobile device to provide these virtual experiences. In addition to viewing VR landscapes, students may create their own VR experience. Using the Google Street View app, for instance, students may upload 360o photos from a 360o camera or make photo-sphere photos on their mobile device. When creating the 360o image, users can select options that include the ability to view the scene using a phone, computer, or by inserting the device into a virtual reality headset. Teachers or their students may create their own 360o VR experiences or engage in a virtual field trip to almost anywhere in the world by using the apps or websites listed in Table 8.1.

Transformational Learning Environments  125 TABLE 8.1 Virtual Reality Resources

VR Website/App

Website/App Address and Description



• http://www.samrohn.com/ Provides virtual tours of factories, museums, city buildings, and public spaces mainly in the New York area • http://blakewaygigapixel.com/ • Provides ultra-high resolution 360o views for sporting venues, parks, and monuments. These shots are mainly designed for 360o computer applications but can be adapted to Google Glass/VR • http://www.airpano.com Provides visuals of locations around the world that can be viewed on a computer. At this time, VR on headsets is not supported, but adaptations can be made to use VR devices like Google Glass • http://www.worldtour360.com/ and http:// worldin360.com/ Provides views from around the world. Most of these are aerial views of cities and currently do not support VR devices. They can be used on computers and electronic notepads • http://youtube.com/ Provides videos for classroom and virtual reality experiences for Google Cardboard. Because this includes video, a fast processor is required • http://www.3dmekanlar.com Provides views of locations and cultural centers in Europe and Western Asia. Can be used with Google Cardboard • https://www.youvisit.com/ Provides videos and pictures from sites around the world, including cultural events, industries, vacation spots, and much more. This site also offers college campus tours in 360 o • http://www.vatican.va/ Provides tours and information about the Vatican in Rome. Students can enter each room with High Definition pictures. Only available for 360o views (not Google Cardboard) • http://kidworldcitizen.org Provides tours and views of sites around the world specifically designed to introduce children to other parts of the world and cultures • https://www.google.com/edu/expeditions/ Provides tours of museums, urban landscapes, fieldtrip experiences, and much more

SamRohn 360 VR Panoramic Photography and Virtual Tours

• Blakeway Gigapixel



AirPano Arial Panorama and 360 World Tours

• World Tour 360 World in 360

• YouTube

• Sites in 3D Virtual Tours

• You Visit 360

• Vatican

• Kid World Citizen

• Google Expeditions

(Continued)

126  Applications for Classroom Instruction

VR Website/App

Website/App Address and Description

• Google Streets

• https://www.google.com/streetview/ Provides 360o views of many sites around the world. The application also allows users to take and share their own 360o pictures • http://incell.nivalvr.com/ Takes students with a tutorial tour of a cell inside the body • http://panoramas.dk Panoramic views of places to let you travel the world virtually • http://panoramas.dk/US/index.html Panoramic views of the United States of America • http://Googleartproject.com A collection of art from 17 highly acclaimed art museums from around the world with over 1,000 pieces of art to view • http://www.google.com/sky/ Explore stars, constellations, and galaxies as they form. It provides images of what the sky might look like if we were out in the universe viewing it from there • http://mnh.si.edu/panoramas This virtual tour allows you to go at your own pace as you explore the National Museum of Natural History in Washington DC. They have 360° views from anywhere in the building and guide you on multiple paths using a blue arrow on the floor • http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/full/tour-pkg. html The progression of aeronautics in the United States from the Wright brothers to current day aircraft • http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/oxfordtour/ universitymuseum/# Collections from across the globe of zoology, mineralogy, geology, and entomology and some dinosaur exhibits including a 40-foot T-Rex. The building boasts of Victorian Gothic architecture that is one of the finest examples of that time period • http://www.visitingdc.com/white-house/virtualtour-white-house.htm This is the public tour you would take if you went to the White House while in Washington DC • http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/interactive-tour A tour of rooms including the significance and history of each room

• InCell VR

• Panoramas.dk

• 360 Panoramic Tour of the USA • Google Art Projects

• Google Sky

• Smithsonian

• National Museum of the United States Air Force

• Oxford University Museum of Natural History

• White House Public Tour

• Inside the White House

Adapted from Pilgrim and Pilgrim (2016).

Transformational Learning Environments  127

Augmented Reality Where VR offers environments for you to interact with and immerse yourself in, Augmented Reality (AR) adds to the physical reality you see, rather than replacing it (Emspak, 2018). Pokemon Go is an AR mobile game in which players use a mobile device GPS to locate, capture, evolve, battle, and train virtual creatures, called Pokemon. A similar game came out in 2018 based on the Harry Potter books. The Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery app enables players to cast spells and use potions in the Hogwarts world. Augmented reality superimposes information—sounds, images, and text—on the world we see. Therefore, the educational uses of this tool engage students using the technology they carry everywhere—their mobile phones. AR can support or supplement traditional classroom materials. For example, a student might scan the covers of textbooks to get a short synopsis of the content. Tools like HP Reveal (formerly Aurasma) use pictorial references or trigger images to activate a database of overlays or auras. Using a mobile device with a camera and the application, a user can frame a trigger image, causing a preset video or picture Aura to appear on the screen. Students can also create their videos and trigger images to create virtual links to their physical work, such as linking an active observation of a science experiment to their science notebook entry. Osmo (https://www.playosmo.com/en/) is another blended learning game system that mixes physical objects with digital tools, using AR to bring a drawing to life or provide hints for a physical tangram puzzle. Using a base to hold either an iPad or Kindle Fire, a reflective mirror works with the camera to adjust the optics so that the camera is essentially recording the table area in front of the device. This enables the Osmo apps to see the objects placed there. Children can work on alphabetic literacies, spelling, and decoding, as well as tangram problem-solving, coding, and creative pursuits. Interactive learning and gaming systems bridge the physical world and the digital world by leveraging artificial intelligence.

Mixed Reality A Mixed Reality (MR) experience combines elements of both AR and VR so that real-world and digital objects interact (Milman, 2018). In MR, participants interact with and manipulate virtual items that respond as if they are physical items, using next-generation sensing and imaging technologies such as Microsoft’s HoloLens. Mixed Reality allows you to see and immerse yourself in the physical world around you even as you interact with a virtual environment using your hands to manipulate objects, rather than a controller, or use your feet to move about virtual spaces. The potential for students to engage in a simulated, hands-on experience related to potential careers is expanding with MR technology.

128  Applications for Classroom Instruction

Other Technology Tools Another Star Trek phenomenon that is now a reality is the talking computer. Just as Star Trek’s Captain Kirk spoke to the Enterprise’s computer, teachers are leveraging this technology as a teaching assistant using Apple’s Siri, Amazon’s Echo, or Google’s Assistant. Children ask these virtual assistants how to spell a word or search a topic on the internet. These speech-activated tools provide information, tell stories, help with math facts, and present a new perspective (Blackboard, 2018). Like voice-activated search engine affordances described in the last chapter, these tools were originally designed for convenience, but also provide support for emergent readers. As they become affordable, some teachers are finding ways to incorporate them into classroom use.

Literacy Rich Materials and Universal Design for Learning Instructional materials, both traditional and technology-driven, help build literacy-rich learning environments. Classrooms need to include vast selections of books of all genres to promote reading for pleasure. In addition to printbased materials, teachers may include technology tools in their classrooms that enhance and extend traditional books. For example, the Dr. Seuss app on the iPad or Tumblebooks.com may engage a learner with enhanced visuals and feedback. Classroom materials are a significant consideration when it comes to UDL and lesson design, as resource areas and materials must be accessible to all students (Center for Applied Special Technology, n.d.). According to King-Sears (2009), a common issue with the presentation of materials is the size and space for approach and use. In other words, teachers need to ensure that the size of the content (e.g., print on a powerpoint) is large enough for viewing by students seated in different areas of the room. Materials need to be large enough and presented in an uncluttered format that facilitates students to focus on the essential content and not on their organization or size. Resources around the classroom may provide scaffolds and support for learners to use as needed, i.e., classroom spaces designated for materials like dictionaries, thesaurus, calculators, writing tools, graphic organizers, and assorted lined, graph, or colored papers. Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST, n.d.) encourages teachers to reflect on space in the learning environment that accommodates student choice of tools, materials, sound, lighting, seating, and resources. Another UDL tip is to integrate digital resources and materials, offering flexibility. For example, text-to-speech tools help struggling readers and English Learners. Teachers may also consider digital materials that provide flexibility in the display of content (color, contrast, size); built-in supports like dictionaries, highlighting, and in-line note-taking; open and closed captions;

Transformational Learning Environments  129

audio descriptions for video; and image descriptions. CAST (n.d.) prompts teachers to reflect on ways to increase the availability and accessibility of digital resources and materials for all learners. The intentional selection and use of materials is central to the development of a literacy-rich environment and is essential to processes in implementing UDL principles supporting transformational possibilities with classroom materials.

Transforming Learning Models and Approaches The presence of technology in schools will only increase over time, and changing instructional models will continue to evolve. New educational approaches that leverage technology are impacting the design of learning spaces. This third section about learning environments overlaps with the previous section on the use of space. The instructional approaches you will read about in this section, even though they reflect a different way to think about classroom space, more importantly, reflect learning models that have been affected by advances in technology. The International Society for Technology in Education promotes student-centered approaches such as project-, problem-, and challenge-based learning as learning trends because these pedagogical frameworks foster connectedness to the world outside the classroom through curriculum (Freeman et  al., 2017). We discuss these trends, as well as other blended learning approaches, in order to demonstrate a change in the ways information is accessed, created, and presented in the classroom. Across all levels of education, schools continue to look for high-quality learning opportunities.

Blended Learning Technology has the potential to transform learning, and therefore, may alter the way teachers approach literacy instruction both in and outside of the classroom. Blended learning, for example, includes both online learning, where the space in which students learn is the internet, and part in the physical space of the school. At the most basic level, blended learning involves the combination of face-to-face and technology-mediated instruction (Halverson & Graham, 2019). This definition, however, refers to surface-level features of this trend rather than the pedagogical features this method requires in order to engage students effectively in an online learning environment. Characteristics of blended learning also include increased flexibility and personalization in which students have some control over the learning path, place, and pace and using technology tools and available modalities resulting in diversified learning pathways (Horn & Fisher, 2017; Tucker, Wycoff, & Green, 2017). In a blended learning culture, students are drivers of their learning. An example of blended learning in an elementary school setting is Station Rotation. According to Horn and Fisher (2017), it is the fastest-growing blended learning model. This blended learning

130  Applications for Classroom Instruction

concept embraces literacy centers where students learn in small group settings among different learning stations, including an online station in which learning personalization occurs.

Personalized Learning Personalized learning is an educational approach customized to each student’s learning needs and preferences while taking into account all students’ interests, strengths, and skills towards meeting (Morin, n.d.) all normative standards and objectives (Twyman, 2014). Sometimes personalization is confused with the words individualization and differentiation, but each term has a single definition (Twyman, 2014). Individualization is related to a teacher’s determination of a student’s abilities and determination of what objectives each student will master in a short-term and long-term timeframe so that all students meet the same objectives over time, but not at the same time (Twyman, 2014). Differentiation is a term used when teachers evaluate the abilities of students with learning variabilities and take their preferences into account when planning how these students will meet normative standards and objectives (Twyman, 2014). Bray and McClaskey (2015) explain that personalization includes the missing piece in the curriculum by taking into account the agency of the learner when making lesson plans. The blended approach to these goals includes mentoring, project-based learning, and self-direction. In addition to using a variety of pedagogical approaches, much like the multiliteracies reflexive pedagogy, teachers teach whole-group and small-group lessons. Teachers also design personalized learning playlists as a digital component of the learning environment. Teachers consider the learning strengths and needs of their students as they determine the instruction resources that will support each student, such as leading with a video followed by selected texts or other media.

The Flipped Classroom The flipped classroom is another example of blended learning, where education materials on the internet are sources of original content (New Media Consortium, 2013). In the flipped classroom, studies on new concepts and materials begin outside of school initially, most often through a video-lecture format, leaving class time for active learning. Student-centered, active learning reinforces, and refines skills with discussions, collaborations among classmates, problem-solving, and experimentation. According to Horn and Fisher (2017), blended learning models like Station Rotation and flipped instruction sustain but improve on “traditional time and cohort-based classrooms” (p. 63). A critical point is how to spend the in-class time. Time in class is active application activities with coaching help from the teacher. Teachers Dana Johansen and Sonja Cherry-Paul have created a variation of flipped learning in which

Transformational Learning Environments  131

they make short videos of mini-lessons they find themselves repeating over and over again in writing conferences as children are at the point of needing the mini-lesson. Teachers provide their instructional videos as a computer station during writer’s workshop. The video becomes an instructional tool to use with a student who demonstrates a need for concept reinforcement. The option to use video instruction to personalize one student’s learning allows the teacher to confer with another student or meet with a small group ( Johansen & CherryPaul, 2016).

Project-Based Learning Project-based learning, an instructional model in which projects drive teaching and learning, employs inquiry and technology to engage students with realworld problems (Boondee, Kidrakarn, & Sa-Ngiamvibool, 2011; Weizman, Schwartz, & Fortus, 2008). Teachers initiate projects with clear, final products in mind (Yetkiner, Anderoglu, & Capraro, 2008) in order to integrate curriculum-related skills (Larmer, Ross, & Mergendoller, 2009). Not only does project-based learning enhance student involvement, but it also has the benefit of enhancing critical thinking, problem-solving, communication, collaboration, creativity, literacy, and global awareness (Bell, 2010; McCollister & Sayler, 2010; Neo & Neo, 2009). Researchers suggest this type of student-centered learning is more effective than traditional instruction, improves retention of content knowledge, and increases students’ achievement on standardized tests (Larmer et al., 2009). Project-based learning applies to any content area and is often interdisciplinary. Learning through the use of projects is an effective approach for teaching content knowledge while instilling and developing skills necessary for authentic learning (Breen & Fallon, 2005).

Problem-Based Learning Problem-based learning (PBL) is a student-centered approach in which students work in groups to solve an open-ended problem through research and collaboration. The problem, if relevant and engaging, drives student motivation and learning. Problem-based learning is similar to project-based learning in that the problem is presented first, rather than starting with direct instruction on the topic. PBL assignments can be short or complex. In general, students must examine and define the problem, explore the problem, evaluate ways to solve the problem, solve the problem, and report findings (Cornell University, 2019).

Challenge-Based Learning Challenge-Based Learning (CBL) is another model used to facilitate studentcentered instruction. Problem-solving, which is the foundation of CBL, plays a vital role in the learning process (Leu, Leu, & Coiro, 2004). CBL is

132  Applications for Classroom Instruction

a multidisciplinary approach to teaching and learning in which teachers and students collaborate with community members in relevant learning exercises. Students apply the technology they use daily to solve problems (Apple, 2012). CBL Learning by Apple uses problem-based, contextually appropriate challenges in an interdisciplinary environment to promote skills valued in a global society. CBL is a learning process, which requires a research approach. The CBL approach includes six components applied in a way that trains students on how to engage in research to develop a more in-depth knowledge of the subject and to entertain global discussions about relevant issues (Apple, 2012). Students begin with a broad topic or big idea to research. Students form research teams to develop essential questions about the topic to reflect individual or collective interests. A challenge guides the learners towards a real-world solution. Learners develop guiding questions, activities, and resources. This stage of research often requires technology and collaboration. Finally, students develop a solution, which can include implementation and reflection as students present or publish their findings (Apple, 2012). The products should demonstrate learning and may incorporate technology through presentations, wikis, or blogs as well as traditional products such as a speech or written report. Teachers using this student-centered approach must facilitate students in directing their learning.

Beyond Transformation: Transcending Learning Student-centered approaches, like project-based learning, problem-based learning, and challenge-based learning, enable students to address real-world problems driven by their passions. Magana (2017) promotes inquiry-based methods, and in his T3 Framework, suggests that solving real-world problems extends beyond transforming learning to transcending learning. Magana (2017) advocates the use of technology for the greater good. In other words, he maintains that the highest application of technology use is to imagine, design, and create new tools or platforms to solve problems that matter. In his T3 Framework, described in Chapter 5, Magana defined transcendence as learning that “goes well above and beyond the normal range of human outcomes and expectations” (p. 63).

New Approaches and Universal Design for Learning An important UDL consideration used for the learning environment needs to be evidence-based methods supported by an analysis of each learner’s variability. We know that research has yet to catch up with advances in technology tools for educational purposes. We also know there is a need for more research on models driven by technology, like blended and personalized learning. Methods must be flexible and adjusted regularly through consistent monitoring

Transformational Learning Environments  133

of student progress. When implemented as an approach, adhering to UDL principles—multiple means of representation, multiple means of action and expression, and multiple means of engagement—helps teachers focus on all student’s needs. Pedagogical considerations must include assignment options, flexible workspaces, regular feedback, and tools for success (Center for Applied Special Technology, 2018). This chapter highlighted classroom designs, materials, tools, and approaches to support agency in learning. Learners with agency can “intentionally make things happen by [their] actions,” and “agency enables people to play a part in their self-development, adaptation, and self-renewal with changing times” (U.S. Department of Education, 2017, p. 10). Progressive educator, theorist, and visionary John Dewey (1938) considered education as “a process of living and not a preparation for future living” (p. 78) in his pedagogical creed. His words continue to support current contexts of learning environments and the tools of today used in today’s classroom. As teaching practices transform with advancing technology, opportunities for personalized learning will continue to develop agency and build the foundation for lifelong, self-directed learning.

Agency in Learning Environment and technology impact learning and engagement. Active learning spaces have the characteristics of being mobile, flexible, varied, and connected. They can also serve as a third teacher to support agency. When learners know they will have the time, tools, and resources they need to explore a curiosity or master a concept, the environment supports the learner. When students know they will have the support of the teacher, their peers, and the internet, they develop confidence in their ability to be self-directed learners. Additionally, technology has been recognized as a way to promote equity and access among learners, “affording historically disadvantaged students greater equity of access to high-quality learning materials, expertise, personalized learning, and tools for planning for future education” (U.S. Department of Education, 2017, p. 9). Technology, when carefully designed and thoughtfully applied, has the potential to accelerate, amplify, and expand the impact of effective teaching practices (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). Advances in technology will continue to transform instructional practices. They will continue to impact student agency, which gives students a voice in how they learn, whether it is through choice in assignments, technology, or participation. Creative freedom, or agency, enables students to make learning choices regarding what, when, and how to learn (Richardson, 2019). “And when the integration of modern technologies amplifies that agency, we have a potent mix for solving real problems in the world, benefiting real people in powerful ways” (para. 6).

134  Applications for Classroom Instruction

Revisiting the Learning Environment Mind Shift Think back to the Mind Shift for this chapter, where we revisited the word transform. We use the term transform frequently when it comes to technology use in education. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the verb transform means to change in composition or structure, to change the outward form or appearance of, and to change in character or condition. The act of transforming extends across the design. The concept of design, or creation, from a multiliteracies perspective, recognizes agency, variability, and diversity from a strengths-based perspective. It also includes a multitude of modes and tools. You were encouraged to consider the many opportunities technology tools might present in a one-to-one initiative. We know that teachers may use the devices to extend practices already in existence. For example, the use of a tablet for notetaking or for homework submission. These uses reflect Substitution (SAMR), Replacement (RAT), or Automation (T1.1). After reading the chapter, are you able to add transformative practices to your ideas? How did you apply frameworks to your thinking? The next chapter extends our discussion of technology use.

References Apple Press Info. (2012). Apple reinvents textbooks with iBooks 2 for iPad. Retrieved from http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2012/01/19Apple-Reinvents-Textbookswith-iBooks-2for-iPad.html Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. Clearing House, 83(2), 39–43. doi:10.1080/00098650903505415 Blackboard. (2018, October 26). Using Amazon Alexa as a classroom teaching assistant. Retrieved from https://blog.blackboard.com/using-amazon-alexa-as-aclassroom-teaching-assistant/ Boondee, V., Kidrakarn, P., & Sa-Ngiamvibool, W. (2011). A learning and teaching model using project-based learning (PBL) on the web to promote cooperative learning. European Journal of Social Science, 21(3), 498–506. Bray, B., & McClaskey, K. (2015). Personalization vs. differentiation vs. individualization report, (PDI), v3. Retrieved from http://www.my-ecoach.com/online/ resources/5/pdi-report-v312.pdf Breen, E., & Fallon, H. (2005). Developing student information literacy skills to support problem and project-based learning. In T. Barrett, I. Mac Labhrain, & H. Fallon (Eds.), Handbook of enquiry and problem-based learning: Irish case studies and international perspectives (pp. 179–188). Galway, Ireland: Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching. Center for Applied Special Technology. (2018). 5 examples of Universal Design for Learning in the classroom. Understood. Retrieved from https://www.understood. org/en/learning-attention-issues/treatments-approaches/educational-strategies/5examples-of-universal-design-for-learning-in-the-classroom?view=slideview Center for Applied Special Technology. (n.d.). Top 5 UDL tips for learning environments. Retrieved from http://castprofessionallearning.org/project/ top-5-udl-tips-for-learning-environments/ Cope, W., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London, UK: Routledge.

Transformational Learning Environments  135

Cornell University. (2019). Problem-based learning. Center for Teaching Innovation. Retrieved from https://teaching.cornell.edu/teaching-resources/engagingstudents/problem-based-learning Davis, A. W., & Kappler-Hewitt, K. (2013). Australia’s campfires, caves, and watering holes. Learning and Leading with Technology, 40(8), 24–26. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience in education. New York, NY: MacMillan. Elliot, R. (2009). Using google my maps for classroom projects. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 12(4). Retrieved from http://www.tesl-ej.org/pdf/ej48/ m1.pdf Emspak, J. (2018). What is augmented reality? LiveScience. Retrieved from https:// www.livescience.com/34843-augmented-reality.html Fraser, S. (2012). Authentic childhood. Scarborough, ON: Nelson Education. Freeman, A., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., & Hall Giesinger, C. (2017). NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2017 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Gandini, L. (2012). Connecting through caring and learning spaces. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia experience in transformation (3rd ed., pp. 317–341). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Gunn, B. K., Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1995). Emergent literacy: A synthesis of the research. Eugene, OR: The National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators. Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2019). Learner engagement in blended learning environments: A conceptual framework. Online Learning, 23(2), 145–178. https:// dewey.umhb.edu:2128/10.24059/olj.v23i2.1481 Horn, M. B., & Fisher, J. F. (2017). New faces of blended learning. Educational Leadership, 74(6), 59–63. Johansen, D., & Cherry-Paul, S. (2016). Flip your writing workshop: A blended learning approach. Portsmouth, NH: Heinneman. King-Sears, M. (2009). Universal design for learning: Technology and pedagogy. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(4), 190–201. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Larmer, J., Ross, D., & Mergendoller, J. R. (2009). PBL starter kit: To-the-point advice, tools and tips for your first project in middle or high school. Novato, CA: Buck Institute for Education. Leu, D. J., Jr., Leu, D. D., & Coiro, J. (2004). Teaching with the internet: New literacies for new times (4th ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Levy, R. (2008). ‘Third spaces’ are interesting places: Applying ‘third space theory’ to nursery-aged children’s constructions of themselves as readers. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 8(1), 43–66. Lisenbee, P. S., Hallman, C., & Landry, D. (2015). Geocaching is catching students’ attention in the classroom. The Geography Teacher, 12(1), 7–16. Magana, S. (2017). Disruptive classroom technologies: A framework for innovation in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Mak, J. (2016). Google expeditions offers stunning field trips without leaving school. The International Society for Technology in Education. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/explore/In-the-classroom/Google-Expeditions-offersstunning-field-trips-without-leaving-school Malaguzzi, L. (1998). History, ideas, and basic philosophy. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach – advanced reflections. Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

136  Applications for Classroom Instruction

Mayclin, D. (2016). Computer and technology use in education buildings continues to increase. Retrieved October 18, 2017, from https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/ detail.php?id=24812 McCollister, K., & Sayler, M. (2010). Lift the ceiling. Gifted Child Today, 33(1), 41–47. Milman, N. B. (2018). Defining and conceptualizing mixed reality, augmented reality, and virtual reality. Distance Learning, 15(2), 55–58. Morin, A. (n.d.). Personalized learning: What you need to know. Understood. Retrieved from https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/partnering-with-childsschool/instructional-strategies/personalized-learning-what-you-need-to-know Neo, M., & Neo, T. (2009). Engaging students in multi-mediated constructivist learning – Students’ perceptions. Educational Technology & Society, 12(2), 254–266. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. Ontario Ministries of Education. (2012). The third teacher. The Capacity Building Series, 27, 1–8. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/ research/cbs_thirdteacher.pdf Pane, D. M. (2007). Third space: Blended teaching and learning. Journal for the Research Center for Educational Technology (RCET), 5(1), 64–92. Pilgrim, J. M., & Pilgrim, J. (2016). The use of virtual reality tools in the readinglanguage arts classroom. Texas Journal of Literacy Education, 4(2), 90–97. Project Tomorrow. (March 2020). Speak Up 2017 National Data Infographic: Are our k-12 students ready for virtual or online learning at home? Irvine, CA: Project Tomorrow. Ragupathi, K. (2013, March). Collaborative learning using google docs & maps. Technology in Pedagogy, 15, 1–8. Reinking, D. (1997). Me and my hypertext: A multiple digression analysis of technology and literacy. The Reading Teacher, 50(8), 626–643. Richardson, W. (2019). Sparking student agency with technology. Educational Leadership, 76(5). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership/feb19/vol76/num05/Sparking-Student-Agency-with-Technology.aspx Sauers, N. J., & McLeod, S. (2012). What does the research say about school one-to-one computing initiatives? UCEA Center for the Advanced Study of Technology Leadership in Education. Retrieved from http://www.natickps.org/CASTLEBrief01_ LaptopPrograms.pdf Tucker, C., Wycoff, T., & Green, J. (2017). Blended learning in action: A practical guide toward sustainable change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Twyman, J. S. (2014). Competency-based education: Supporting personalized learning. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED558055.pdf U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 national education technology plan update. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf Vasinda, S., & McLeod, J. (2011). Extending readers theater: A powerful and purposeful match with podcasting. The Reading Teacher, 64(7), 486–497. Weizman, A., Schwartz, Y., & Fortus, D. (2008). The driving question board. Science Teacher, 75(8), 33–37. Yetkiner, Z. E., Anderoglu, H., & Capraro, R. M. (2008). Research summary: Projectbased learning in middle grades mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.nmsa.org/ Research/ResearchSummaries/ProjectBasedLearninginMath/tabid/1570/Default. aspx

9 LESSON DESIGN The Teacher as the Architect

Mind Shift Think about lesson planning. What goes into lesson design? Based on a multiliteracies perspective and models and frameworks for considering available digital tools, what new considerations will you add to your planning process? Think of a learning need or literacy objective you need to teach. As you read Chapter 9, apply your growing technological and pedagogical knowledge to expand your thinking about how to make literacy learning accessible. At the end of this chapter, you will return to your selected literacy objective. We encourage you to explore the digital tools highlighted in this chapter as future resources for lesson design.

In the world of literacy, instruction must align with real-world means of communication. Acknowledging multiliteracies and the idea that we communicate in many ways or many modes is a critical component of literacy instruction. Literacy activities in schools should reflect ways children and youth engage with print and digital media outside of school. Throughout this book, we have shared frameworks and models to describe teacher knowledge needed to support student literacy learning in our multiliteracies and multimodal world. This chapter concludes our discussion of technology integration and literacy instruction with examples of lesson planning that align with ideas presented throughout this textbook. Our goal for this closing chapter is to assist teachers in the decision-making process of lesson design and the evaluation process for transformative literacy learning. Lesson design, using multiliteracies and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) as contextual lenses and approaches for supporting unique learners,

138  Applications for Classroom Instruction

makes learning accessible to all. These contextual considerations frame the decision-making process for planning instruction that mirrors the world outside of school more accurately. Just as architects design structures starting with the purpose of the facility and goals of the users, teachers begin lesson design with the literacy learning goals, and the student needs in their classrooms. While architects consider accessibility with elevators, ramps, automatic doors, and adaptive lighting for people of varying needs and abilities, teachers design lessons to provide access to learning for children of varying needs and abilities. Architects also consider the aesthetic design and wishes of clients in creating structures that are interesting and pleasing. Teachers consider the engagement of their students to create lessons that capitalize on the curiosity and interests of students. In other words, the teacher is the architect of lesson design. In this chapter, we provide opportunities to apply intentional lesson design, using frameworks and foundations presented throughout this book, to equip teachers to become agents of change for students in a changing world.

Teachers as Architects of Lesson Design Lesson design is a complex process. A teacher’s lesson plan is like an architect’s blueprint. Figure 9.1 depicts the teacher’s blueprint with a visual of the foundations and frameworks presented in this textbook. Because we frame our thinking using a multiliteracies perspective, the idea that we work with diverse groups of learners who communicate in many ways and many modes is an overarching consideration for literacy instruction. In Section 1 of this textbook, we addressed multiliteracies and the growing and changing concepts about what it means to be literate. In Section 2, we addressed frameworks for thinking about technology integration. These frameworks are pillars in our lesson blueprint (Figure 9.1). The four planning pillars work together to support lesson design: technology integration (TPACK), pedagogy, UDL, and the learning environment. Each pillar includes three suggested foundational elements for thinking about technology integration in literacy instruction. Now, to conclude Section 3 of the textbook, we move to teacher application of the models and frameworks. In the next section, we share a scenario in which teachers apply a multiliteracies perspective to the lesson planning process. The scenario demonstrates ways to address learner variability using TPACK, the comprehensive teacher knowledge base, to plan and evaluate technology, and UDL, where teachers consider multiliteracies and the learning environment as they plan for the what, how, and why of learning. Through the planning process, teachers, as architects of lesson design, apply foundations of technology integration and literacy instruction.

Lesson Design: Teachers as Architects  139

LESSON DESIGN LEARNER

Modality Diversity

SPACE

Representation Action & Expression Engagement

VARIABILITY

MATERIALS TEACHING APPROACHES

LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

TPACK

Taxonomies For Evaluation

MultiModality Multi-

UDL

EMSCI

Design Design

PEDAGOGY

TIPC EMSCI TAXONOMIES FOR EVALUATION 4 Cs

TIPC

MULTILITERACIES Architect: Teacher

FIGURE 9.1

A Blueprint for Lesson Design.

Application of Foundations and Frameworks A third-grade team of teachers is planning an inquiry unit focused on biographies of historical figures. The cross-disciplinary unit covers standards from both the English Language Arts and the social studies curriculum. Additionally, they want their students to consider the admirable traits of historical figures, so they create an overarching question, “What are character traits people have admired over time?” to engage their students in critical thinking. The literacy standards require students to practice their research skills through the process of locating, evaluating, organizing, and communicating information. The goal of the unit is for students to create an artifact on a historical figure and determine traits that made them admirable. The artifact must be shared with the class. Then, the class will collaborate to develop a list of qualities that people have historically admired and consider if those qualities are still admired today.

140  Applications for Classroom Instruction

In planning, the teachers consider the 4Cs (National Education Association, 2010)—critical thinking, collaboration, creativity, and communication. Critical thinking is necessary when searching for information. Students will use real-world applications of critical thinking as they examine their sources of information for accuracy and credibility. They will also synthesize this information about their historical figures’ character traits by creating an initial overarching question to engage students in critical thinking, “What character traits have people admired over time?” Opportunities for collaboration include contributing insights to the whole-class inquiry and between-class discussions and presentations of universal character traits uncovered. The teachers expect student application of creativity in the development of their final artifact by exploring various ways to represent and express information about their historical figure. Communication is a key component of students’ demonstration of knowledge, as they share their work in any combination of written, visual, gestural, and oral forms. Another important consideration that this team of third-grade teachers addresses during their planning process is technology integration. As the teachers plan and consider learner variability, they select both analogue and digital tools to accommodate learners. Teachers must decide whether the technology tools available provide any affordances that are not possible with analogue tools. In other words, does technology integration benefit the students? They use the Technology Integration Planning Cycle (Hutchison & Woodward, 2014), introduced in Chapter 4, to consider possibilities for technology integration. Technology should be used to enhance, mediate, or transform learning creating new possibilities not previously in existence. In some cases, technology tools may support student alphabetic literacy needs (e.g., TTS tools), and other tools may provide new opportunities for expression that mirror the world outside of school. Depending on technology tools selected and introduced to students, the EMSCI model (Lisenbee, 2009) may be used to develop tool fluency. The third-grade team also wants students to engage with transformational tools, demonstrating new literacies and their effectiveness for communicating in powerful and far-reaching ways. The planning by the team of teachers focuses on ensuring learner success in meeting the goals of each lesson in the unit. Therefore, they consider learner variability through a multiliteracies lens. As we provide additional insight into a teacher’s planning process, we will focus on one of the third-grade teachers, Mrs. Hall, in order to describe the application of technology tools to meet learners’ needs. Table 9.1 presents Mrs. Hall’s plan to include multiple modes of communication to meet the needs of her learners. The use of a template such as the one in Table 9.1 provides support for teachers as they become intentional about learner variability during the lesson design process. The three horizontal sections of the lesson design template (Table 9.1) present the three principles of the UDL framework aligned with specific learner

Lesson Design: Teachers as Architects  141 TABLE 9.1 Lesson Design Integrating Technology Using a UDL Perspective

Learner Variability

Access to Multiliteracies

Technology Tools

UDL Principle of Representation • Google Drive Text To Speech Extension • Smartphones: Android TalkBack & iOS VoiceOver Accessibility feature • Google Chrome’s ReadAloud or Read&Write extensions • Chromebooks ChromeVox Screen Reader • Windows 10 Narrator Screen Reader • Mac Computer VoiceOver Screen Reader • Ducksters—https://www. ducksters.com/biography/ • Getspeechify.com • Tarheelreader.org • Bookshare.org • LearningAlly.org • Ducksters—https://www. • Student has difficulty • Students have ducksters.com/biography/ with comprehension access to visuals to women_leaders/rosa_parks.php of text organize information • Inspiration.com (graphic (infographics, organizers) videos, concept • Rewordify.com maps, graphic organizers, etc.) • Student reads below grade level material for a variety of reasons

• Students have access to TTS software Students have access to video Students have access to podcasts

UDL Principle of Action and Expression • Student has oral language barriers

Student has written language barriers

• Students have access to a variety of websites and apps to use as an audiovisual substitute instead of needing to speak or read in front of others • Students have access to technology devices with speech-to-text extensions or other assistive tools for typing capabilities

• Voki.com • ChatterKid.com

• • • •

Google Docs Microsoft 365 OnlineCorrection.com Grammarly.com

(Continued)

142  Applications for Classroom Instruction

Learner Variability

Access to Multiliteracies

Technology Tools

UDL Principle of Engagement • Student needs additional challenges

• Students have access to complex texts about thoughtprovoking historical characters to read and possibly research additional opponents of historical figures or additional perspectives of marginalized groups based on the character traits identified during research • Student has difficulty • Students have access to multiple historical staying on-task and motivated figures to study, a variety of research tools, and multiple modes of expressing their understanding and final artifact

• Newsela.com • Weebly.com • https://www.mrroughton. com/lessons/assignments-cyoa (Create your own adventure assignments) • Diigo.com

• • • •

Padlet.com Animoto.com Prezi.com iMovie (or other video creation app) • Screencastify.com • Applied Digital Skills—https:// applieddigitalskills.withgoogle. com/c/en/curriculum. html?topic=communication& audience=late_elementary • YouTube videos

variabilities in the context of Mrs. Hall’s classroom. Mrs. Hall considers the type of access technology offers all students based on their interests and any special needs. She plans ways to encourage the use of a variety of technology tools for all learners to engage in multiliteracies in her classroom. In order to demonstrate intentional lesson design, we share Mrs. Hall’s plan to use the UDL principles of representation, action and expression, and engagement.

Multiple Means of Representation Previously, we explained that Multiple Means of Representation reflects the what of learning and calls for teachers to use various means to represent, or teach, content. In other words, teachers should design lessons to maximize students’ access to materials and content (Center for Applied Special Technology, 2011). When thinking about the varying needs of the students in classrooms,

Lesson Design: Teachers as Architects  143

teachers need to take into account what students are curious about as well as tools offering supportive assistance, so students are successful. Students can get information through reading books, watching videos, listening to podcasts, or using text-to-speech optical reader. These multiple modes of accessing information support the reader who reads below level, the English Learner, and possibly the student who decodes, but struggles to comprehend. Adjustments for instruction for one or two learner variabilities support many variabilities and preferences. Mrs. Hall knows that diversity in reading abilities in a third-grade classroom is familiar with students reading below, on, and above grade level. Therefore, she wants to ensure that students who struggle with reading have opportunities to engage with information in a variety of modes. These students include Mrs. Hall’s learners who struggle with decoding as well as English Learners who struggle with communication. Mrs. Hall planned for students to access information through reading books of all levels, watching videos, listening to podcasts, or using text-to-speech (TTS) optical readers. As seen in Table 9.1, Mrs. Hall planned access to multiple websites and apps offering books, videos, podcasts, and embedded TTS optical readers for use on computers and iPads in her classroom. Mrs. Hall’s classroom library and the school library are available sources for students to research since they offer books on various reading levels and computer stations for reading online. The inclusion of multiple modes such as videos and podcasts for research allows students to view them initially as a way to gain schema before they research information using print or digital texts. The use of TTS features alleviates barriers for students needing help reading text at grade-level and provides an additional mode for any student wanting access to audio information. Table 9.1 lists several tools providing access for students about the UDL principle of representation. In the second example of learner variability, Mrs. Hall plans to support comprehension and the need to construct meaning actively. This skill may be difficult for many students in the class since they will be accessing expository information, which presents challenges for learners (Richardson, Morgan, & Fleener, 2012). As previously discussed, Mrs. Hall selected visual sources of information, like videos, to help students gather information. In the Tools column for the UDL principle of representation, the Ducksters website Mrs. Hall found is a tool offering accommodations for learner variabilities because it offers biographical videos of historical figures. Mrs. Hall knows that even though she provides access to multimedia options, scaffolding during the research process will be necessary. She also selected analogue and digital tools for the organization of information. Inspiration Maps enables students to add details about their historical character as they collect information across a variety of sources. To assist students who are using websites to collect information, Mrs. Hall integrated the use of Diigo, a bookmarking tool for storing and organizing websites, notes, annotations of research, and more. Diigo allows students to

144  Applications for Classroom Instruction

re-read or re-access websites quickly and easily, making it a transformative tool for students struggling with comprehension. Another tool provided for students using websites was Rewordify.com. If students encountered websites that were difficult to comprehend, they could paste the text into Rewordify, which, in turn, provides a simplified version of the text in which adjustments in words and phrases assist readers. The array of tools in Table 9.1 allows all students to find multiple technologies allowing them to choose how to represent information while attending to their needs.

Multiple Means of Action and Expression In a previous chapter, we explained that Multiple Means of Action and Expression reflect the how of learning. This principle calls for teachers to provide options for students’ action and expression of their understanding of content, since students may need to demonstrate learning in a variety of ways (Center for Applied Special Technology, 2011). Students can exhibit their knowledge using many modes of communication, including written, oral, or visual representations. These multiple modes of sharing information support the reader who struggles with writing or speaking skills, as well as the learner who thrives on applying his or her creativity. Adjustments for instruction for one or two learner variabilities support many variabilities and preferences. After students gather information by reading books, watching videos, listening to podcasts, or using a text-to-speech optical reader, they will share the information with the class. Therefore, Mrs. Hall provided opportunities for students to use many modes of communication to express the results of their research. Learner variabilities, as seen in Table 9.1, include students with needs for oral and written communication. Mrs. Hall offered a variety of websites and apps to use as audiovisual options for student presentations or artifacts. Options for oral presentations include Voki or Chatterkids. At Voki.com, students can create a character by selecting the gender, face, hair, eyes, mouth, and clothing to best express characteristics of the historical figure. Once the creation of the historical figure is complete in Voki, the student records and uploads their speech, choosing an accent if needed for the historical figure. The text-to-speech feature will make the character appear to speak. The other tool that supports students needing a variety of methods to express themselves is ChatterKids. This app allows students to use an actual image of their historical figure to draw a line where the mouth would open, so the text-to-speech software opens and closes the mouth as if the historical figuring is speaking. Students record themselves reading their script, and ChatterKids saves the animated image. Mrs. Hall predicts that the video likeness of the historical figure moving its mouth as a student’s speech is “read” in ChatterKids will engage several students as they read and record their work.

Lesson Design: Teachers as Architects  145

Options for students who want to share a written artifact are reflected in Table 9.1 as well. Many technology tools enable speech-to-text (STT), including Google Docs and Microsoft 365. These tools allow students to express their understanding of the research on their historical figure by speaking into an audio recorder, which transcribes their speech into words typed into a document on a computer screen. STT even offers synonyms, spelling, and grammar options for students to assist them in creating a well-written paper. The ability to use these tools for access for all students offers the opportunity to spell and write accurately. Mrs. Hall plans to demonstrate to the entire class how to use this tool so all students can have access to STT tools. Several different tools beyond STT tools, like OnlineCorrection.com and Grammarly.com, also provide relief for students in Mrs. Hall’s class struggling with spelling words or coming up with words to express what they want to say. The tools listed in Table 9.1 provide several options to assist with access to multiple means of expressing information accurately, including websites and apps offering grammar tips.

Multiple Means of Engagement Recall the remaining UDL principle explained previously, Multiple Means of Engagement, which reflects the why of instruction and calls for teachers to increase student engagement using a variety of teaching methods, materials, and media (Center for Applied Special Technology, 2015). When applying this principle, teachers need to consider instruction in terms of what motivates students to learn. What motivates one student may not excite another, so teachers need to offer options as a means to support many variabilities, interests, and preferences. Mrs. Hall plans to address the principle of engagement in her classroom by providing options for flexible materials, tools, techniques, strategies, and by encouraging students to use multiple modes of communication. She knows that some students need additional challenges (Table 9.1). Mrs. Hall encouraged these students to select a historical figure that presents complex characteristics. For example, Christopher Columbus is a controversial historical figure, but all readers may not well know his history. The study of Christopher Columbus may promote higher-order thinking as students answer the overarching question about character traits people have admired over time. As Mrs. Hall encourages students to think about this question, she is also promoting connections to present-day concerns. She may challenge learners to consider why we celebrated Columbus and why Native Americans did not want to be called “Indians.” She may challenge learners to transcend learning (Magana, 2017) and teach others how to be aware of bias in history books. Just as Mrs. Hall considered ease of access for students, she needs to consider ways to present challenges for learners. One crucial consideration is online information, which can be adjusted by Lexiles or reading levels. Websites

146  Applications for Classroom Instruction

allowing the readability of content on a variety of topics can be found on Newsela.com since Mrs. Hall can adjust the reading level of books to challenge and motivate students. Finally, Mrs. Hall wants her students to engage in learning, so she considered motivational technology tools. Mrs. Hall intentionally provides and plans choices for all students, but for some students, it is a critical need (Richardson et  al., 2012). Table 9.1 identifies multiple technology tools that promote creativity. For example, students may use Padlet, Animoto, Prezi, iMovie, or Screencastify.com to share what they have learned.

Facilitating Construction: Lesson Implementation Planning for student success, as demonstrated in this scenario, requires teacher knowledge of UDL and technology integration as well as knowledge of foundations and frameworks that extend beyond the planning phase. We mentioned that lesson design was like a blueprint for design. After an architect designs a building, the construction of the building must be supervised. The same holds in lesson design. A teacher designs lessons and then implements and facilitates the lesson. During the planning and while implementing the lesson, the teacher continually asks questions such as, What skills must I model in order for students to conduct internet searches effectively?, How might I use classroom space during the unit?, Did this work provide the collaboration and critical thinking I intended?, In what ways was the learning transformed and which aspects need to be revised or refined? We encourage you to make additional connections from previous chapters to your own scenario after reading about this third-grade scenario. Figure 9.1 was created as a blueprint for lesson design using content from this textbook to assist teachers in designing, constructing, and building a firm foundation for thinking about how to leverage technology into literacy instruction for ALL learners.

Digital Resources to Support Lesson Design Digital tools assist teachers in offering equitable, individualized instruction. In Mrs. Hall’s class, technology is not the focus of learning, but technology is a tool she intentionally plans to support students in learning content. Shields & Behrman (2000) encourage identifying “ways to use technology effectively in the classroom, ways that add value to traditional curricula and reach students who fail to respond to traditional approaches” (p. 24). The continued development of technology creates additional challenges for Mrs. Hall and her team of

Lesson Design: Teachers as Architects  147

teachers to select and use tools mimicking the digital world of students outside of the classroom.

Teachers as Agents of Change One theme throughout this text has been one of change. We have addressed changing literacies students need and want to use to communicate effectively using technology tools. These new literacies amplify opportunities for students to participate in a multimodal world. We have addressed changing approaches to literacy instruction based on the affordances of technology. Because technology changes so quickly, the technology frameworks and models for thinking introduced in this book provide a way to think about technology integration, even with the continuing evolution of new technologies. It is easy to recognize the potential for technology tools to change learning by watching students in classrooms practice literacy skills using the tools described in this chapter and throughout this textbook. We encourage you to explore additional tools in the appendices included at the end of this chapter. The list of resources should remain relatively stable while the technology tools will continue to evolve at a fast pace. Regardless of the tools available, teacher decision making about learner variability and multiliteracy is necessary in order to be a competent architect of lesson design.

Revisiting the Lesson Design Mind Shift In the Mind Shift, we asked you to think about a literacy lesson. In addition to the lesson, brainstorm some of the diverse characteristics exhibited by learners. In other words, list some ideas about learner variability—think beyond some of the barriers listed in Table 9.1. Then, continue the planning process using ideas learned throughout this textbook. Use Figure 9.1 and the template for lesson design in Table 9.2 to demonstrate your application of a multiliteracies perspective and the UDL framework. TABLE 9.2 Template for Lesson Design

Learner Variability

Access to Multiliteracies

UDL Principle of Representation

UDL Principle of Action and Expression

UDL Principle of Engagement

Technology Tools

148  Applications for Classroom Instruction

References Center for Applied Special Technology (2011). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.0. Retrieved from http://udlguidelines.cast.org/binaries/content/ assets/udlguidelines/udlg-v2-0/udlg_graphicorganizer_v2-0.pdf Hutchison, A., & Woodward, L. (2014). A planning cycle for integrating digital technology into literacy. The Reading Teacher, 67(6), 455–464. Lisenbee, P. S. (2009). Influences on young children’s behavior, engagement level and representation during storytelling using an interactive whiteboard. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Magana, S. (2017). Disruptive classroom technologies: A framework for innovation in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. National Education Association. (2010). Preparing 21st-century students for a global society: An educator’s guide to the “four c’s.” Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/ docs/A-Guide-to-Four-Cs.pdf Richardson, J. S., Morgan, R. F., & Fleener, C. (2012). Reading to learn in the content areas. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Shields, M. K., & Behrman, R. E. (2000). Children and computer technology: Analysis and recommendations, 10(2), 4–30.

APPENDIX 9.1

LIST OF TOOLS ARRANGED BY THE 4CS

The framework provided by the 4Cs, collaboration, creativity, critical thinking, and communication, provides a plan for selecting appropriate technology tools for literacy instruction. The tools shared below are not an exhaustive list since technology is constantly evolving but instead offer suggestions for selecting technology, across all subject areas, using the 4Cs of instruction as a framework to focus selection on lesson objectives instead of tools.

Collaboration These apps and websites can facilitate students’ practice working together while participating in gathering and presenting information, playing games, or immersing themselves in augmented and virtual reality.

Presentations Nearpod, Peardeck, VoiceThread, Canva, Flipgrid, Google Slides, and Glogster.

Collaborative Games Minecraft, Schell Games, Pokemon Go, Webquests, and Arcademicskillbuilders.com.

Augmented and Virtual Reality 360cities, 4DAnatomy.com, AlchemyVR, Augthat, Aurasma, Curioscope, DiscoverVR, Eonreality, YouTube360, Boulevard, and Timelooper.

150  Applications for Classroom Instruction

Information Sharing and Collaboration Padlet, Google Classroom, Google Sites, SeeSaw, AwwApp, Sketchnoting, ReCap, Animoto, Pinterest, GoFormative, ExplainEverything, Skype, Zoom, AroundTheWorldWith80Schools, Edmodo, Podcasting, Blogs, Twitter, Instagram, Wikis, YouTube, Wix, Wakelet, Google Docs, Google Sites, Virtual Field Trips, and EPals.

Creativity This group of apps and websites encourages students to express their creativity through video, audio, and/or visual representation.

Video GarageBand, Audacity, iMovie, TouchCast Studio, Story Remix, Clips, Google Cardboard, YouTube, WeVideo, and Incompetech.

Audio Soundtrap, Flipgrid, Audacity, Storynory, Voki, Blabberize, and BookCreator.

Visual Representation Wordle, Tagxedo, Bitstripsforschools, Kerpoof, QR Codes, Screencastify, Flipgrid, Kidspiration, Kidpix, Photo Story 3, Tux Paint, and KWL.

Critical Thinking These apps and websites provide experiences in critical thinking during activities focused on mastery of concepts in subject areas and life skills.

Comprehensive Subject Area TeachersFirst, Admongo, Zoopz, Brainpop, and Dogonews.

History DigitalHistory, Mission-US, iCivics, AmericanFolklore, BringingHistoryHome, and MyHistro.

Mathematics Jmathpage, NationalLibraryof VirtualManipulatives, IlluminationsNCTM, GlencoeVirtualManipulatives, and KahnAcademy.

Lesson Design: Teachers as Architects  151

Art Toytheater, OpenDraw, Sketchpad, Scrap Coloring, Bomomo, and Canvastic.

Music PExploratorium Music, San Francisco Symphony, Line Rider, Little Einsteins, and New York Philharmonic.

Science NASASpacePlace, Edheads, LearningScience, PlanetArcadeGames, WeatherBase, Globe, BudBurst, LostLadybug, and Funology.

Language Arts (including drama) ReadWriteThink, UniteForLiteracy, LightUpYourBrain, TheStoryHome, PoetryArchive, PoetryOutLoud, DigitalStorytelling, Starfall, WorldBookOnline, TumbleBookLibrary, TumbleBookCloudJr, and Poetry4Kids.

News Websites TimeforKids, NBC Learn, National Geographic Kids, KidsPost, Newsela, Science News for Students, Xyza, and CNN10.

Assessments (including rubrics & portfolios) Checklists, QuizStar, Hot Potatoes, Rubistar, 2learn.ca, teach-nology.com, 4teachers.org, iwebfolio.com, chalkandwire, and osportfolio.org.

Coding Websites ScratchJr, Code, CSunplugged, Mindstorms, GetHopscotch, DaisyTheDinosaur, Codespark Academy, Code Avengers, Codeacademy, Kahn Academy, Tynker, and Scratch.

Digital Citizenship Websites Common Sense Media, Edutopia, CyberWise, Netsmartz Teens, Digital Education Revolution, EdTech Update, Digital Passport, Digital Compass, Carnegie Cyber Academy, and Webonauts Internet Academy.

Communication This list of apps and websites allows students to practice communication while taking notes, fact checking information, interacting in learning experiences, reading books, and using graphs and images.

152  Applications for Classroom Instruction

Note Taking Apps Google Keep, Notability, Zoho, One Note, Evernote, Dropbox, Simplenote, Saferoom, and Book Creator.

Fact Checking Websites AllSides, Fact Check, Media Matters, NewsBusters, Open Secrets, Politifact, ProPublica, and Snopes.

Interactive Learning Websites PollEverywhere, Virtual Field Trips, ClassPager, Wikipedia, WordPress, Twitter, Talkshoe, Hipcast, Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, Abcya, KidsNationalGeographic, The39clues, PBSkids, Seussville, Brainpop, Highlights, and BBCkidsCanada.

Storybook Websites Storybird, Between The Lions, PBSKids, Livingbooks, International Children’s Digital Library, StorybookWeaverDeluxe, Robertmunsch, Freekidsbooks, Storylineonline, Bookflix, Toontastic, The Online Books Page, ChildrensLibrary, Storynory, and ReadingA-Z.

Graphs and Image Websites Clustrmaps, Google Maps, Google Earth, Worldmapper, Google Earth, Chartle, Chartgo, and Scribblemaps.

Literacy Websites Reading Rockets, Book Creator, Starfall, Storyplace, Funbrain, Edu4kids, Storylineonline.net, AMightyGirl, Inspiration.com, Eduplace.com, FreeRice, Snappy Words, Visual Dictionary Online, Vocabulary.com, WordHippo, WordNik, Rewordify, GetEpic, Bookflix, Tumblebooks, and Dragon Dictation.

Publishing Websites Blogger, Edublogs, Canvas, Bookemon, Studentreasures, Claremont Review, Figment, Launch Pad, Stone Soup, Storybird, Teen Ink, and StoryJumper.

Writing Websites 100 Word Challenge, Google Docs, Candlelightstories, EPals, NoodleTools, MakeBeliefsComix, MyHero, WordPress, Kidblog, and WritingFix.

Lesson Design: Teachers as Architects  153

Assistive Technology Here are some apps and websites offering students with special needs opportunities to use technology effectively when trying to express themselves, change their speech into textual representations, create visual representations, use visual aids to assist with their communication, and use computer-assisted instruction for practicing language arts skills.

Expression Apps GarageBand, Audacity, iMovie, TouchCast Studio, Story Remix, Clips, and Piclits.

Text-to-Speech Apps Speak Screen, Announcify, TextHelp Read&Write, Quillsoft WordQ, VoiceDreamReader, DragonDictation, and DragonNaturallySpeaking.

Visual Representations Websites Inspiration, Popplet, Google Keep, Notability, and Book Creator.

Visual Aid Apps VoiceOver, TalkBack, BrailleBack, ChromeVox, Screen Magnifier, VoiceThread, and Bookshare.

Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) Websites Accelerated Reader, READ 180, Safari Reader, and Announcify.

Chapter 9 Additional Tools Supporting Lesson Design and Learner Variability(s) ActivelyLearn Applied Digital Skills Bookflix Bookshare CalmlyWriter Canva Create Your Own Adventure Diigo Duckster Eduplace Evernote Flickr Garageband Getspeechify Ginger Glogster

Chapter 8 Learning Environment Context(s) to Consider Transforming Classroom Materials Use VR goggles Transforming Pedagogies Allow students to lead their own research and use the strategies posted around the room on anchor charts so they feel ownership in their learning

Chapters 6 and 7 Need for Web 2.0 Tools and/or Research Reading Assistance Read&Write Extensions Bookshare Writing Assistance Ginger Digital Storytelling Animoto Video, Image, and Audio Creation: Flickr Chatterkids Weebly Motivation

Chapter 3 Learner Variability(s) to Support (Using UDL Principles)

Student reads below gradelevel material (Representation) Student has difficulty with comprehension (Representation) Students exhibits speech impediments and is reluctant to talk in front of peers (Action and Expression) Student has difficulty with handwriting

Goal of Lesson: Communication

Research and gather relevant information for a historical figure from multiple digital sources being sure to assess the accuracy and credibility of the sources using both written and oral forms OutcomeHistorical “Wax Museum” Figure speech/ presentation

USING A LESSON PLAN TEMPLATE AND THE INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY INTO LITERACY INSTRUCTION TEXTBOOK WITH THE 4CS

APPENDIX 9.2

(Action and Expression) Student has difficulty staying on-task and motivated. (Engagement Wordle Research Tool SEARCH strategy Wikis Shared Google Docs Delicious VR websites

Google Slides Grammarly Inspiration (graphic organizers) iMovie Keynote LearningAlly OnlineCorrection Padlet Photoshop Express Pinterest Boards Popplet ProWritingAid QR Codes ReWordify Screencastify Speechify Sutori TeacherTube Text-to-Speech Extensions TooDoo Tumblebooks Vimeo Vocabulary.com VoiceDreamScanner Voicethread Voki Weebly Wikis Wordle YouTube

Lesson Design: Teachers as Architects  155

Chapter 9 Additional Tools Supporting Lesson Design and Learner Variability(s) ActivelyLearn Animoto Applied Digital Skills Bookflix Bookshare CalmlyWriter Canva Create Your Own Adventure Delicious Duckster Eduplace Evernote Flickr Getspeechify Ginger Glogster Grammarly Inspiration (graphic organizers) Keynote LearningAlly OnlineCorrection Padlet Popplet Prezi ProWritingAid

Chapter 8 Learning Environment Context(s) to Consider Transforming Classroom Space Students lead the change in the classroom to reflect a museum environment to use for their presentations to the other grade levels in the school and their parents Transforming Pedagogies Personalization of speeches led by students using their choice of tools to create the Wax Museum presentations

Chapters 6 and 7 Need for Web 2.0 Tools and/or Research Reading Assistance Text-to-Speech Extensions Tumblebooks Writing Assistance Eduplace (graphic organizers) Presentation Assistance Google Slides Diigo Video, Image, and Audio Creation Photoshop Express GarageBand iMovie Curation Pinterest Board “Wax Museum” Motivation YouTube videos of historical figures Research Tool SEARCH strategy Wikis Shared Google Docs

Chapter 3 Learner Variability(s) to Support (Using UDL Principles)

Students reading above, on, or below gradelevel reading and ELL students (Representation) Student has difficulty with comprehension (Representation) Student exhibits speech impediments and is reluctant to talk in front of peers (Action and Expression) Student has difficulty with handwriting (Action and Expression) Students need additional challenges (Engagement) Student has difficulty staying on-task and motivated (Engagement)

Goal of Lesson: COLLABORATION

Demonstrate ability of students to work together effectively and organize a presentation for the entire grade-level classrooms, including parents, to attend the event Outcome A Wax Museum event to showcase research on historical figures

156  Applications for Classroom Instruction

Chapter 9 Additional Tools Supporting Lesson Design and Learner Variability(s) ActivelyLearn Animoto Bookflix Bookshare CalmlyWriter Canva Create Your Own Adventure Delicious Diigo

Chapter 8 Learning Environment Context(s) to Consider Transforming Classroom Materials

Chapters 6 and 7 Need for Web 2.0 Tools and/or Research Reading Assistance Text-to-Speech Extensions Newsela Bookflix

Chapter 3 Learner Variability(s) to Support (Using UDL Principles)

Students reading above, on, or below gradelevel reading and ELL students (Representation)

Goal of Lesson: CREATIVITY

Refine information to express original ideas and creative efforts in order to illustrate the time period and culture of a historical figure

QR Codes Read&Write Extensions ReWordify Screencastify Speechify Sutori TeacherTube TooDoo Tumblebooks Vimeo Vocabulary.com VoiceDreamScanner Voicethread Voki Weebly Wordle YouTube Lesson Design: Teachers as Architects  157

Outcome Clothes worn during “Wax Museum” presentation is accurate for the time period and culture of the historical figure

Student exhibits speech impediments and is reluctant to talk in front of peers (Action and Expression) Student needs additional challenges (Engagement)

Writing Assistance Voice Dream Scanner Presentation Assistance Padlet Digital Storytelling TooDoo Video, Image, and Audio Creation Sutori Flickr YouTube TeacherTube Curation QR Codes Motivation Applied Digital Skills Research Tool SEARCH tool Provide videos for students on the teachers’ TeacherTube account to provide them with models of appropriate videos related to some of the historical figures which student could choose from for this assignment Provide favorite websites as bookmarks on the computers and iPads in the classroom so students can access these sites more quickly

Eduplace Evernote Garageband Getspeechify Ginger Glogster Google Docs Google Slides Grammarly Inspiration (graphic organizers) iMovie Keynote LearningAlly OnlineCorrection Photoshop Express Pinterest Boards Popplet Prezi ProWritingAid Read&Write Extensions ReWordify Screencastify Speechify Tumblebooks Vimeo Vocabulary.com VoiceDreamScanner Voicethread Voki Weebly Wikis Wordle 158  Applications for Classroom Instruction

Chapter 9 Additional Tools Supporting Lesson Design and Learner Variability(s) ActivelyLearn Animoto Applied Digital Skills Bookflix Bookshare CalmlyWriter Canva Create Your Own Adventure Eduplace Evernote Flickr Garageband Ginger Glogster Google Docs Google Slides Grammarly iMovie Keynote LearningAlly OnlineCorrection Padlet Photoshop Express Pinterest Boards Popplet Prezi

Chapter 8 Learning Environment Context(s) to Consider Transforming Classroom Materials Including bookmarks on the computers and iPads in the classroom so students can easily find the graphic organizers and books they need to complete this lesson

Chapters 6 and 7 Need for Web 2.0 Tools and/or Research Reading Assistance GetSpeechify ActivelyLearn Writing Assistance ProWritingAid Presentation Assistance Duckster Screencastify Motivation Vocabulary.com Research Tool: SEARCH strategy Diigo Delicious Inspiration (graphic organizer

Goal of Lesson: CRITICAL Chapter 3 THINKING Learner Variability(s) to Support (Using UDL Principles)

Student reading above, Read biographies and on, or below gradeautobiographies to level reading and ELL determine fact from students opinion about their chosen historical figure (Representation) and articulate thoughts Student exhibits speech impediments and is in a nonverbal form reluctant to talk in front Outcome of peers Digital Graphic Organizer (Action and Expression) Student having difficulty staying on-task and motivated (Engagement)

Lesson Design: Teachers as Architects  159

Goal of Lesson

Chapter 3 Learner Variability(s) to Support (Using UDL Principles)

Chapters 6 and 7 Need for Web 2.0 Tools and/or Research

Chapter 8 Learning Environment Context(s) to Consider

Chapter 9 Additional Tools Supporting Lesson Design and Learner Variability(s)

LESSON PLAN TEMPLATE FOR USING INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY INTO LITERACY INSTRUCTION TEXTBOOK

QR Codes Read&Write Extensions ReWordify Speechify Sutori TeacherTube Text-to-Speech Extensions TooDoo Tumblebooks Vimeo VoiceDreamScanner Voicethread Voki Weebly Wikis Wordle YouTube

160  Applications for Classroom Instruction

APPENDIX 9.3

LIST OF EBOOKS AND OPTICAL READING DEVICES

Name of eBook or Optical Reading Device Websites

URL

Bookshare—750,000+ books with a variety of accessibility features ActivelyLearn—3,300+ books sorted by genre and subject area for 3rd grade and up including video support Tumblebooks—1,100+ K-6 books including National Geographic and books in other than English language CaptiVoice Reading Pen—text-to-speech and other writing supports Anybook Reader Pen—records books read by anyone and reads text and photos using an optical reader LearningAlly—80,000+ audiobooks

https://www.Bookshare.org/cms https://www.activelylearn.com/

https://tumblebooks.com/

https://www.captivoice.com/capti-site/ http://www.anybookreader.com

https://learningally.org/ Browse-Audiobooks Bookflix—paired fiction & non-fiction books http://emea.scholastic.com/en/bookflix OER Commons—free digital library of https://www.oercommons.org/ education resources Epic Books—35,000+ digital books https://www.getepic.com Voice Dream Scanner—uses a camera to scan https://www.voicedream.com/reader/ in text to be read and uses 200+ voices for narration BookCreator—multimedia tools for creating https://bookcreator.com/ (1.5 million+) books to date resources-for-teachers/

APPENDIX 9.4

LIST OF RESOURCES AND ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORTING ALL LEARNERS

Name and Description of Resource

URL

BridgingApps This site provides a list of 3,000 apps sorted by category, review, age, price, skill, TEKS, grade level, device, and CCSS Center for Applied Special Technology This site offers links to UDL guidelines and a wealth of other resources including interactive programs of puzzles, books, and lessons EdReports Non-profit organization offering a repository of instructional materials that have been independently reviewed for both quality and alignment with CCSS EdSurge (affiliated with ISTE) This site supports the learning environment of teachers as they integrate technology into classrooms offering a product database of over 2400 tools aligned with standards and lesson plans EdTechTeacher This site supports teachers’ use of technology as an innovative way to instruct students in classrooms by sharing a list of apps and tools

https://search.bridgingapps.org/ dashboard

https://www.cast.org

https://www.edreports.org

https://www.edsurge.com

https://edtechteacher.org/

Lesson Design: Teachers as Architects  163

Name and Description of Resource

URL

Google Chrome Other browsers have compatible features to Google Chrome’s Read&Write extension that has 21 tools supporting literacy skills Kathy Schrock’s Guide to Everything Comprehensive set of teaching resources such as the iPads4Teaching program developed by an instructional technology specialist National Center on Accessible Educational Materials This site offers multiple lists of accessible resources for classroom use. Spectronics This company is the largest supplier of assistive technology and software to support the use of inclusive technologies in education State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA, 2019) Non-profit membership organization supporting the use of technology in schools offering an aggregation of instructional materials reviewed for use by states in ELA and math TechMatrix This site offers a search matrix for 400 assistive technology products with the ability to compare four products at a time Texthelp Partners with 12 technology organizations and is a member of 11 education and technology organizations

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/ search/extensions

https://www.schrockguide.net/

http://www.aem.cast.org

http://www.spectronics.com.au

https://qualitycontent.setda.org/ dashboard/

https://techmatrix.org

https://www.texthelp.com/en-us/ sectors/education/

Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group

http://taylorandfrancis.com

INDEX

Note: Bold page numbers refer to tables; italic page numbers refer to figures 4 C’s 84–6, 86, 116–9, 140; see also Appendices 9.1 and 9.2 20th-century 4, 17, 98, 115, 116 21st-century 4–6, 8, 11, 14, 20, 36, 38, 50; learning 6, 38; literacy skills 4; P21 83, 85–6 access 8–9, 17, 20, 29–30, 32–3, 35, 37, 48, 57, 82, 83, 104–5, 110, 142, 145; accessibility 29, 82, 91, 93, 106, 119, 120, 121, 128–9, 161, 163; ADA 30, 39; and equity 17, 37–8, 114, 121, 133; architectural design 29–30, 37, 138; learning environment 33, 52, 79, 119, 122; libraries 93–4; literacies 11, 41, 52, 137, 142, 143, 147; print 41, 64, 105, 143; technology 4, 12, 20, 35–7, 57, 74, 86, 88, 106, 141, 145, 158; UD 30–1, 34; UDL 29, 31, 40, 44, 53, 87, 89, 114, 120, 138, 143, 141; United States Access Board 29–30, 44; WBDG Accessibility Committee 30, 44; Web 1.0 and 2.0 80, 85, 87, 96 action and expression see multiple means of action and expression active learning 1, 117–18, 133; see also classroom affective 31, 34, 42, 52; see also UDL neural networks

affordances 36, 74, 81, 140; leverage 35, 64; literacy instruction 119, 147; search engine 95, 129; technology 4, 12, 35–6, 51, 55, 60–1, 68, 74, 82; technology integration 36, 60–1 agency: learners 22, 74, 130, 133; technology 67, 74, 133; transformation 68, 133–4 agents of change see teachers alphabetic literacy 5, 7, 20, 22, 34, 88, 127; communication 18–9; see also multiliteracies Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 30, 39; see also Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) amplification see RAT analyzing see multiliteracies reflexive pedagogy Anderson, C.A. 9, 13 Anderson, L.W. 65, 74 Anderson, M. 83, 90, 91, 92, 112 applying see multiliteracies reflexive pedagogy architect 138, 139, 146–47; see also lesson design architectural design 29–30, 37 artificial intelligence 104, 127; see also augmented reality assistive technology 34, 39, 122, 153, 163 augmentation see SAMR

166 Index

augmented reality 89, 123, 127, 149 automation see T3 Framework Baildon, R. 107, 112 Barron, G. 36 Bass, W.L. 87, 90, 107, 112 Bawden, D. 6, 13 Bell, S. 131, 134 Benton-Borghi, B.H. 52, 63 Biancarosa, C. 4, 13 Blakemore, E. 94, 112 Bledsoe, C. 84, 91, 93, 94–6, 98, 101, 112–4 blended learning 127, 129–30, 135–6 Bloom’s Taxonomy 65, 65, 74 bookmark 93, 97; tools 103, 143, 159; print-based, 97; websites 82, 87, 158 books 96; see also websites Boolean terms 100, 101, 102–3 Boondee,V. 131, 134 Bower, M. 81, 82, 90 Bray, B. 130, 134 Breen, E. 131, 134 browsers 94, 104, 110, 162–3 Bruner, J. 26–7 Butterfield, A. 95, 97, 112 Buzbee, L. 36, 43 call numbers 95, 95–6; see also URLs card catalogs 94, 94–5; see also search engines Castek, J. 10, 14, 92, 113 Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) 63, 120, 134, 148; action and expression, 144; pedagogical 133; representation 87, 90, 142; resources 121, 128; UD 30, 43; UDL 32, 43 challenge-based learning 129–32 chapters 96; see also webpages Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) 83, 90 Christ, W.G. 9, 13 Christensen, C.M. 36, 43, 69, 75 Civil Rights Movement 30; Architectural Barriers Act 30, 44 Classroom: active learning 1, 59, 117–18, 133; flipped 17, 130; instruction 31, 49, 56, 71, 108–9, 117, 129, 131; interaction 35, 47, 57, 68, 118; problem-solving 59, 131; technology tools 53, 80 classroom problem-solving see EMSCI Clay, M. 96, 98, 112 Coiro, J. 10, 12–4, 92, 94, 98, 112–3, 131, 135

collaboration see 4 Cs Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts 5, 14, 112–3; Initiative (CCSSI) 6, 13, 15, 94, 112 Common Sense Media 9, 13, 83, 90, 91, 151 communication: 4 Cs 84–6, 86, 116–9, 140, 149–53; affordances 36; alphabetic literacy 18; based learning 131–2; Common Core State Standards 8; diversity 19; lesson design 154–60; multimedia 5; multimodality 6, 20–2, 21, 32–5, 40, 98; netiquette 110; social practices 79–80, 83; technology integration 69, 101; web 2.0 82, 100; web literacy 10–11; UDL 32–5, 142–146; see also 4 Cs conceptualizing see multiliteracies reflexive pedagogy constraints see TIPC constructivist 17–8, 24; see also Dewey, Piaget and Vygotsky content: access 29, 96–7, 100, 105, 120–1; learning 5, 32, 49, 52, 102, 129, 146; technology integration 67, 127, 130; UDL 53, 128, 142–46; URL 95, 103, 108–9 content knowledge (CK) see TPACK context: communication 20–3; learning 129–134; new literacies 11; technology 12, 93–111, 122; transliteracy 11; UDL 33–6, 48–53, 137, 142–7 contribution to instruction see TIPC Cope, W. 19–24, 26–8, 100, 113, 116, 134 Corbel, C. 9, 13 Couros, G. 64, 75 Coyne, P. 35, 41–3 creativity see 4 Cs critical thinking see 4 Cs Dalton, B. 10, 14, 35, 43, 98, 106, 112, 114 Davies, J. 80, 90 Davis, A.W. 117, 135 Davis, A. 122, 135 design: access 31, 121; activities 42; architectural 29–31, 138; classroom 29, 117, 120; inquiry 73; instructional 31, 41, 129–30; intentional 29, 31, 36, 74; lesson 30–1, 48, 50, 52–4, 59–60, 65, 67–69, 120, 137–147, 139, 141–142; pedagogical 51, 129–32; technology 47, 67, 123–30; universal 29–31; see also UD and UDL; see also tenets of multiliteracies theory

Index 167

devices: mobile, 5, 17, 22, 36, 101, 119; one-to-one 122; technology 20–1, 42, 47–8, 111, 121, 124, 125, 141, 161–2 Dewey, J. 18, 26, 28, 84, 99, 112, 123, 133, 135 Dewey Decimal Classification 95, 100 didactic pedagogy see pedagogy digital: age 20, 44, 52, 59, 113; citizenship 88, 101, 109–12; fluency 35, 84, 101, 140; information 4, 73, 97; worksheet 65 disruptive technology 18, 36 diversity 19–20, 29–31, 35, 87, 134, 139, 143; see also tenets of multiliteracies theory Dobler, E. 10, 13 domain: IP address 95; extension 103; owner of the website 95; top-level codes 95; see also knowledge domains Dorfman, L.R. 107–8, 112 Dutton, W.H. 92, 112 ebooks see Appendix 9.3 educational technology 15, 40, 44, 69, 70, 90, 136 Elliot, R. 122, 135 EMSCI 53, 57–60, 58, 108, 139–40 Emspak, J. 127, 135 engagement see multiple means of engagement English learners 121, 128, 143 equity and access: National Education Technology Plan 37, 121; technology 116, 133 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) 37, 39–40 experiencing see multiliteracies reflexive pedagogy exploration see EMSCI Fingal, D. 109, 112 Foulger, T.T. 36, 43 foundations 5, 8, 18; literacy terms 6–12; pedagogical 16, 22–27; teaching and learning 131, 133; theoretical 16, 19–22; thinking about literacy 3–43, 138–46 frameworks: EMSCI 57–62; multiliteracies 27; T3 44, 63, 69–73; TIPC 53–7; TPACK 44, 48–53, 63; UDL 18, 30–40 Fraser, S. 116, 118, 135 Freeman, A. 122, 129, 135 Friedrich, L. 26, 28

gaming 80, 123, 127 Gartrell, D. 59, 63 Gee, J.P. 20, 24, 28 Gandini, L. 116, 135 Glister, P. 99, 113 global library system 93–94; see also internet Google.com 94, 102–4, 106, 110, 119, 124; advanced search 105; art projects 126; cardboard 124, 125; classroom 119; custom search 106; document 64, 69, 74, 79, 82, 85, 86, 88, 119, 141, 145; drive 72, 141; expeditions 124, 125; forms 70, 86; glass 125; images 110; maps 122, 123; readaloud, 141; read&write 141; safesearch technology 106; sky 126; slides 82; streetview 124, 126; suggest 104, 104; tools 64, 74; see also Appendices 9.1, 9.2, 9.4 Gordon, D. 31, 33–5, 43, 44 Greer, M. 8, 14 Gregory, A. 9, 14 Guernsey, L. 17, 28 Gunn, B.K. 120, 135 Gunning, T.G. 80, 90 Halverson, L.R. 129, 135 Harris, J. 53–4, 63 Harvey, S. 107–8, 113 Hattie, J. 72, 75 Henry, L.A. 10, 14, 92, 113 hoax website 99, 108, 108, 111 Hofer 53–4, 63 Horn, M.B. 129–30, 135 Houston, L. 31, 43 Hughes, J.E. 67–68, 69, 75, 115 Hutchison, A. 52–6, 63, 140, 148 hyperlinks 97 in the margins 30–1, 40 independent activities see EMSCI indexes 96–7, 97; see also search bars Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 38–9; least restrictive environment 39; see also Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Infographics 36, 62, 141 innovation 60, 63, 75, 80; disruptive classroom technologies, 44, 75; T3 Framework for Innovation 69–73, 71; teaching and learning, 40 instruction see TIPC instructional approach 59, 63, 101, 113; goals 55; methods 121, 129; planning

168 Index

32, 53, 55, 57, 65, 137–8; practices 60, 70, 131; strategies 122, 130; UDL 35, 40–3, 52–3; see also TIPC instructional goal see TIPC interaction: content, pedagogy, technology 51; hands-on 47, 68, 80, 123; Multimodal 20, 24, 35; technology 48, 53, 57, 80 interactive whiteboards (IWB) 36, 47, 60, 63, 66–7, 113, 121, 148 inter-connectedness 83–88, 129–132 International Literacy Association (ILA) standards for the preparation of literacy professionals 5, 14 International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) 40, 84–6, 92, 113, 129, 135; standards for students 84, 90 internet 93–94; see also global library system internet safety 88, 101, 109–12 iPads 4, 143, 158–9 Johansen, D. 130–1, 135 Jones-Kavalier, B.R. 8, 14 Kalantzis, M. 19–24, 26, 27–8, 100, 113, 116, 134 Kid President 19, 26, 37 King-Sears, M. 128, 135 Kinzer, C.K. 10, 12, 14, 92, 113 Knobel, M. 6, 10, 13–4, 80, 91–2, 112 knowledge domains see TPACK Koehler, M. 36, 44, 49–50, 51, 54, 63 Kolb, D.A. 123, 135 Krane, B. 99, 113 Kress, G. 6, 14, 98, 113 Lankshear, C. 6, 10, 12–4, 92, 112 Larmer, J. 131, 135 Lauricella, A.R. 83, 91 learner variability 22, 30–1, 35, 47, 52, 88, 132, 138, 139, 140, 141–2, 143, 147, 147, 154–60 Leland, C.H. 9, 14 lesson plan template see Appendix 9.2 Leu, D.D. 131, 135 Leu, D.J. 4, 7–8, 10, 11–4, 92–3, 98–100, 107, 112–3, 131, 135 Levy, R. 116, 135 Lexiles 41, 105–6, 107, 145 Lisenbee, P.S. 34–5, 44, 51, 57, 58, 62–3, 87, 91, 104–5, 108, 113–4, 122, 135, 140, 148

literacy 2.0 12, 15, 80, 114; see also Web 2.0 literacy: advertising 9; alphabetic 5, 7, 20, 22, 34, 88, 127; and language arts; audiovisual 9; computer 7, 9, 12; critical 7, 9, 12; digital 6, 8, 9, 12; film 9; information 6, 8, 12; instruction; internet 9; media, 9, 12; New (upper case) 7, 10–11; new (lower case) 7, 10, 12; technology 80; traditional 6–8, 12; transliteracy 7, 11–12; visual 9; web 7, 9–10, 12 Magana, S. 36, 44, 53, 63, 65, 69–73, 75, 132, 135, 145, 148 Mak, J. 124, 135 Malaguzzi, L. 116, 135 Mathematical Association of America (MAA) 84 Mayclin, D. 121, 136 McCollister, K. 131, 136 McLaughlin, M. 9, 14 McLeod, J. 35, 44, 120, 122, 136 meaning making 20, 22, 24, 42 mentor texts and modeling 107–8 Meyer, A. 30–1, 34, 43–4, 114 Mills, K.A. 22, 28, 80, 91, 98, 113 Milman, N.B. 127, 136 mind shift 3, 6, 8, 12–13, 16, 19, 27, 29, 40, 47, 60, 64, 74, 79, 88, 92, 111, 115, 134, 137, 147 Mishra, P. 36, 44, 49–50, 51, 54, 63 mixed reality 123, 127 mobile devices see devices modeling with mistakes see EMSCI modes of meaning: audio, 21; gestural, 21; oral, 21; spatial, 21; tactile, 21; visual, 21; written, 21 modification see SAMR Morin, A. 130, 136 motivation 34–5, 42, 131, 146, 154, 156, 158–9 multiliteracies reflexive pedagogy 22–7, 24, 25–26, 27; analyzing 23, 24, 25; applying 23–4, 24, 26; conceptualizing 23, 24, 25; experiencing 23, 24, 25; knowledge processes 23, 26–27 multiliteracy perspective 6, 18, 20, 27, 29–43, 52–3, 68, 87, 134, 137–8, 147 multimedia 5, 20, 68, 86, 97, 100, 104, 106, 143, 161 multimodal 6, 11, 24, 27–8, 56, 67, 71, 96, 98, 100, 101, 104–6, 113, 137, 147

Index 169

multimodal searching 104 multimodality 19–20, 22, 113; see also tenets of multiliteracies theory multiple means of engagement 32–5, 42, 88, 133, 142, 145–6, 147, 154–60; authentic assessments 34; communication 34–5; collaboration 35; motivation 34; why 34 multiple means of action and expression 32–4, 41, 88, 104, 133, 141, 144–5, 147, 154–60; assistive technology, 34; how 33; speech-to-text, 34; multiple means of representation 32–4, 41, 87–8, 133, 141, 143–4, 147, 154–60; recognition, 32; what, 32; language, 33; perception; symbols, 33 National Association for Music Education (NAfME) 84 National Center for Education Statistics 80, 91 National Council for Geographic Education (NCGE) 84 National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) 84 National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) 14, 84 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) 84, 150 National Education Association (NEA) 37, 44, 83–6, 91, 140, 148 National Education Technology Plan (NETP) 38; assessment, 38; infrastructure, 38; learning, 38; productivity, 38 National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers 5, 14 national legislation 37, 39 National Council of National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) 84 Neo, M. 131, 136 Neo, T. 131, 136 netiquette 110 networking 80, 83 new literacies (lower case) 6, 7, 10–1, 12, 13–4, 49, 74, 112–3, 116, 135, 140, 147 New Literacies (upper case) 7, 10–1, 17, 113 New London Group (NLG) 6, 15, 19, 22–4, 27–8, 116, 136

New Media Consortium 117–8, 122–3, 130, 135 Newsela 41, 105, 107, 142, 146, 151, 157 Niess, M.L. 53, 63 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) 39–40, 44 November, A. 7, 10, 12, 15, 96, 98–100, 102–3, 113 O’Reilly, T. 80 online navigation 96 online reading 4, 7–8, 13 online reading and research 92–114 online research 14, 93, 99, 104, 113; see also web literacy skills 92, 99–100, 107–8, 111 optical reading devices 161; see appendix 9.3 oral language 3, 18, 21, 42, 85 oral storytelling 88 organizations supporting all learners 162; see appendix 9.4 overt instruction 23, 24 PL 94–142 see Americans with Disabilities Act and IDEA Pane, D.M. 116, 136 Papert, S. 7, 15, 17, 28 Pea, R.D. 69, 75 Pearson, P.D. 57, 63 pedagogical 5, 12, 16, 25–6; leveraging technology 47, 129; multiliteracies 5, 18, 22–4, 27, 89; TIPC 53–6, 55; TPACK 48–53, 50, 51, 117; transforming classrooms 121, 130–3 pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) see TPACK pedagogical knowledge (PK) see TPACK personalization 20, 47, 129–30, 134, 156 personalized learning 130, 132–3, 136 perspective 23, 26, 44, 59, 85–6, 90, 128, 134, 141; learner-centered 47; multiliteracies 6, 18, 20, 27, 29–43, 52–3, 68, 87, 134, 137–8, 147; pedagogical 27; strengths-based 22, 134; teacher-centered 47; theoretical 27; UDL 34, 141 Pew Research Center 83, 90–1, 112 physical environment 31, 118, 120 Piaget, J. 17–8 Pilgrim, J. 6–7, 15, 34, 44, 84, 91, 93, 98–101, 101, 105, 107–8, 112–4, 124, 126, 136 Pilgrim, J.M. 123, 123–4, 126, 136

170

Index

Pillan, J. 36 planning process 51, 54, 56, 137–8, 140, 147 print-based 4, 11, 30, 96–7, 107 problem-based learning (PBL) studentcentered approach, 131 problem-solving 8, 53, 57–9, 68, 73, 119, 127, 130–1 progressive pedagogy 24; situated practice, 24; experiencing, 24 project-based learning 73, 130–2, 134 Puentedura, R. 66–7, 75 QR codes 41, 86, 88, 150, 155, 157–8, 160 Ragupathi, K. 122, 136 Ralabate, P.K. 35, 44, 52, 63 RAT 67–9, 69, 117; amplification 68, 69; representation 67–8, 69; transformation 68–9, 69 recognition 31–2, 52 see also UDL neural networks recursive 55–7, 60 redefinition see SAMR reflection see TIPC Reggio Emilia 116, 135 Reinking, D. 52, 63, 65, 68, 75, 116, 136 relationships 23, 116 reliability reasoning 84, 91–2, 100, 108, 108, 114 replacement see RAT representation see multiple means of representation resources supporting all learners see Appendix 9.4 Richardson, W. 133, 136, 143, 146, 148 Rose, D.H. 30–1, 34, 43–4, 106, 114 Rosin, H. 17, 28 SAMR 66, 67, 67, 117; augmentation 66, 67; modification 66–7, 67; redefinition 67, 67; substitution 66, 67 Sauers, N.J. 122, 136 scaffolded exploration see EMSCI scaffolds 34, 128 screen-based 4, 11–2, 104, 107 search bar 93, 94, 96–7, 97, 104; see also indexes search engines 94, 94–5, 102; see also card catalogs SEARCH strategy 101–3, 102; select keywords 102; evaluate 102; add

quotation marks or Boolean terms 102–3; refine results 103; check the url 103; hunt for key information 103 Shields, M.K. 146, 148 Shulman, L.S. 49, 54, 63 six language arts 5, 7, 13–4, 36, 54, 112, 114, 136, 139, 151, 153 Smith, A. 8, 14, 35, 43, 83, 91 social media 6, 22, 81–3, 82, 84; apps, 20; communication, 21, 101; data mining 110; influences 17; platforms 81; teachers 119 speech-to-text 34, 39, 41, 74, 104–5, 141, 145 standards 5, 13–4, 20, 24, 30–1, 35, 38–40, 56, 84; see also Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts; see also International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) standards for students Stevens, L.P. 9, 15 Stevens,V. 48, 63 storytelling 22, 35, 51, 60–1, 82, 88, 118, 151, 154, 158 strategic 31, 33–4; see also UDL neural networks strategies 13, 154–160; critical thinking 99; instructional 32, 42, 48–9, 52–3, 145; literacy 7, 33; technology 70, 72; online research 93, 100; online search 107–110 Streitfeld, D. 80, 91 student learning 47–8, 51, 60, 64, 67–70, 73–4, 122 student-centered 54, 116, 121, 129–32 substitution see SAMR Sukovic, S. 11, 15 Sullivan, D. 104, 114 T3 framework 69–73, 75: automation 70, 71, 134; consumption, 70, 71; contribution 70, 72; inquiry design 70, 73; production 70, 72; social entrepreneurship 70, 73; transcendent 70, 72–3; transformational 70, 71–2; translational 70, 70 taxonomies 66–73; Bloom’s taxonomy 65; technology integration 117, 139; UDL 73–4; see also RAT, SAMR, T3 teachers as agents of change 138, 147 teaching and learning 8, 16, 31, 36, 39–40, 47–9, 51, 67, 83, 92, 116, 118, 121, 131–2, 136 technagogy 47–8

Index 171

technological content knowledge (TCK) see TPACK technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) see TPACK technology see technology tools technology integration 52–3, 55–7, 64–74, 98, 117, 147; affordances 4, 12, 35–6, 51, 55, 60–1, 68, 74, 82; education 4, 35–6, 40; EMSCI 57–62; English learner 40; lesson design 138–140; TIPC 53–7; TPACK 48–53; see also Appendix 9.2 technology knowledge (TK) see TPACK technology integration 67, 127, 130 technology tools 10, 12, 35–8, 82, 86, 115, 140, 141–2, 145, 149–153, 161; classroom use 17, 88, 119–20, 123, 115 engagement 37, 57, 59–60, 74, 87, 142; GPS 122, 127; teaching and learning 53, 66–7, 129, 140; UDL 30, 40, 132; see also Appendix 9.1 tenets of multiliteracies theory 19–22; see also design; diversity; multimodality text-to-speech 39, 88–9, 105, 122, 128, 143–4, 153–60, 161 Thornburg, D. 117 TIPC 53–7, 55, 139; instructional goal 54, 55; instructional approach 54, 55; tool selection 54, 55; contribution to instruction 55, 55–6; constraints 55, 56; instruction 55, 56; teacher planning 53–7 tool selection see TIPC TPACK 44, 47–8, 50, 51, 63, 117; UDL 53, 128, 142–46; content knowledge (CK) 49–50, 51, 54, 89; pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) 49, 51, 54; pedagogical knowledge (PK) 49, 51; technological content knowledge (TCK) 49, 51; technological knowledge (TK) 49, 51; technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK) 49, 51 transformation 75, 113, 115–34; learning environments 116–133; of literacy 7, 11–2, 68; student learning 64–5 transformation see RAT transliteracy 7, 11–12, 12, 15; read, write, and interact, 11, 107 tree octopus 99, 108, 111 Tucker, C. 129, 136 Twyman, J.S. 130, 136

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 4, 15 United States Department of Education 5, 8, 15, 37,-8, 44, 74–5, 92, 114, 122, 133, 136 United States Department of Education Office of Educational Technology (OET) 15, 37–8, 44, 75, 114, 136, 142 United States National Education Technology Plan (NETP) 15, 37–8, 44, 114, 121 Universal Design (UD) 29–31, 34, 43; United States Access Board 29–30 Universal Design for Learning (UDL) 89–90, 103, 132–133, 137; framework 18, 31, 35, 40, 52, 140, 147; neural networks 31–4, 42, 52; principles 18, 31–2, 40, 88, 103, 129, 133, 142, 154–60; how 31, 33, 52, 133, 138, 144 URLs 95, 95, 95–6; see also call numbers Vacca, J.L. 7, 11, 15 Van Ledtje, O. 80–1 Vasinda, S. 34–5, 44, 84, 91, 93, 98, 105, 108, 112, 114, 120, 136 Vasquez,V.M. 9, 15 virtual field trips 10, 150, 152 virtual reality 89, 115, 123–6, 149; goggles 124, 154 Voogt, J. 86, 91 Vygotsky, L. 17–8, 34, 44, 58, 63, 87, 91 Warlick, D.F. 4, 15, 96–8, 114 Watt, D. 7, 15 WBDG Accessibility Committee see access Web 1.0 80 Web 2.0 80–91, 82, 97, 100, 101, 110, 118, 154–60; action, expression, and engagement 88; analyze, evaluate, locate, navigation 10; literacy 2.0 12, 15, 80, 114; representation 87–8 webpages 96; see also chapters websites 96; see also books Weizman, A. 131, 136 Yetkiner, Z.E. 131, 136 Zumpano, N. 110, 114

e

Taylor&Francis Group an mforma business

Taylor & Francis eBooks www.taylorfrancis.com A single destination for eBooks from Taylor & Francis with increased functionality and an improved user experience to meet the needs of our customers. 90,000+ eBooks of award-winning academic content in Humanities, Social Science, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Medical written by a global network of editors and authors.

TAYLOR & FRANCIS EBOOKS OFFERS:

A streamlined experience for our library customers

A single point of discovery for all of our

Improved search and discovery of content at both book and chapter level

REQUEST A FREE TRIAL su [email protected]