Literacy Now

by Julie B. Wise

Over the past few years, school districts in 46 states have been reshaping their literacy instruction to align their curriculum with the Common Core State Standards (CCSSI, 2010). Two of the more significant changes to English Language Arts standards are in the area of writing and multimodal instruction. CCSS place a stronger emphasis on writing and indicate a broader definition of literacy. For example, fifth grade students are expected to analyze the author’s manipulation of media, create a multimedia presentation, and produce a two page typed document (CCSSI, 2010).

In addition, new literacies challenge our relationship with the writing process. As a result, educators need to re-evaluate and expand their understanding of literacy to include multimodal composition. In traditional poetry, composition is mediated on a piece of paper. The author’s goal is to evoke feelings and mental images through the printed text on a page. In digital poetry, composition is mediated on a screen and meaning is defined by the author’s use of sound, images, and textual motion (Hayles, 2008).

Curwood and Cowell (2011) maintained that their iPoetry project increased 10th grade students’ awareness of audience, a greater attention to mood, and self-reflection. Findings from this study suggests multimodal composition afforded students a meaningful tool to explore poetry within a collaborative, multimedia environment. In addition, digital poetry connected out of school literacies with classroom instruction and added relevance to the study of poetry as a genre.

Canadian researchers, Hughes & John (2009) implemented digital poetry with 6th and 7th grade students. The results highlighted the development of critical literacy and collaboration skills. According to the authors, the use of multimodal composition taught students how the use of multiple modes could increase the mood, imagery, and voice of the poem. In addition, the quality of students’ writing improved along with their ability to edit.

Step by Step Guide

The following three standards (CCSSI, 2010) could be used to guide the design of a digital poetry project:

• RL.5.7 Analyze how visual and multimedia elements contribute to the meaning, tone or beautify of a text (e.g., multimedia presentation of poem).
• W.5.6 Use technology to produce and publish writing as well as to interact and collaborate with others; demonstrate sufficient command of keyboarding skills to type a minimum of two pages in a single sitting.
• SL.5.5 Include multimedia components (e.g., graphics, sound) and visual displays in presentations 

The digital poetry project could consist of sixty-minute sessions over the course of four consecutive Fridays. In between each session, students read mentor poetry texts, record ideas in their writing journal, and collect sounds and images to use in their poem.

Session 1: Have students read and analyze page-based poetry and digital poetry by discussing the differences between two types of poetry. Guide students to think more critically about how sounds, images, and movement worked together with printed text to enhance meaning.

Analyze Poetry as a Reader

Analyzing Poetry as a Writer

Session 2: Introduce the composition process of digital poetry by using a think aloud when modeling how to create a digital poem. Invite students to apply an image, a sound, or a movement to the poem, Grandma, by Ralph Fletcher. After the whole group lesson, ask students to begin to brainstorm possible sounds, images, and movements for their own digital poem.

Digital Poetry Planning Guide

Start with a sound, image, or movement to support your brainstorming process.
Topic:
Audience:
Background: color or picture
Word: font style or size or motion
Explain your steps:

Session 3: Allow students the opportunity to work within PowerPoint or iMovie software to gain a deeper awareness of how sound, image, and movement of text could enhance mood and meaning. Walk around and give specific suggestions and feedback about the effects the students choose. At the end of the lesson, have students sharing how their poem was based on a sound, image, or movement.

Session 4: Ask students to present their digital poems to the class by explaining their multimodal composition process and reading their poem aloud. Allow time for peers to offer feedback in the form of praise, questions, and recommendations for future media choices.

Building a Bridge

Is poetry instruction still relevant in a time when we are preparing students for high-stakes testing in school while we read and write on cell phones, iPads, and laptops out of school? According to these two studies, the answer is, “Yes.” Digital poetry bridges new literacy skills with traditional poetry instruction in a collaborative environment. Any opportunities educators can build a bridge between out of school and in school literacies could increase student motivation and engagement to learn. The affordances of digital poetry instruction can provide the collaborative digital environment students’ desire while meeting the academic demands of the CCSS.

Resources:

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Accessed from: http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards

Curwood, J. and Cowell, L. (2011). iPoetry: Creating Space for New Literacies in the English Curriculum. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 55(2), 110 – 120.

Hughes, J. (2008). The “screen-size” art: Using digital media to perform poetry. English in Education. 42(2), 148 – 164.

Hughes, J. and John, A. (2009). From Page to Digital Stage: Creating Digital Performances of Poetry. Voices from the Middle. 16(3), 15 – 22.

 

Julie B. Wise is currently in the PhD Literacy Program at the University of Delaware. She can be reached via email at juliebwise@comcast.net.

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

Those pesky love bugs can strike when we are most unaware or most disinterested in being bitten. But love and Valentine’s Day don’t always have to be associated with romance. Sometimes this holiday can be the perfect time to celebrate the things and people we love the most, including family, friends and jokes about the all-too confusing nature of love. This week’s reviews from members of the IRA Children’s Literature and Reading Special Interest Group just may expand your definition of love. Teachers may want to visit ReadWriteThink, which provides several lesson ideas for Valentine’s Day and more.

 

Grades K-3

 

Bozzo, Linda. (2013). Funny Valentine’s Day jokes to tickle your funny bone. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow Elementary.

Elementary school children will enjoy reading and sharing with classmates and adults the many Valentine's Day jokes in this particular title. There are plenty of knock, knock jokes and some groaners, but there are also several jokes guaranteed to make anyone laugh out loud. Rather than reach for a chocolate, the lovelorn might be well-advised to reach for a joke or two. This one would be useful in a unit on word play too.

- Barbara A. Ward, Washington State University Pullman

 

Farmer, Jacqueline. (2013). Valentine be mine. Illus. by Megan Halsey and Sean Addy. Watertown, MA: Charlesbridge.

This visually interesting and well-researched book provides the history of Valentine’s Day and its romantic associations. Drawing from its possible inception during Roman times, the author provides several scenarios, from pagan to religious, on the origin and evolving celebrations that accompany Valentine’s Day. Stories, legends, and traditions for young readers, historical facts, jokes, activities, and more are found within these pages that are decorated with collages that offer a feast for the eyes. Craft and construction paper ideas and, of course, the popularity of chocolate attached to this holiday are also part of the treats offered within this book. This nonfiction look at Valentine’s Day is a wonderful addition to any classroom or library. Although intended for booksellers, teachers will enjoy the toolkit resources for bookmarks and mini-posters that are available at the publisher’s website.

- Karen Hildebrand, Ohio Library and Reading Consultant

 

Ferber, Brenda A. (2012). The yuckiest, stinkiest, best Valentine ever. Illus. by Tedd Arnold. New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.

As the story opens, Leon is making a red construction paper heart Valentine for Zoey Maloney, the girl with whom he has fallen madly in love. When he writes “I love you” on the back of the Valentine, the Valentine comes to life and responds with “Yuck” and goes on to inform Leon that he will make a fool of himself if he gives this heart to Zoey. He continues to say that Valentine’s Day is about CANDY, not love. And with that, he hops out the window and runs away. The chase is on as Leon runs after this runaway heart. Along the way, Leon finds others that are tagging along to help catch the fleet-footed heart. As Leon explains the reason for the chase, his friends offer different views on love, from boys who agree with the heart to girls who think it is sweet and are ready to swoon. Before reading this book, teachers might consider reading aloud one or more versions of The Gingerbread Boy so that the comparison to this yucky Valentine tale can be enjoyed on different comparative levels. Arnold’s cartoon-like illustrations, especially the expressions he draws on the face of the red heart, are hilarious. A sure hit at any classroom Valentine’s party, this title begs to be a Valentine’s Day read aloud. Teachers will enjoy the colorful resource activity kit available at the author’s website in addition to an author interview on how she was inspired to write this book, which is based on her son’s school Valentine experience.

- Karen Hildebrand, Ohio Library and Reading Consultant

 

Kirk, Daniel. (2013). Ten things I love about you. New York: Penguin Group Publishers/Nancy Paulsen Books.

Rabbit and Pig are good friends. Rabbit decides he wants to make a list of all the things he really likes about his friend, but he picks a time when Pig is really busy doing other things. As Rabbit follows Pig around asking for his help on this new project, he joyously adds things to the list that note Pig’s wonderful qualities. Pig is starting to grow a little impatient with what he perceives as being badgered by Rabbit. However, Rabbit just adds to the list how polite Pig is when he emphatically says, “Please, Rabbit!” (unpaged). The story concludes when Pig drops a piece of paper, and readers find out that Pig is a list-maker, too! Kirk’s illustrations are not the usual style readers see in his Library Mouse series. For this book he has used painted wood panels and ink-on-paper drawings that are scanned into a computer and then enhanced through digital art tools. The lists in the book will give teachers a jumping off point for writing ideas for students or they may decide to use Georgia Heard’s Falling down the Page: A Book of List Poems (2009) to create poems from children’s ideas, individually or a class poem. Teachers who are looking for authors that Skype will find that information and a great deal more at the author’s website.

- Karen Hildebrand, Ohio Library and Reading Consultant

 

Kranz, Linda. (2012). Love you when. Photos by Klaus Kranz. Lanham, MD: Rowan Littlefield Publishing Group/Taylor Trade Publishing.

“Do you think of me during the day?” you ask … “Tell me when” (p.1). This little book that appears to be told from parent to child or grandchild goes on to answer the question of when the adult thinks of the child in everyday settings. Using natural as well as painted and/or decorated rocks, the author presents different scenarios throughout the day when the adult thinks of the child; for example, from the morning sun or the smell of flowers. Beautifully illustrated with a motif of rocks and stones, this might be a more personal book as a gift. Teachers will enjoy the writing pattern templates on the author’s website.

- Karen Hildebrand, Ohio Library and Reading Consultant

 

Manushkin, Fran. (2011). Katie Woo: No Valentines for Katie. Illus. by Tammie Lyon. Mankato, MN: Capstone/Picture Window Books.

The giving and receiving of Valentines can be exciting or traumatic. When exuberant Katie doesn't receive a Valentine from the box Miss Winkle has placed in class for the cards for her students, she is hurt until the reason for the slight is discovered. It turns out that she has plenty of friends, and she and Barry, the new boy in class, have a lot more in common than their glasses. This is a sweet way to discuss the feeling of being left out although Katie is upset over nothing in the end. It’s also a gentle reminder not to forget that everyone needs a little love now and then. The illustrations capture the sweet nature of Katie and her classmates.

- Barbara A. Ward, Washington State University Pullman

 

Rotner, Shelley. (2013). What’s love? Mankato, MN: Capstone Press.

First published in 2008 by Roaring Brook Press using black and white photographs, this 2013 edition has added beautiful color photography and a variety of fonts to pose the title question: What is love? Sometimes tangible and sometimes not, the concept of love can be answered for children with a wide range of responses. “Love opens our hearts/ It makes us giggle and sometimes cry/” (p. 6-7) “We love the buzz/ of ideas and/ stories in our heads.” (p. 24). Teachers will enjoy using this book as a read-aloud that might inspire some creative writing or at the very least thoughtful brainstorming. Or possibly it will inspire a little more love throughout the classroom community.

- Karen Hildebrand, Ohio Library and Reading Consultant

 

Grades 4-7

 

Krishnaswami, Uma. (2013). The problem with being slightly heroic. Illus. by Abigail Halpin. New York: Simon & Schuster/Atheneum Books for Young Readers.

Some love stories occur in privacy while others play out between one person and millions of admirers or fans. In this book, the love story of Dolly Singh, a celebrated movie star, is of great interest to her fans in India and America. The sequel to the earlier The Grand Plan to Fix Everything (2011), this title brings Dolly and Dini to the U. S. where Dolly’s latest movie has its inaugural screening. Naturally, Dini and her friend and fan Maddie are thrilled, but oh, so much can also go wrong. Dolly loses her passport, but luckily evades the darts that were meant for Mini the truant elephant who has strolled out of her restricted yard at the Smithsonian Institution. She must deal with scattered jewelry and a fiancé who has been darted instead of Mini. With so much going on, Dolly needs her milkshake with its special rose petal ingredients to relax her. Dini finds allies in the kitchen where Armend Latifi rules with an iron fist and is able to negotiate for the supply of rose petals with a touch of chocolate, just the way Dolly loves it. Somehow, Dolly has befriended Mini, the adventurous elephant, and takes off to spend time with her without telling anyone. The flowing pencil sketches and the light-hearted text come together beautifully (and amusingly) in this book. 

- Rani Iyer, Washington State University Pullman

McMullan, Kate. (2012). Nice shot, Cupid! Mankato, MN: Stone Arch Books/Capstone Press.

From the Myth-O-Mania series from Kate McMullen, the author uses the voice of Hades to tell this story in updated contemporary language and setting. The teenaged god Cupid, complete with braces and pimples, falls in love with the beautiful mortal young girl, Psyche. Shy and somewhat bumbling, Cupid is reluctant to approach her so Zeus comes up with a plan to bring them together – a kidnapping! Using a humorous tone to tell the tale, the author is sure to captivate today’s young readers with the pop culture references, the lattes, Hades’ horses Harley and Davidson and other jokes and laughter without straying too far from the original Greek myth. Also listen to the audio book summary of the book.

- Karen Hildebrand, Ohio Library and Reading Consultant

 

Grades 9-12

 

Couloumbis, Audrey. (2012). Not exactly a love story. New York: Random House.

The setting is the 1970’s, the pre-cell phone era. Fifteen-year-old Vinnie is reeling with horrible acne, a girl friend who moved away without saying goodbye, his parents’ divorce, his mother’s remarriage (to Mr. Buonofuoco, his gym teacher!) and now a move from Queens to Long Island. Lonely and self-conscious, he has to find his way into a new life at a new school. He develops a crush on the very pretty girl next door, Patsy, but lacks the courage to approach her. When he accidentally finds her unlisted phone number on a slip of paper, he places an anonymous midnight phone call that turns into something rather obscene. Embarrassed at the way the nocturnal phone call has turned out, he calls back the next night to apologize, still not revealing who he really is. As he calls again the following night, the persona of “Vincenzo” takes shape. Patsy decides to carry on the conversations each night that he calls back. In a Cyrano de Bergerac style, their relationship evolves. Meanwhile, their daytime friendship is actually developing as well, and Patsy confides in Vincenzo that she is interested in Vinnie. Not surprisingly, the two eventually meet face to face when all is revealed and true identities, as well as inner feelings, are exposed. This charming almost-love story will appeal to teen readers.
Teachers may want to watch this “60second Recap” of this book at or this interview with the author based on some of her earlier works and the research process.

- Karen Hildebrand, Ohio Library and Reading Consultant

 

Powell, Martin (reteller). (2012). Shakespeare: Romeo & Juliet. Illus. by Eva Cabrera. Mankato, MN: Capstone/Stone Arch Books.

Although this graphic novel simplifies much of the classic star-crossed love story of Romeo and Juliet and the disagreement between the two families while also leaving out much of William Shakespeare's language, it still may find a receptive audience in readers struggling to understand the play’s nuances. Teachers might find it useful to hand this version to some of their students while discussing the various scenes. Juliet and Romeo are depicted as attractive youngsters, falling head over heels without knowing the other’s background. After sharing a kiss at a masked ball, both realize that they have been keeping company with their family’s enemy. It would be hard to find a more romantic or tragic story than this of Juliet and her Romeo. Moreover, it's encouraging to note that the Bard's story lives on in this particular format.

- Barbara A. Ward, Washington State University Pullman

 

Yomtov, Nelson. (2011). Shakespeare: A midsummer night’s dream. Illus. by Fares Maese. Mankato, MN: Capstone/Stone Arch Books.

This graphic novel version of William Shakespeare's classic comedy of errors is filled with lots of silliness as several characters find themselves behaving in surprising ways and developing crushes on the most unlikely of individuals, in one case, even a furry animal with a donkey’s head. Readers unfamiliar with the original play may be a bit lost, but the humorous absurdity of love in various forms fills the book's pages, reminding readers of how foolish love can make us all. While few English teachers would choose this offering over the great bard's work since so much has been left out, it still provides a gentle, accessible introduction to his work while also poking fun at the vagaries of love.

- Barbara A. Ward, Washington State University Pullman

 

These reviews are submitted by members of the International Reading Association's Children's Literature and Reading Special Interest Group (CL/R SIG) and are published weekly on Reading Today Online. The International Reading Association partners with the National Council of Teachers of English and Verizon Thinkfinity to produce ReadWriteThink.org, a website devoted to providing literacy instruction and interactive resources for grades K–12.

The Common Core State Standards are on everyone’s mind these days. For me, the positive impact of the standards so far has been a renewed interest in how we improve writing instruction in every classroom, at every grade, and in every content area. It’s hard work, and I welcome the energetic, enthusiastic national dialogue about writing.

To begin with, there is a harsh reality to address: What we’re doing in writing instruction now isn’t working. CCSS or not, changes need to be made. According to The Nation’s Report Card (NAEP, 2012), only 27 percent of eighth graders are proficient in writing and, of those students, only 3 percent are advanced. Consider the bigger number: 73 percent of eighth grades are not proficient. And the results for grade 12 are starkly similar: 24 percent proficient and 3 percent advanced. No improvement in four years? I’m sure you will agree that these statistics are dismal and simply not okay by anyone’s measure.

The implications are huge: Everything we do in writing must be examined for its effectiveness. All of our writing cards need to go on the table, and those that are not producing desired results should be discarded in favor of those that are. Five-paragraph essays, Friday spelling tests, out-of-context word practice, excessive prompted writing¾these are the types of practices that need to be rethought. In their place we should use methods that support many different learning styles, teach spelling skills in a variety of ways (using student writing for practice instead of worksheets), balance prompted writing with self-chosen topics, and so on. In other words, we should use best practices—or what I like to call, the 4Ws.

• Writing process: the recursive steps writers go through to generate text
• Writing traits: the language used to assess and teach writing
• Writing modes: the purposes for writing
• Writing workshop: the structure of the writing classroom

These are quick, thumbnail definitions, of course. But my point is that the effective teacher of writing embraces all four of the Ws, not just one or two—and there is a world of studies and reports that supports this claim: Writing Next, Because Writing Matters, Writing Now, Informing Writing, The Neglected R, among others. Years of well-documented research reveal why certain methods work better than others, but sadly, for many of today’s students, their writing education looks similar to students’ of past generations, with few if any Ws.

Writing instruction has been slow to change, in some measure due to its inherent complexity. It is, after all, thinking aloud on paper, and there is nothing easy about that. But it is possible to embrace that complexity and teach writing well, if we choose to. I believe students need diverse and multi-faceted teaching that focuses on how each of the 4Ws can help them improve. They need opportunities to apply the writing process (draft, edit, revise) extended pieces of writing over time. This work takes place in the writing workshop structure in which teachers conduct focus lessons (or mini-lessons), and students choose topics and work uninterrupted on their pieces, conferring with the teacher as needs arise. Trait-specific focus lessons develop specific, targeted skills, one at a time, so students learn how to revise and edit their work and take it to the next level. And, students’ longer, more extended pieces should rotate between the three modes of writing¾narrative, expository, and persuasive¾so they explore full range of purposes for writing. Each of the 4Ws adds substance to the writing classroom—and when we unite them, the whole becomes much greater than the parts.

So where do the CCSS fit into this long view of writing reform? The standards spell out what students should know and be able to do, grade by grade. The 4Ws are how we move students toward meeting them. As we explore the standards and their implications on teaching, see if you don’t agree that they clearly establish the need for the 4Ws to be fully operational in classrooms at every level and in every subject. The four categories of standards for writing are:

Text Types and Purposes
These standards focus on the modes of writing: expository, narrative, and persuasive (argumentative). They also address the different formats (structures) and genres (categories) of writing so students become knowledgeable of and adept at many aspects of writing.

Production and Distribution of Writing
These standards focus on the writing process. Revising (traits: Ideas, Organization, Word Choice, Voice, Sentence Fluency), editing (trait: Conventions), and publishing work using technology (trait: presentation) are key to improving writing over time.

Research to Build and Present Knowledge
These standards focus on writing to learn. Gathering information from multiple sources to express ideas, provide evidence, and support positions in the modes of writing: narrative, expository, and persuasive (argumentative) make this standard critical to the writing students do throughout their lives.

Range of Writing
This standard focuses on short- and long-term writing projects. Quick writes, short essays, journal entries, and responses to literature are but a few examples of short pieces. Longer, extended projects that last over several weeks in a writing workshop setting are equally important. They allow students to apply all steps in the writing process, confer with the teacher, and create multiple drafts before publishing a final copy.

p: ghm575 via photopin cc

Once again, this may be a simplistic interpretation of the standards, but you can see where I’m going with how the standards and 4Ws are inextricably linked. I believe the standards will be met in classrooms that apply the 4Ws. As educators everywhere tee up to meet the CCSS, let’s remember, “The Standards define what all students are expected to know and be able to do, not how teachers should teach” (CCSS 2010, p. 7). My advice: Work backwards from the big picture of what students should know and be able to do in writing, and each day zero in on best practices based on the 4Ws. Then and only then will students meet the CCSS—and as students succeed, we may discover the joy of teaching writing, too.

See Ruth Culham at IRA’s 58th Annual Convention in San Antonio, Texas, where she will be part of the Invited Symposium, “Readin', Writin', and 'Rithmetic: Revisited Through the Common Core State Standards and Texas STAAR.” Her co-presenters include Greg Tang, Steven Layne, and Danny Brassell. Learn more at www.iraconvention.org.

Ruth Culham is the recognized expert in the traits of writing field and author of over 40 teaching resources published by Scholastic, including 6+1 TRAITS OF WRITING: THE COMPLETE GUIDE, GRADES 3 AND UP; 6+1 TRAITS OF WRITING: THE COMPLETE GUIDE FOR THE PRIMARY GRADES; and TRAITS OF WRITING: THE COMPLETE GUIDE FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL, winner of the 2011 Teacher's Choice award. As the author of TRAITS WRITING: THE COMPLETE WRITING PROGRAM FOR GRADES K-8 (2012), she has launched a writing revolution. TRAITS WRITING is the culmination of 40 years of educational experience, research, practice, and passion.



Top Literacy Experts to Discuss New Standards at IRA Convention

Teaching Tips: The Reading Makeover

by Judith Hayn

Little Rock Central High Memory Project (2012). Mapping the Road to Change: Insights on Perceptions, Prejudice, & Acceptance. Oral History Collected by Students of Little Rock Central High. www.lrchmemory.org

Since February as Black History Month, I'm reviewing the text Mapping the Road to Change, a collection of oral histories written by ninth grade Civics students at Central High School in Little Rock, AR, site of one of the more infamous struggles of the Civil Rights Era. Senior editors reviewed over 300 essays and selected those they wanted to share with readers. They organized the essays into chapters, chose appropriate artwork, and wrote chapter commentaries under the guidance of three social studies teachers. Teachers also created a list of lesson ideas for civics classes, English classes, and to align with the Common Core State Standards. Mapping the Road is the second volume created through the Memory Project (Beyond Central High, Toward Acceptance, 2010).

Once started, the collection is difficult to put down. The selection process was thorough and would have created uncomfortable discussions as choices were made dealing with all aspects of bigotry as it has emerged beyond the racism of 1957. Issues of ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status, and physical disabilities are explored by these teen researchers. Chelsi Page interviewed Linda Crawford who helped integrate the high school in Wichita Falls, TX, in the 1960s when she was 16. Abbas Naqvi talked with his Pakistani dad who came to Syracuse University in 1996 to get a master’s degree and reminisced about the changes that occurred in attitudes toward Muslims after 9/11. Rachel Schaffhauser met with Richard Yada from Rohwer, AR, and discusses his birth and early life in a Japanese internment camp in the 1940s.  Cameron Matson interviewed his grandfather Jerome Liebman on Sanibel Island about his life growing up Jewish in Cleveland, OH. Gloria Atkins related to Ebony Stevenson about her youth as a biracial child in Little Rock during the 50s and 60s.

These stories are moving and poignant, and the conclusions by the young journalists are heart-felt; thus, teens will be drawn into the lives of others who have weathered prejudice and turned it into acceptance. The teachers and students involved in the project provide a blueprint for creating a similar undertaking. Interested educators can purchase the book and ask for assistance at the Memory Project website.

Dr. Judith A. Hayn is an associate professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

This article is part of a series from the Special Interest Group Network on Adolescent Literature (SIGNAL).

by Thomas DeVere Wolsey and Scott Bissell

In our garages we have many different tools that serve a variety of purposes. Some we use in the garden, some in woodworking, and some when we work on our cars. Just like the garage in our houses, teachers have a digital garage full of tools they can use to improve teaching and learning. The question we explore in this TILE-SIG feature is how do teachers (and their students) choose the best tool in the digital garage for the task at hand.

At times, it is easy to simply use the tools we know, but are these tools the best fit for the purpose? In our work with faculty, PK-12 teachers, and students, we have learned that learning what tools are available and how best to use them increases the information and communication possibilities. We devised a framework of thinking about the particular strengths, limitations, and perceptual modalities tools emphasize. We also wanted to consider the level of difficulty used in using the tool for the creator and for the audience who might need to access the tool. 

The range of tool possibilities is ever-growing, so these are only examples, of course. Podcasts, for example, are relatively easy to create (a strength) but they don’t feature visuals (a possible limitation). The modality emphasized is auditory. This type of media works well when the primary mode of learning is auditory (or presents an auditory version of a print-based work). On the other hand, Voicethread has a free version educators can use, and an educator version with additional features. It is easy to upload and integrate pictures, PowerPoint® slides, video, and to promote discussion via the comment feature. The free version limits the number of projects.  Voicethread integrates linguistic, visual, and auditory channels if the creator chooses to use all three.  For classrooms filtering software may block access to interactive sites, another limitation.

Teachers can also consider the level of difficulty for themselves, for student-authors, and for audiences. Students’ knowledge of the tools also must be considered. A screencast, for example, is a tool for creating a presentation by capturing what is on the author’s screen with some audio narration and sometimes webcam video of the author, as well. The author needs a microphone and the software necessary for capturing the screen (e.g. Jing, Snagit, Screencast-o-Matic). For the creator or author, the level of difficulty is a bit higher than it would be for the audience who needs only click on a link.

Though our PK-12 students are technologically quite savvy in many ways, they also need the guidance of instructional natives (those who know how best to teach other humans) in choosing tools. We offer five guidelines for choosing digital tools:

1. What are the strengths, limitations, and emphasized modalities of the tools we are considering?
2. How do those strengths, limitations, and modalities fit the nature of the learning task?
3. What other knowledge and tools are needed (do media creators—students or teachers-need to use a particular browser, do they need a microphone or webcam, etc.)?
4. To what degree does the technology enhance the learning that is to occur?
5. How might teachers help students make decisions about the tools they use?

Download a tools decision matrix here (Word file).

Dr. Thomas DeVere Wolsey is a literacy specialization coordinator in the Richard W. Riley College of Education and Leadership at Walden University. Scott Bissell is a lead instructional designer at the Center for Faculty Excellence at Walden University.

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