Assignment 1 - EDX3270 Natalie Todd

Sourced from http://sites.uci.edu/theredhairedteacher/my-mission-statement/bloom1/ March 10,2014

Are teacher’s reinventing literacy, by using multiliteracies, enough in the classroom in order for student’s to function in the 21st Century?

Natalie Todd0061009707EDX3270 – Assignment 1

Sourced from http://www.forsyth.k12.ga.us/domain/3487, March 10, 2014

Timetable

Period 1 – Reinventing Literacy in the 21st Century

Break 1 – what literacy used to entail within the classroom prior to the introduction of Multiliteracies

Period 2 – The digital divide

Period 3 – Literacy Frameworks and Pedagogy

Break 2 – What literacy is like within our classroom today

Period 4 – Critical Essay

Period 5 – Self reflection on ICT learning

End of Day - references

REINVENTING LITERACY IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Sourced from http://www.thebookchook.com/2011/07/letter-to-book-chook-creative-literacy.html, March 17, 2014

“Teacher’s express concern that there is a lack of professional development related to the teaching of reading”

Meyer, K. (2010). ‘Diving into Reading’: Revisiting Reciprocal Teaching in the Middle Years. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, 18(1), 41-52

Meyer provides an analytical view on how reciprocal teaching strategies promote Bloom’s Higher Order Thinking, critical thinking and increased student participation. The article provides some elaborate ideas on scaffolding the children within the Middle Years, however it is limiting in the way that the ideas are based on text in print. This article does highlight that the traditional way of teaching in which the students have to guess what the teacher wants as an answer is on the way out, and that students are benefitingfrom the more student centred learning perspective. Unfortunately this article does not integrate the notion that the world is ever-changing in terms of technology. By embracing new technologies and philosophies in our pedagogy, this can onlybenefit our middle year students. Sourced from http://

learn.moodle.net/mod/glossary/showentry.php?courseid=2&eid=171&displayformat=dictionary, March 17, 2014

“Multiliteracies broadens our understanding of literacy by embracing linguistically

and culturally diverse ways of using language”

Peterson, S. S., Botelho, J., Jang, E. & Kerekes, J. (2007). Writing Assessment: What Would Multiliteracies Teachers Do? Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 15(1), 29-35.

Stagg, Botelho, Jang and Kerekes draw on their background experiences and provide a dissection on one of the assessment strategies that are currently used in the traditional classroom for writing. The authors’ aim within this journal is to educate teachers who are reliant on the cognitive perspective of teaching in the beneficial multiliteracies perspective of teaching. They offer their objective opinion by providing realistic examples on how to modify assessment strategies within Spandel’s (2005) six traits.This journal article highlights the importance of going beyond the norm and relating the assessment to that of the student’s individual needs, learning abilities and discourses.

Sourced from http://www.scoop.it/t/6-traits-resources?tag=6-traits, March 11, 2014

“Children need to understand what they read. Simply saying the words is not enough”

Schubert, M. (2009). Comprehension activities for the middle years of schooling: Teaching and learning to comprehend texts across the curriculum. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, 17(1), i-vii

Whilst we talk about multiliteracies being the important factor within the classroom in order to essentially prepare our children for society, we cannot forget about our traditional concepts such as comprehension. Schubert within her article provides a summary of scenarios reminding the reader that comprehension is pivotal in any literacy program. An essential part of literacy is that children must comprehend what they are reading within paper based text or multiliteracies. Whilst Schubert’s scenarios are essentially based on paper based text they can easily be modified for the inclusion of digital technologies. This article offers new ideas for teachers to utilise within their literacy program.

Sourced from http://nikkiscoolcrewgrade1.pbworks.com/w/page/58322574/Nikki's%20Crew%20Reading%20Page, March 17, 2014

Classroom prior to the introduction of Multiliteracies

Sourced from http://blog.jobsfirstnyc.org/2011/09/bridging-digital-divide-in-new-york.html, March 17, 2014

The Digital Divide

“The world is awash with hybrid texts created and communicated using ever-emerging forms of ICT”

Cloonan, Anne. Multiliteracies in the Early Years: Filming and Professional Learning [online]. Australian Screen Education Online, No. 35, Winter 2004: 43-46

Cloonan’s article is based on a series of interactions with Dr Bill Cope, Professor Mary Kalantzis and four teachers who are hesitant in the usage of Multiliteracies within the classroom. The major question this article is based around is “Are Primary Teachers Technophobes?”. Cloonan’s research around this thesis is phenomenal. She encourages the teacher’s to throw themselves into the world of multiliteracies and let go of their insecurities. It highlighted the level of unawareness that the teachers had of their students digital capabilities and the ability to reflect on their current literacy practices It also highlighted where they could implement changes within the literacy program that is adaptive of digital growth. Sourced from http://www.socmedsean.com/social-media-comic-the-technophobe/, March 18, 2014

“Today’s young people are growing up in a world full of digital technologies and, for many, the use of multiple technologies is part of everyday life”Henderson, R. (2008). It’s a Digital Life! Digital Literacies, Multiliteracies and Multimodality. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 16(2), 11-15.

Henderson bases her journal article on the collection of statistical data to expose the emerging popularity of digital technology within the home. Her statements within the article are supported effortlessly by research that has already been conducted in regards to multiliteracies and the way children have been exposed to this outside of the classroom. The article provides examples detailing the digital literacy capabilities the students bring to the classroom. It provides valid links between the varying levels of attitudes, the range of multiliteracies that children bring intotheir classroom and offers the notion that teachers need to acknowledge this in order to improve literacy outcomes within the classroom.

Sourced from http://www.infosysblogs.com/voices-instep/,March 17, 2014

There is evidence that the digital divide between schools and homes continues to widen as more and more technologies become availableHenderson, R. (2011). Classroom pedagogies, digital literacies and the home-school digital divide. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, (6)2, 152-161

Henderson’s journal article is based on a research assignment conducted by herself in which takes a confronting look into what teachers see as digital technology (e.g. computer) compared to what the students are exposed to within their environment and discourses (e.g. mobile phones, applications, game consoles). Within this article it is evident that the two teachers in which the research was conducted on are quite naive on the implementation of evolving

digital technologies. They too underestimate the resources available to themselves within the classroom and what the children are exposed to outside the classroom. Henderson’s article highlights the importance of taking the time to allow students to demonstrate their digital abilities and scaffold from there within problem solving and critical thinking.

Sourced from http://www.pearson.com.au/products/S-Z-Tompkins/Literacy-for-the-21st-Century-A-Balanced-Approach/9781442532700?R=9781442532700, March 20, 2014

“Statistics on the academic success of Aboriginal students present a dismal picture”

Pirbhai-Illich, F. (2010). Aboriginal Students Engaging and Struggling with Critical Multiliteracies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, (54)4, 257-266.

The author of this article draws on prior research done on Aboriginal people and their attendance and attitudes towards education. She highlights the importance of connecting the Aboriginal culture and literacy education together in order to engage the students. It brings forth the evidence that education within the Aboriginal community is somewhat ‘incidental’ and in essence the classroom teacher needs to change his/her teaching strategies in order to improve their literacy standards. School attendance and literacy levels improved dramatically when multiliteracies were introduced. The author provides alternative methods of teaching and goes above and beyond in her

facilitation of this research project. This is an essential read for any teacher looking at teaching in the Aboriginal community.

Sourced from http://peppermintmag.com/category/culture/, March 21, 2014

“The change in communication technologies that seems to happen almost daily is both real and dramatic in the ways it is

changing how young people read and write with words and images”

Williams, B. T. (2008). “Tomorrow will not be like today”: Literacy and identity in a world of multiliteracies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, (51)8, 682-686.

Williams’ injects some thought provoking comments in regards to the evolving world of digital technologies. She raises some valid points about the “differences between generations” and recognises the students of today do not know any different in regards to digital technologies as they were born into it. A common trend throughout her article is her lack of experience of utilising digital literacy within a literacy programme and how she often feels out of her depth when teaching using it, however; she does realise that there are various online resources and personal development courses that are available not only to herself but to other teachers feeling the same.

Sourced from http://multiliteraciespp107.blogspot.com.au/, March 21, 2014

Classroom with Multiliteracies

Sourced from http://composing.org/digitalwrd/expanding-first-year-writing-learning-outcomes/, March 20, 2014

Sourced from https://kielikompassi.jyu.fi/resurssikartta/netro/gradu/g_3_3_3.shtml, March 20, 2014

Literacy and

Pedagogical

frameworks

“The four resources are interactive and not discrete resources unconnected from one another – there is a good deal of

overlap between them”

Santoro, N. (2004). Using the four resources model across the curriculum. In A. Healy, & E. Honan (Eds.), Text next : new resources for literacy learning (pp. 51-67). Newtown, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association.

In this chapter the author theorizes that literacy is so much more than one’s ability to read and write. The author educates the reader on the various types of questions and activities that would be beneficial in order to engage a student within a literacy program that involves the Four Resource Model - text participating, analysing, using and code breaking. It provides clear and concise examples that can be used across the curriculum and benefits not only the students, but the teacher in order to meet literacy requirements.

Sourced from http://www.angelamaiers.com/2008/07/the-four-resour.html, March 21, 2014

This article, in acknowledgement to the ever changing social/online environment, the New London Group introduces the word ‘multiliteracies’. These authors put forward a credible argument in regards to the constraints of how a traditional literacy program within a classroom can inhibit a student’s needs and wants within their working and private life, when in comparison to a multiliteracies approach. They within the article provide the underpinnings of the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of literacy pedagogy. The author’s also provide the ramifications of social advancement, all whilst outlining the six design elements and the four components that fall under the multiliteracies pedagogy branch. It endorses the notion that literacy pedagogy should be entwined with the students lifeworld experiences.

“…one could say that it s fundamental purpose is to ensure that all students benefit from learning in ways that allow them to

participate fully in public, community, and economic life”

The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures. Harvard Education Review, 66)1. 60-93

Sourced from http://www.docstoc.com/docs/111132059/New-London-Group-A-Pedagogy-of-Multiliteracies, March 20, 2014

Critical essay that synthesises the annotated texts “A Multiliteracy theory keeps apace with the changes in technology and the ways in which communication technology has changed what it means to be a literate person” (Peterson, Botelho, Jang & Kerekes, 2007). Being literate goes above and beyond the ability to read and write in the 21st Century. When we discuss literacy, we have to include about how we can within the classroom complement our students comprehension of the digital technologies that they require to live astute and productive lives. This critical essay aims to synthesise the ten annotated texts in order to highlight the multiliteracy concepts pivotal to an engaging pedagogical literacy program. The themes that have been explored are; reinventing literacy in the 21st-century, the digital divide and literacy frameworks and pedagogy.

Santoro (2004) highlights the importance that there are several literacies – school, computer, out-of school, social and so on that can be characterised by a wide range of written, spoke, aural, visual, digital and multimodal texts. This can be further supported by Bull & Anstey (2007) who claim that “a 21st-century multiliterate individual needs to have the skills to consume all five semiotic systems (linguistic, visual, gestural, spatial and aural)”. In essence within the classroom the students not only need to understand what they read (Schubert, 2009) but they need to have the opportunity to “develop critical thinking and critical literacy skills that become a natural part of being an active citizen and an active reader of the ‘word and the world’. (Freire & Macedo, 1987, as cited in Meyer, 2010).

“Australian children are among the youngest and prolific users of the internet in the world, according to a new study that compared the experience of Australian children aged 9-16 to those of their European counterparts” (Queensland University of Technology, n.d.) Through the internet children in the 21st Century are able to have access to education websites, social networking sites, play games, listen to music and watch movies. “Widening levels of education seem to magnify the digital divide; households with higher levels of education are increasingly more likely to use computers and the Internet” (Stanford University, n.d.), however, unfortunately not every student has access to this technology and in essence Henderson (2011) points out that the digital divide between student’s homes and schools will continue to widen as technology continues to develop.

Cloonan (2004) writes that “most primary teachers are ‘technophobes’. This bold statement could be due to the fact that the average age of a primary school teacher is 42.1 years (ACER, 2012). Whilst “most young people in Australia have firsthand experience of a range of digital technologies” (Henderson, 2008) and have been born into the evolving world of digital technologies, spare a thought for the primary school teachers who are trying to “make meaning in a world undergoing rapid and intense changes wrought by technology and globalization”(Cloonan, 2004). Teachers have a general “concern that there is a lack of professional development courses” (Meyer, 2010), resources, and computing systems in order to effectively incorporate meaningful multiliteracy learning programs. As Peterson et al (2007) injects teachers should not to feel that they have to discard their current practices and tools that they currently utilise within the classroom in order to teach using a multiliteracies perspective, they just need to look at making modifications.

“Even though much has been said about the need for teachers to ensure the ‘new’ literacies are included as part of classroom practice” (The New London Group, 1996; Anstey & Bull, 2006) the classroom has a limited range of multiliteracies (Henderson, 2011). This exacerbates the digital divide within the classroom as it highlights that the divide is indeed between the rich range of technologies used in the home when in comparison to the “narrow and restricted practices engaged in by schools and teachers” (Henderson, 2011). A student is somewhat defined by their “cultural and subcultural diversity and the different language backgrounds that come with this diversity” (The New London Group, 1996) and in lieu of this it is important to link the student’s discourses and experiences within the classroom in order to create a rich and engaging literacy program.

The challenges of working with students with diverse abilities mean that teachers need to be extremely flexible in their plans, instructions and tasks (Pirbhai-Illich, 2010) and also there seems to be a “few ways of escaping the fact that we are living through a moment in which literacy practices are being fundamentally altered (Williams, 2008). In order to meet the social and cultural needs of the individual students that come through our classroom doors we need to ensure that a pedagogy such as The Multiliteracies Pedagogy (The New London Group, 1996) is incorporated within the curriculum that the students are exposed to. This pedagogy meets the requirements in order to produce citizens that are not only literate learners but also competent in meaning making in the 21st Century.

Self-reflection on ICT learningMy goal for this assignment was to incorporate a Web 2.0 platform that I had not previously been exposed to and one that included the five semiotic systems (linguistic, visual, gestural, spatial and aural) (Bull & Anstey, 2007). I was looking forward to challenging myself for this task as my exposure to ICT’s previously has been limited. Whilst I was hoping to come out on the other side of this assignment having learnt a bit more of what applications are available I can say that my Stage of Interaction as per Finger, Russell, Jamieson-Proctor & Russell (2007) is still at the investigation stage.

Within the execution of this assignment I knew that I would have various barriers to face and these were not ICT related. I had a very heavy workload on at work so I was working 12 hour days (plus transport to and from the city) and then there was the admission to hospital twice. Both of these operations were overnight or more stays and one of them left me pretty heavily sedated which meant days were awash with recuperation and sleep. Whilst my university took a back seat over my health I had to make the decision to simplify the Web 2.0 platform tool I was going to use as I could not spare the time to fiddle around and watch tutorials on “how to use” a certain platform. In the end I used PowerPoint (as it was easy to manage on my Samsung tablet) and Slide share. Both of these applications provided me with the five semiotic systems that I wanted to incorporate.

I acknowledge the potential of incorporating ICTs within the classroom in order to create multimodal texts that are rich in various design components. I realise that I have some work that I need to do in my own time in order to successfully provide a succession of engaging and meaningful lessons and myself become a proficient user of the ever evolving technologies in the 21st Century.

ReferencesACER. (2012). Painting a picture of the teaching workforce. Retrieved March 21, 2014, from http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=resdev

Bull, G., & Anstey, M. (2007). What’s so different about multiliteracies? Curriculum & Leadership Journal, (5)11. Retrieved March 22,2014 from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/leader/whats_so_different_about_multiliteracies,18881.html?issueID=10766

Cloonan, Anne. Multiliteracies in the Early Years: Filming and Professional Learning [online]. Australian Screen Education Online, No. 35, Winter 2004: 43-46 Finger, G., Russell, G., Jamieson-Proctor, R., & Russell, N. (2007). Transforming learning with ICT: Making it happen. Frenchs Forest, NSW Australia: Pearson Education Australia.

Henderson, R. (2008). It’s a Digital Life! Digital Literacies, Multiliteracies and Multimodality. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 16(2), 11-15.

Henderson, R. (2011). Classroom pedagogies, digital literacies and the home-school digital divide. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, (6)2, 152-161

Meyer, K. (2010). ‘Diving into Reading’: Revisiting Reciprocal Teaching in the Middle Years. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, 18(1), 41-52

Peterson, S. S., Botelho, J., Jang, E. & Kerekes, J. (2007). Writing Assessment: What Would Multiliteracies Teachers Do? Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 15(1), 29-35.

Pirbhai-Illich, F. (2010). Aboriginal Students Engaging and Struggling with Critical Multiliteracies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, (54)4, 257-266.

Queensland University of Technology. (n.d). Media Release: Aussie Kids ‘Earliest Internet Users’. Retrieved March 21, 2014, from http://www.cci.edu.au/about/media/media-release-aussie-kids-%E2%80%98earliest-internet-users%E2%80%99

Santoro, N. (2004). Using the four resources model across the curriculum. In A. Healy, & E. Honan (Eds.), Text next : new resources for literacy learning (pp. 51-67). Newtown, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association.

Schubert, M. (2009). Comprehension activities for the middle years of schooling: Teaching and learning to comprehend texts across the curriculum. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, 17(1), i-vii

Stanford University. (n.d.). Digital Divide. Retrieved March 21, 2014, from http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/digital-divide/start.html

The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures. Harvard Education Review, 66)1. 60-93

Williams, B. T. (2008). “Tomorrow will not be like today”: Literacy and identity in a world of multiliteracies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, (51)8, 682-686.