e - P U B L I C A T I O N

S E R I E S

Also published by ACEL • e-Shortcuts – Wisdom for successful school leadership and management• e-Leading – Management strategies for school leaders• e-Teaching – Management strategies for the classroom • e-Early Learning – Thinking on early learning

e-Technology April 2016 (3) – researched and prepared for ACEL by Marion Piper Deputy Head of Shelford Girls’ Grammar school, Caulfield. Marion is currently undertaking her Masters Degree in Reading and Literacy.

Subscribe online at www.acel.org.au

APRIL 2016 (3)

The intention of best literacy practice within any teaching approach is for children to become confident, involved and effective communicators. Fuller (as cited by Comber

and Kamler, 2013) observes that ‘students need to be the source of the curriculum, not objects of the curriculum’. As teachers continually strive to improve the learning outcomes for all students in a positive way, research, pedagogy and practice in literacy education has required them to become architects of change, rethinking how best to use multiliteracies and technology to support teaching (Rowsell and Walsh, 2011).

Recognising the demand for classroom technology (Norton, 2012) and the way this has impacted upon the motivation, engagement and confidence of the learning of young children in a rapid and unpredictable way (Craft, 2013), means that teachers need to carefully determine how to provide developmentally appropriate activities through consideration of age, individual, social and cultural language experiences within their classrooms (Hesterman, 2013). There is a difficulty in appreciating the extent of use, and impact of,

Using digital technology to create possible literate futures

multimodal communication as part of literacy education. Facer (2012), Roswell and Walsh (2011) acknowledge the speed of development of new technologies, and how teachers and students need to utilise and experiment with them. Impressed upon teachers is the need to learn the different modes of communication in order to remain abreast of the changes to it (Roswell and Walsh, p. 55).

The ‘multiple modes of representation’ (Hesterman, p. 159) within multiliteracies learning are ways which enable teachers to plan future literacy opportunities, allowing children to connect with, and contribute to, their world. I would like to share several specific examples of classroom multiliteracies practice that I consider teachers need to incorporate into their own teaching.

As part of best practice, teachers need to ensure they have a detailed understanding of the ‘funds of knowledge’ (Moll, 1992) that children bring to the classroom (Kerkham and Hutchison, as cited in Comber and Kamler, 2005). By understanding the changing childhoods referred to by Craft (2013), the teacher is able to plan for ‘possibility thinking’ and thus provide relevant teaching and learning

As teachers continually strive to improve the learning outcomes for all students in a positive way, research, pedagogy and practice in literacy education has required them to become architects of change, rethinking how best to use multiliteracies and technology to support teaching

experiences. A digital-enriched classroom that includes opportunities for ‘investigative behaviour, self-determination, intentional action, development, being imaginative, play/playfulness, immersion, innovation and risk-taking’ (Craft 2013) identifies children as being creative and capable, with the chance for them to reveal their abilities through learning.

Hill (2005) recognises that the increasing engagement with multimodal literacies changes the way children think and learn (p. 382). As part of literacy planning and management, opportunities need to be scaffolded for children through a balance of traditional and new media, giving serious thought to the context of learning. As a way to engage the teaching of reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing and creating skills, and to reflect their abilities and needs, children need to access relevant apps and appropriate programs through a range of devices. These would be suited to the purpose of the task, and improve learning outcomes and goals.

To reflect the global shift in attitude to education, the following vignette is how we imagine teaching could be like in the future:

“The setting is not known as a classroom, but as a ‘Centre for Learning Excellence’. It makes a statement to others on the importance of 21st century education. The facilities have been designed to provide welcoming, engaging, comfortable and healthy learning environments that nurture collaboration, creativity, independence, research and a sense of community.

The teaching practices, which reflect the values and pedagogical approach of the Centre, enable learning to take place both in indoor and outdoor settings. To ensure and maintain engagement beyond the immediate community, it is personalised, catering for different learning styles through the innovative solutions that have been developed in the field of education. Facilities incorporate formal and informal learning ‘neighbourhoods’; multipurpose spaces suit the teaching methodology and the individual needs of students. Depending on the purpose of the activity space, seating can be tiered or arranged in a way that is flexible and accessible, supporting and encouraging the individual students’ educational experiences. Easily supervised, varied spaces have been created for large/small gatherings and include discussion corners, targeted group and personal teaching/learning zones. This allows for observation, assessment, differentiation, and reflection of learning outcomes, with collaboration for future planning, vision and direction by educators.

There are several types of educators within the Centre. These include suitably qualified teachers, aides and parents whose combined roles are as instructor, facilitator, and collaborator and as a support/extension for learning. Students work with others in groups that are fluid and flexible and enable cross-age opportunities; they are linked by their age, individual, social and cultural language experiences, depending on the nature of the learning, the intention of the task and the

outcomes or goals to be achieved. Teachers are able to provide immediate information to others about a child’s progress through on-line reporting and communication. Parents are able to access this through portals and view experiences through web-cams in order to monitor and support learning.

As part of everyday practice in the child’s learning journey, resources include wireless connection as an integral component of the learning environment. Hubs are purposely designed to provide students with spaces that encourage and promote connections in activities such as blogs, wikis and eBooks, through the use of interactive whiteboards, Smartboards, iPads, laptops, digital cameras, video (recording and viewing) and other devices. Students are able to access online learning tasks through portals such as the intranet and ‘sharepoint’, the eLibrary, pre-recorded lessons, and postings on learning topics, including (with appropriate standards) social media. ‘Live’ communication and collaboration with others beyond the Centre through teleconferences is part of the learning experience and is accepted as the norm. Children skilfully navigate their way around their use of technology and are most aware of their ‘digital footprint’; they are confident, experienced and creative, and engaged in their viewing, designing and animating through the innovative use of a wide range of multimodal devices and digital technology forms. This is as a result of relevant and appropriate opportunities, commencing at home from a very early age; it has empowered their learning, and enabled them to become connected and effective communicators to the world around them.”

At all times, information communication technology should be part of our approach to ‘new’ literacies as it can be used to enhance learning. Roswell and Walsh (2011) interpret this way of thinking to include new approaches, methods, epistemologies, theories, contexts and identities (p. 55). My views on incorporating technology are strongly aligned to what Norton (2012) espouses: that the essential practices that should be incorporated as part of ICT learning for young students must include ensuring that the learning experience is relevant, meaningful and age-appropriate, the content is engaging and interactive, and that the teacher provides guidance and intervention through using the technology as a tool to teach, support and extend what children learn and know.

Cairney (2002) recognises that ‘the literacy children experience at home and in their communities has a significant impact on later literacy success at school and in the wider world’ (p. 154). The challenge for teachers is to ensure that the demand for the technology in the classroom as part of literacy learning narrows the lack of experiences afforded to some children outside of school.

‘Turning around’ to children, or ‘turn-around pedagogies’ (Comber & Kamler, 2005), refers to rethinking the way in which teachers engage with struggling students in the classroom. It encompasses the utilisation of different literacy strategies

As part of literacy planning and management, opportunities need to be scaffolded for children through a balance of traditional and new media, giving serious thought to the context of learning

to achieve success in helping at-risk students. This requires a change in mindset from earlier viewpoints of focusing on deficit assumptions of children’s literacy learning. It seeks to integrate all areas of a child’s abilities and character as a result of their experiences of home, schooling and the community in which they have been raised.

Teachers should embed ICT within everyday practice as part of ‘turn-around’ pedagogy, as this enables the creation of new paths for engagement and motivation for all types of learners, particularly those who struggle. The speed of development of new technologies makes it difficult for anyone in a schooling environment to keep up with the changes; education needs to provide students with experiences to utilise some of these new technologies, to experiment with them and in the process evaluate them in meeting their needs - needs that are perceived by the teachers and the students themselves (Facer, 2012). Recognising children’s ‘funds of knowledge’ (Moll, Amanti, Neff, and Gonzalez, 1992), unpacking virtual schoolbags (Thomson, 2002), together with understanding and catering for the language and cultural diversity of children (Cairney, 2012) enables the teacher to locate appropriate ICT applications to support all learners.

Possible impacts of multiliteracies could become probable impacts within any classroom practice if the following action steps are included:1 Documenting literacy lessons through video

recording. This will help recognise strengths and abilities when facilitating learning. Research by Honan (2013) encourages us to rethink our approach to literacy teaching. By addressing weaknesses and consideration for how best to redesign literacy curriculum, teachers are empowered to improve the learning outcomes for students.

2 Identify students’ capabilities of thorough ‘possibility thinking’ (Burnard, et al., 2006) in digital environments. This requires consideration of how much time is dedicated to enabling students to have greater control over their learning when encouraging approaches such as investigative behaviour, self-directed actions, immersion and innovation promoted by Craft (2013). In doing so, school communities would anticipate the development and growth of students through improved and deeper creative engagement.

3 Schools should also consider the broader use of multiliteracies that can be made available to the students they teach through collaborating with other educators. Cairney (2002) reminds us to constantly ask ourselves how we define literacy (p. 168). Effective teachers are those who remain abreast of changes to multiliteracies and strive to improve pedagogy; the chance to attend professional development workshops will enable exploration for what is possible in order for students to be learning with enthusiasm, independence and engagement, enhancing the potential to improve skills and knowledge for both current and future practice.

For all students, including those who struggle, embedding the creative possibilities that technology can provide within the curriculum can improve, motivate and engage learning. The four Ps contexts of digital technology – plurality, participation, playfulness and possibility thinking – can facilitate active participation in learning (Craft, 2013) that otherwise may not have been possible. In order to make a difference to literacy learners, teachers must show a strong commitment to multiliteracies education (Kerkham and Hutchison, as cited in Kamler and Comber, 2005). The teachers who strive to make this difference to better prepare students for future learning possibilities, and embrace new ways to assist students who develop skills and knowledge, are more likely to raise learning outcomes and achieve student goals – the intention of best practice.

ReferencesBurnard, P, Craft, A, Cremin, T, Duffy, B, Hanson, R, Keene, J, Burns, D 2006, ‘Documenting ‘possibility thinking’: A journey of collaborative enquiry’, International Journal Of Early Years Education, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 243–262.Comber, B, and Kamler, B, 2005 (eds.), Turn around pedagogies: Literacy interventions for at-risk.: PETAA, S Newtown, NSW, available at http://www.petaa.edu.au/publicationsstore/publicationdetail?ProductCode=PET079Craft, A 2013, ‘Childhood, possibility thinking and wise, humanizing educational futures’, International Journal of Educational Research vol. 61, pp. 126–134. Craft, A, ‘Childhood, Possibility Thinking and Wise, Humanizing Educational Futures’, International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 61. Copyright 2013 by Elsevier Science & Technology Journals. Facer, K 2012, ‘Taking the 21st century seriously: Young people, education and socio-technical futures’, Oxford Review Of Education, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 97–113. Hesterman, S 2013, ‘Early childhood designs for multiliteracies learning’, Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 158–168.Hill, S 2012, Developing early literacy: Assessment and teaching (2nd ed.),Eleanor Curtain Publishing, Victoria, Australia.Honan, E 2013, Thinking through new literacies for primary and early years, Primary English Teachers Association, Newtown, New South Wales (licenced with permission from PETAA).Moll, LC, Amanti, C, Neff, D, Gonzalez, N 1992, ‘Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms’, Theory Into Practice vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 132–141.Roswell, J, Walsh, M 2011, ‘Rethinking literacy education in new times: Multimodality, multiliteracies, & new literacies’, Brock Education, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 53–62, available at http://brock.scholarsportal.info/journals/brocked/home/article/viewFile/236/174The Centre for Research in Education and Educational Technology. (n.d.). Multimodal literacies in the early year, available at http://www.open.ac.uk/creet/main/sites/www.open.ac.uk.creet.main/files/04%20Multimodal%20Literacy.pdfThomson, P 2002, Schooling the Rustbelt Kids: Making the Difference in Changing Times, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

Teachers should embed

ICT within everyday

practice as part of ‘turn-

around’ pedagogy, as this enables

the creation of new paths for

engagement and motivation

for all types of learners, particularly

those who struggle