Using information and communication technologies to engage ...

Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:205–214 DOI 10.1007/s10639-012-9238-4

Using information and communication technologies to engage students in the later years of schooling in learning content and literacy: Case studies of three teachers Katina Zammit

Published online: 7 December 2012 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Abstract Literacy for a 21st century context is far more complex than reading and writing print. As society and information and communication technology (ICT) has changed, so what counts as literacy and how a person is deemed to be literate has changed. Students from low socio-economic backgrounds in the later years of schooling require access to multiple literacies mediated through ICT and to teachers who are willing to provide opportunities for them to be taught explicitly. ICT can promote the learning of the content as well as learning the literacies associated with specific subject areas. This paper will focus on how three teachers in the later years of schooling (years 9–12) used technology to enhance learning and engagement of students in learning the literacies associated with their subject. They challenged the hegemony of print literacy by providing opportunities to develop students understanding, critique and creation of multimodal texts, but also supported students in achieving more effective print literacy. These teachers provided appropriate teaching for students from low socio-economic backgrounds, engaging them in thinking, feeling and acting at high levels while simultaneously providing positive messages about their knowledge, ability, control, place and voice. Their pedagogical approach supported the development of cultural and social capital that will enhance their students’ life options. Keywords Content literacy . Student engagement . Pedagogies . Secondary education . Multiliteracies . Technology

1 Introduction Literacy for a 21st century context is more than the ability to read and write the printed word (UNESCO 2009; Gee 1990), it involves being able to use, critique and create texts using a range of media and modalities (New London Group 2000; K. Zammit (*) University of Western Sydney, School of Education, Bankstown Campus, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW, Australia 2751 e-mail: [email protected]

206

Educ Inf Technol (2013) 18:205–214

Zammit 2010). It has become necessary for everyone to learn new forms of literacy and to develop the ability to locate, evaluate and effectively use information in a variety of ways (International Reading Association 2001; Leu et al. 2004). These new forms of literacy revolve around the literacy demands associated with technology, which is more than just digital literacy (Zammit 2008). As society and information and communication technology (ICT) has changed, so what counts as being literate has changed (UNESCO 2009; National Council for the Teaching of English [NCTE] 2008). A literate person today ‘possess(es) a wide range of abilities and competencies, many literacies…—from reading online newspapers to participating in virtual classrooms—[which] are multiple, dynamic, and malleable’ (National Council for the Teaching of English [NCTE] 2008). They have to develop multiple literacies, which are largely mediated through ICT. But for some students from low socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds access to these multiple literacies can be limited as teachers focus on teaching the literacy associated with print because of the hegemonic place of print literacy in school to the detriment of students (Luke and Luke 2001). ‘The real threat of a digital divide (will be)… that … one group (will be) able to muster a wide range of semiotic tools and resources to persuade, argue, analyse, critique and interpret, and another group, lacking these semiotics skills, limited to pre-packaged choices’ (Warschauer 2006). In addition, access to technology only will not increase the participation in society and life options of students from low SES backgrounds. Access to teachers who can mentor and support students’ 21st century learning through the use of ICT that will make the difference (Orlando 2013; Lawless and Pellegrino 2007). These teachers move ‘beyond deficit notions of technology that dominate discussion of technology and poverty (the ‘Digital Divide’), to the understanding that exciting and meaningful technology practice can take place’ (Orlando 2013). Haberman (2011) refers to exemplary teachers as ‘star’ teachers,’ who ‘lead students to become lifelong learners whose lives are guided by what they continue to learn’ (Haberman 2011; Orlando 2013). Haberman (1991) proposes good teaching occurs whenever students: & & & & & & & & & & & &

Are involved with issues they regard as vital concerns Are involved with explanations of human differences Are being helped to see major concepts, big ideas, and general principles and are not merely engaged in the pursuit of isolated facts Are involved in planning what they will be doing Are involved with applying ideals such as fairness, equity, or justice to their world Are actively involved Are directly involved in a real-life experience Are actively involved in heterogeneous groups Are asked to think about an idea in a way that questions common sense or a widely accepted assumption, that relates new ideas to ones learned previously, or that applies an idea to the problems of living Are involved in redoing, polishing, or perfecting their work Are involved with the technology of information access Are involved in reflecting on their own lives and how they have come to believe and feel as they do (Haberman 1991)


207

Teachers who engage students in learning provide students with a curriculum that engages them in thinking hard (high cognitive), feeling good (high affective) and active involvement (high operative) (The Fair Go Project 2006): small ‘e’ engagement. They employ a pedagogy that builds a student community of reflection, teacher inclusive conversations, student self-assessment and teacher feedback: the classroom processes (Fig. 1). These classroom processes are employed to engage students in being active participants in their learning, whether it is focused on the literacies associated with different modes of representation, content literacy or using ICT (Zammit and Callow 2013; Orlando 2013; Zammit 2011). The Fair Go pedagogy also directly targets the five discourses of power (knowledge, ability, place, control and voice) through the selection of activities (curriculum), the classroom processes and assessment tasks (Munns et al. 2008; The Fair Go Project 2006). The message systems (Bernstein 1996) associated with the discourses of power either encourage or discourage students’ engagement in learning. Teachers can disrupt the dis-engaging messages through changes to their curriculum, pedagogy and assessment to enhance engaging messages (Table 1) (Munns et al. 2013; The Fair Go Project 2006; Zammit 2011). Over time, students develop engagement with schooling and education, seeing them as a place for them and important to their future: big ‘E’ engagement.

2 Methodology The ‘Exemplary Teachers for a Fair Go’ project involved 28 teachers teaching from pre-school to year 12, in Priority Schools Program (PSP) schools from city, regional and rural settings in NSW. The program supports government schools with the highest percentage of families from low SES to improve Fig. 1 The fair go pedagogy framework

208

Table 1 Discourses of power: Engaging messages


Knowledge

“We can see the connection and the meaning”—reflectively constructed access to contextualised and powerful knowledge

Ability

“I am capable”—feelings of being able to achieve and a spiral of high expectations and aspirations

Control

“We do this together”—sharing of classroom time and space: interdependence, mutuality and power with

Place

“It’s great to be a kid from”—valued as individual and learner and feelings of belonging and ownership over learning

Voice

“We share”—environment of discussion and reflection about learning with students and teachers playing reciprocal meaningful roles

literacy, numeracy and engagement of students (NSW Department of Education and Communities 2008). It was a three-year Australian Research Council funded project. The three teachers covered in the case studies presented in this paper are drawn from the nine later years of schooling, years 9–12, case studies. At the time the data was gathered, year 9 and 10 were compulsory and year 11 and 12 were in the postcompulsory school years. A case study approach was employed because it provides in-depth study of an individual context ‘in order to appreciate its uniqueness and complexity’ (Basit 2010). Case studies were written after a week of data gathering in the classroom, using an observation schedule based on the Fair Go pedagogical framework (Fig. 1), engaging discourses (Table 1) and motivational strategies employed from the MeE framework (Munns and Martin 2005). Detailed field notes were taken to confirm the narrative for the day’s observation schedules. Each day a reductive process was employed by the two researchers and class teacher to summarise the day based upon the three observation schedules. These summaries were used to write up the final case study, which also included details of a highlight session of teaching chosen by the classroom teacher, and a summary of the teacher and students’ interviews. In addition, quotes from teachers and students obtained from the field notes were added to the summaries. To confirm the case study details, cross checking with the teachers was employed to ensure an accurate representation of their teaching from the data.

3 Bronwen’s English and history classes Bronwen works at a rural school on the border between NSW and Victoria. Enrolment at the school has been consistently around the 200 mark over the past few years with a slight downward trend. The long-term effects of the drought have reduced the number of families in the area.


209

Bronwen embraces the use of technology in her classroom and is willing to put herself ‘at risk’ by showing her own digital productions. She makes use of the interactive whiteboard (IWB) in a variety of engaging ways. Through such technology as YouTube she presents interesting and up-to-date relevant images and information to support or expand a teaching point. Groups are also encouraged to make use of the IWB to conduct their own searches. Bronwen also uses the IWB for group presentations, and to model digital stories. Computers are placed around the 4 walls of her room. For example, in her year Year 11 Ancient History class, students are involved in making their own digital story based on their character from Pompeii. The lessons use technology to reinforce content learning as well as the creation of a multimodal text to demonstrate that learning. In her Year 8 English class, she shows students two different interpretations of Shylock, one by Orson Welles and one by Al Pacino on You Tube to encourage their understanding that there are different ways of ‘doing’ Shylock and to think about interpreting him and to think about Shylock’s intention: “…that under the skin we are all the same”. You Tube provided the resource for students to develop their critical thinking skills in relation to learning about characterization and interpretation of character possible within the same play. Bronwen also ensures that print literacy is covered, knowing that this is the privileged form in schooling and assessment of students in external system examinations. Bronwen’s Year 8 were studying F. Scott Fitzgerald’s short story, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button comparing the written and film versions. She focused on modelling and scaffolding how to write an argument – its structure and language features (grammar). Her Year 12 students appreciated the explicit teaching of how to write, stating they now know ‘how to write an essay’ and ‘how to be very thorough on essay writing and analysis of text’. They explained that ‘we have a routine: getting the question/breaking it down/talking about separate techniques/scaffolding’.

4 Kate’s Science class Kate’s Year 10 ESL Science class had a high turnover of students who arrive from the Intensive English language Centres (IEC)1 and who were integrated into the mainstream classes when their skills permitted or students with higher ESL needs arrived. In ‘activity design’, there was a balance of discovery learning, joint construction and teacher directed focus on learning outcomes. Kate often utilised practical work and grouping to motivate and cater for the needs of her culturally diverse and academically mixed group of students. Her Science laboratory had benches and stools in the centre, which allowed students to choose their own seating and the benches could be adjusted to form different group configurations. A whiteboard doubled as a projection screen, enabling two planes for concurrent virtual and actual use and the manipulation of texts. During one lesson, Kate used a range of strategies to build students’ scientific knowledge and literacy skills and understandings. She accessed different sources to 1

Students who are newly arrived in Sydney and do not speak English as their first language are enrolled in an Intensive English Centre for a year prior to them undertaking studies at their local high school.

210


convey lesson concepts, this included web links, a narrative You Tube movie bite, animated diagrams, students’ PowerPoint manipulations, digital resources that she had compiled, collected and created in her own time. They discussed DNA and genetics, guided by Kate’s questioning and consolidation of students’ prior knowledge. They worked in groups to create a model of DNA using bags of ‘lollies’ and toothpicks, referring to the Internet, their booklets, a working wooden model of DNA, and labelled diagram on the whiteboard. They compared different models provided by virtual images, printed text, teacher’s scaffolds and students’ actual experiments. She engaged students with messages that operative learning is fun and digital learning requires concentration and application, not passivity. In addition, to developing students’ content knowledge she assisted students with the creation of their multimodal PowerPoint texts. Kate used a range of semiotic resources to develop literacy and conceptual understandings. She explicitly taught students that music, imagery and graphics affect communication of scientific information and need to be appropriately used in students’ PowerPoint presentations. “Love hearts and flowers! Your powerful messages are lost in the flowers”. To scaffold their creation of text, she “give(s) them structure … explain(s) how to do a PowerPoint presentation so they know where to go” and supports students with what to include in the construction of the written text on each slide that will support the students’ oral presentations: “We do not need to see a whole essay on a PowerPoint. Use your dot points to speak to your audience”. As one student commented: “[she] gives us examples and stories. First, does it on the board…asks who knows about topic, … relates worksheets to pictures, explains, uses team explanations, visuals, diagrams, puzzles, videos. Then she lets us do it ourselves”.

5 Diane’s English class Diane works in a comprehensive girls’ school situated in Sydney’s inner west. There are approximately 567 students. A support unit2 caters for the needs of 55 students who are part of the total student enrolment. 97% of students have English as an additional language (EAL). In Diane’s English classes, she explicitly taught the skills and language of deconstruction and critique of literary articles, film and images to promote students’ confidence in their own ability to access the ideas in sophisticated critical texts and provided opportunities for students’ voices to be heard. Students were exposed to and encouraged to use names of language techniques and features of written and visual texts. She worked with the Visual Arts teacher to assist in the teaching of visual literacy to her year 10 and year 12 classes. She saw one of her challenges to be: how to teach year 12 visual literacy associated with film and developing ‘students’ skills in being able to write their responses in an extended, personal and critical way’. As Diane commented: I like to think of the experiences

2

In NSW students who have learning difficulties and need more assistance with their literacy and numeracy may be enrolled in a support unit to cater for their learning needs.


211

they have outside of school that if there are contributions that the students can be making in terms of resources, ideas, planning of the unit, organisation of the unit, that they feel that they have ownership and they have a voice in that. Diane’s year 10 English class worked on the ‘Getaway’ unit. The processes of learning led to the design and creation of a travel brochure, which were presented at a ‘Travel Expo’. She provided opportunities for her students to analyse the visual and language features of travel brochures, explaining the composer’s purpose and intended effect on readers. The link to ‘everyday’ texts and popular culture connected to engaging messages about students’ knowledge, place, voice and control. In one lesson, Diane used an interactive white board to show a travel promotion segment of Whistler Mountain (http://vimeo.com/4474540). Prior to viewing and analysing the clip, the students were introduced to the game, “Whistler Mountain Bingo”, devised by Diane, to assist them to critically view and listen for the ‘metalanguage of advertising’ and the language of persuasion in the segment. The Bingo form had a list of sentences used in the segment. Underneath each sentence was a ‘multiple choice’ section for students to choose the metalanguage (language features/techniques) used by the presenter to engage their audience. Students placed a red sticky dot on their sheet when they heard examples of the metalanguage. Diane suggested students take the role of judges as they completed their Bingo sheet. They were asked to make a critical judgement about the success of the segment in appealing to its target audience, to evaluate the written, verbal and visual images that lead to its success. After the activity, Diane posed questions to the class to assist them to analyse the construction of a travel promotion clip: Diane: What should a good TV travel promotional show have? Student: Keep our attention. Diane: What else? Student: Photos Diane: Yes, in addition to aural, still images. Student: Colourful and attractive. After viewing, Diane also set up a whole class Q & A evaluation, about the use of metalanguage, techniques and language features. In the middle section of the lesson the students took their laptops, logged in and worked on their group’s travel brochure. Diane moved around the groups engaging them in discussion about the decisions they were making and reinforced the metalanguage by using it in the discussions with them. In the final section of the lesson, Diane asked students to reflect on their learning, specifically ‘I’m going to ask about the skills you demonstrated by using ICT’. The students reported on their ICT skills. The multimodal texts students created were used as assessment tasks, with both the process and product being important. The content of the texts also provided information about students’ understanding of content knowledge. This form of assessment was in contrast to the form of assessment required by the education system, but related to life outside of school.

212


6 Discussion Exemplary teachers, or what Haberman (2011) called ‘star’ teachers, provide access to multiple literacies mediated through ICT. The three teachers in this paper included learning that was intellectually challenging (high cognitive), interesting (high affective) and required active involvement (high operative) (The Fair Go Project 2006), as they integrated ICT into the delivery and assessment of the curriculum. Their selection of content expanded students’ access to different literacy practices associated with a range of multimodal texts with which they interact daily. In their curriculum decisions, about choice of ICT, content and ‘literacy’ in their lessons, they delivered engaging messages to students about their knowledge, ability, control, place and voice. Technology was used as a tool for teaching and learning about the content as well as a means of creating texts: from notes to digital assessment items. While this was apparent in these three case studies, not all nine exemplary teachers used ICT in their teaching. However, when teachers did employ ICT it was seamlessly integrated and they accepted students could be more knowledgeable and have greater ability in the use of ICT than the teachers themselves. An understanding of design elements as well as linguistic knowledge present in multimodal electronic texts were necessary to transform information from a variety of sources using a range of modes into knowledge, assessed through creation of a text. Teachers who embed technology into the delivery of content and learning about text creation are more important than the actual provision of technology because they support students 21st century literacies and learning and are equipping them for their future (Lawless and Pellegrino 2007) . As exemplified in these case studies, teachers in the later years used multimodal texts to develop both content knowledge and multimodal literacies. The diversity of products the students created reflected the teachers’ understandings that texts are more than just print on paper. The teachers taught students how to create a range of multimodal texts beyond that of the conventional essay or response. Connections were made to authentic contexts and texts, that is, purposeful learning in context (Yancey 2009). These teachers built their students’ ‘repertoire of practices’ (Luke 2003) to enhance their literacy and to engage them in learning and education. While these teachers challenged the hegemony of print literacy, they still viewed students as needing to be taught how to create texts to demonstrate their understanding of the content. They explicitly taught students how to make their written texts better, so that they could put their point of view clearly and share their knowledge with others. Criteria for the texts that students created were provided as well as strategies to teach them about how to create a successful text, initiating them into the powerful texts in education, and supporting their social capital (Luke and Luke 2001; Patel Stevens 2011).

7 Conclusion Teachers in the later years of schooling work with students who will soon be taking their first steps on their lifelong learning journey. Access to literacy practices that are authentic and relevant in today’s society and workplaces is essential in order to


213

provide students from low socioeconomic backgrounds with greater options in their life trajectories. The teachers actively planned to develop their students’ ‘repertoires of practice’ through scaffolding and explicitly teaching multiple literacies mediated by ICT. The case studies of three secondary teachers from the Teachers for a Fair Go project demonstrate how teachers in the later years can provide students with challenging tasks, scaffolding students’ engagement and learning of multiple literacies mediated through ICT. Acknowledgements The Teachers for a Fair Go Project was funded through an Australian Research Council Linkages grant (2008–2010). Thankyou to the teachers who were part of that project and opened their classrooms and their teaching to us – especially Bronwen, Kate and Diane.

References Basit, T. N. (2010). Conducting research in educational contexts. London: Continuum. Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. London: Taylor & Francis. Gee, J. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. Londn: Falmer Press. Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4), 290–294. Haberman, M. (2011). The beliefs and behaviours of Star Teachers. Teachers College Record International Reading Association (2001). Integrating literacy and technology into the curriculum: A position statement of the International Reading Association http://www.reading.org/downloads/positions/ ps1048_technology.pdf: International Reading Association. Lawless, K., & Pellegrino, J. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575–614. doi:10.3102/0034654307309921. Leu, D., Kinzer, C., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1568–1611). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Luke, A. (2003). Literacy and the other: A sociological approach to literacy research and policy in multilingual societies. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(1), 122–128. Luke, A., & Luke, C. (2001). Adolescence lost/childhood regained: On early intervention and the emergence of the techno-subject. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 1(1), 91–120. Munns, G., & Martin, A. (2005). It’s all about MeE: A motivation and engagement frmaework. Sydney: Paper presented at the Annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education. Munns, G., Sawyer, W., & Cole, B. (Eds.). (2013). Exemplary teachers of students in poverty. London: Routledge. Munns, G., Zammit, K., & Woodward, H. (2008). Reflections from the Riot Zone: The Fair Go Project and Student Engagement in a Besieged Community. Journal of Children and Poverty, 14(2), 157–171. National Council for the Teaching of English [NCTE] (2008). The NCTE definition of 21st century literacies. http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/21stcentdefinition Accessed 20.11.11 2011. New London Group (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design social futures (pp. 9–37). Melbourne: Macmillan. NSW Department of Education and Communities (2008). NSW Priority Schools Programs guidelines 2009–2012. Sydney: Equity Programs and Distance Education NSW Department of Education and Training. can not find this ref?Do you mean at all or in the paper (referred to on p.6)?? Orlando, J. (2013). Engaging teaching practices with technology in low SES schools. In G. Munns, W. Sawyer, & B. Cole (Eds.), Exemplary teachers of students in poverty. London: Routledge. Patel Stevens, L. (2011). Literacy, capital, and education: A view from immigrant youth. Theory Into Practice, 50(2), 133–140.

214


Project, T. F. G. (Ed.). (2006). School is for me: Pathways to student engagement. Sydney: NSW Department of Education and Training. UNESCO. (2009). United nations literacy decade: International strategic framework for action. Paris: UNESCO. Warschauer, M. (2006). Literacy and technology: Bridging the divide. In D. Gibbs & K.-L. Krause (Eds.), Cyberlines 2: Languages and cultures of the Internet (pp. 163–174). Albert Park, Australia: James Nicholas. Yancey, K. B. (2009). Writing in the 21st Century: A report from the national council of teachers of english (p. 9). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Zammit, K. (2008). Under construction: A world without walls. Paper presented at the ASLA Online III Virtual Conference—Digital literacy strand—Keynote paper, 5th to 26th May 2008 Zammit, K. (2010). The new learning environments framework: integrating multiliteracies into the curriculum. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 5(4), 325–337. Zammit, K. (2011). Connecting multiliteracies and engagement of students from low socio-economic backgrounds: Using Bernstein’s pedagogic discourse as a bridge. Language and Education, 25(3), 203–220. Zammit, K., & Callow, J. (2013). Literacies in challenging contexts. In G. Munns, W. Sawyer, & B. Cole (Eds.), Exemplary teachers of students in poverty. London: Routledge.