EDX 3270 Literacy Education W0099703
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

EDX 3270 Literacy Education W0099703

on

  • 727 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
727
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
727
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    EDX 3270 Literacy Education W0099703 EDX 3270 Literacy Education W0099703 Presentation Transcript

    • Leah Drury Student Number - W0099703EDX3270 – Literacy EducationCourse Examiner – Stew Riddle Annotated References
    • Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and learning multiliteracies: changing times changing literacies (pp. 56-81). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Anstey and Bull provide implications of multiliteracies on pedagogy and listways educators can adapt to assist learners in becoming multiliterate. Theauthors list several points to guide the development of a multiliteraciescurriculum. Anstey and Bull state that delivering content is not sufficient andthat becoming multiliterate depends on the pedagogical style of the teacher.Four areas of ‘Productive Pedagogies’ are highlighted for teachers to worktowards improving the outcomes of their students in conjunction with ‘TheFour Resource Model’ to ensure teachers develop a pedagogy that addressesmultiliteracies.
    • Asselin, M., & Moayeri, M. (2011). Practical strategies: the participatory classroom: web 2.0 in the classroom. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, 19 (2), i-vii. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database.This recently compiled Journal contains significant points for consideration byall educators. The planned implementation of new literacies courtesy of Web2.0 as learning tools in the classroom helps to develop students critical thinkingand encourages participation through the equal contribution of individuals ingroup settings, helping to build knowledge according to Asselin and Moayeri.Asselin and Moayeri hope to encourage the use of Web 2.0 tools across KeyLearning Areas (KLA). Whilst providing detailed examples of the ways inwhich Web 2.0 tools can be utilized in the classroom to support new literacies,Asselin and Moayeri also raise awareness of ethical, privacy andmiscommunication issues that schools need to consider when implementingWeb 2.0 tools.
    • Beavis, C., & OMara, J. (2010). Computer games - pushing at the boundaries of literacy. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 33 (1), 65-76. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.Beavis and O’Mara call upon the works of many credible authors to reiteratefindings in their case studies. This study highlights the opportunities that existwithin curriculum guidelines to incorporate the creation and use of digitalgames in digital formats. Firstly, Beavis and O’Mara report that adolescentboys, who use digital games of personal interest, become more analytical,reflective and critical about texts. Secondly, teenage boys who produce digitalgames through planning and the creation of resources utilise multiliteracyskills. With support through the pedagogical practices of teachers andcurriculum guidelines, students can be educated about ‘the wall-lessclassroom’ as described by Beavis and O’Mara when making and usingmultiliteracies.
    • Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). Multiliteracies: New literacies new learning, Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4 (3), 164-195. Cope and Kalantzis examine whether the core concepts developed during the mid 1990’s by the New London Group ‘A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies’ remain true. The emergence of new technologies and the speed and mode in which it is delivered have formed new communication practices, the emergence of new literacies, amid the trend of multimodality. Cope and Kalantzis believe the ‘why’, ‘what’ and ‘how’ of literacy pedagogy show little change to the overall concepts, regardless of major innovations since that time, mostly due to difficulties arising from inability to monitor multiliteracies.
    • Healy, A. (2006). Multiliteracies: teachers and students at work in new ways with literacy. In Campbell, R., & Green, D. (Eds.), Literacies and Learners current perspectives (3rd ed., pp. 191-207). Australia: PEARSON Prentice Hall.Healy, a multiple print author, clearly states in her explanation of bothtraditional print text and digital texts that print based literacy is diminishingwith the introduction of digital text. The importance of appropriatepedagogies to respond to the role of computers in communication is evidentthroughout her writing. This chapter looks at literacy as the centre point ofcurriculum and the shifting text-student-teacher relationships. The authornotes teachers’ necessity to balance ‘eye candy’ against engagement inmultimedia digital text as a source of information. Healy’s claims that studentsdevelop their literacy related knowledge as much from interactive multimediadigital texts as from any other text mode based on her significant research intothe teaching of digital literacy.
    • Henderson, R. (2008). Mobilising multiliteracies: pedagogy for mobile students. In A. Healy (Ed.), Multiliteracies and diversity in education: new pedagogies for expanding landscapes (pp. 168-200). South Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Press.The multiliteracies work of The New London Group and the Learning byDesign Framework of Kalantzis and Cope guides the planning anddevelopment of Henderson’s ‘mobile students’ project. Henderson cites thework of many reputable authors who provide considerable evidence behindthe contributing factors of low literacy levels in students who frequentlychange schools. Technological advancements create new and challenging waysof communicating with students in classrooms and as a society in generalaccording to Henderson. Henderson adds that the New London Groupsmultiliteracies approach to literacy takes into consideration several aspects oflearning that are important to a cultural and linguistic diversity. The authorprovides detailed, in depth learning opportunities, adaptable across contextsfor a multiliteracies problem based project.
    • Kinzer, C., & Verhoeven, L. (Eds.). (2008). Interactive Literacy Education. United States of America: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.In this recent publication Kinzer and Verhoeven conclude the inevitability ofICT and literacy merging within curriculum, thus creating a complex learningsituation. In chapter one, Facilitating Literacy Education ThroughTechnology, the authors highlight the benefits of multimodal software, inconjunction with specific focused instructions, enables students to becomeinteractive learners. The listed implications and benefits of literacy as a socialtool are based on the work of Vygotsky and a series of recent studies. Kinzerand Verhoeven establish at least three components of a technology enhancedenvironment model.
    • Ljungdahl, L. (2010). Multiliteracies and Technology. In Winch, G., Ross Johnston, R., March, P., Ljungdahl, L., & Holliday, M. (Eds.), In Literacy, Reading, Writing and Children’s Literature (4th ed., pp. 399- 422). Australia: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS.Ljungdahl comments on the increasing number of technologies making theirway into classrooms. This recent publication by highly accredited authorslooks at similarities between traditional print and digital devices literacies.Ljungdahl states the application of technologies can enhance the curriculacreatively and expand our philosophy of literacy. Ongoing training foreducators to keep up to date on the most efficient way to integrate technologyinto learning programs is vital according to Ljungdahl. The author highlightsthree key points required for technology to be successful within classroomsand discusses the challenges of ICT.
    • Swan, K., Kratcoski, A., Schenker, J., & Cook, D. (2007). The Ubiquitous Computing Classroom: A Glimpse of the Future Today. In van ‘t Hooft, M., & Swan, K. (Eds.), Ubiquitous Computing in Education. (pp. 259- 285). United States of America: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Swan, Kratcoski, Schenker and Cook provide scenarios taken from ongoingresearch of real life workings of ubiquitous computing classrooms utilising amyriad of digital devices. Chapter thirteen presents a framework forstudying the impact of ubiquitous computing on teaching and learning. Theaspect of developing, measuring outcomes, use of a multitude of digitaldevices and working within ubiquitous classrooms is explained in greatdetail. Swan et al. findings based on specific research questions, found adirect relationship between student interest and motivation, leading tohigher order thinking and that ubiquitous access to digital technologiespositively affects the students work.
    • Unsworth, L. (2001). Teaching Multiliteracies Across the Curriculum. Buckingham: Open University Press.This somewhat dated book looks at issues still highly relevant in today’seducation system. Unsworth declares that the arrival of digital technology aspart of text does not mean the end of page based literacies but rather anextension of it, where multimedia and electronic information complimentconventional literacies. The author explores key features of pedagogicframeworks for the management of multiliteracies to optimize learning.Unsworth believes that if schools are to foster the development of multipleliteracies they firstly need to identify and understand it’s diversity beforestudents can be effective participants, through the development of knowledgein meaning making systems and the use of meta language.
    • Overview/SynthesisA multiliteracies approach to literacy allows for the insurgence of technologyinto the classroom contributing to effective literacy teaching and learning.Our daily lives are crisscrossed by the overlapping of traditional text typeswith digital devices that enhance the way we learn literacy. Asselin andMoayeri (2011) believe the planned implementation of new literacies utilisingWeb 2.0 tools in the classroom develops critical thinking skills and improvesparticipation. Furthermore, Beavis and O’Mara’s (2010) studies found thatboys in particular become more analytical, reflective and critical about textespecially when using and developing digital games. Swan, Kratcoski,Schenker and Cook (2007) found a direct link between student interests andmotivation leading to higher order thinking and that ubiquitous access todigital technologies positively affects students work.
    • Overview/Synthesis cont.Healy (2006) claims that students develop their literacy related knowledge asmuch from interactive multimedia digital texts as from any other text mode.Multimedia and electronic information compliment conventional literaciesaccording to Unsworth (2001). It appears he is not the only one, Freebody andGilbert (1999) as cited in Henderson (2008) state the complex concept ofliteracy exists due to new approaches to literacy teaching coexisting with oldones. New literacies are not confined to schools, teachers and their students,they have infiltrated society, thus a need to develop student’s skills inmultiliteracies in order to live and work in a multiliterate world. Kinzer andVerhoeven (2008) concede the inevitability of Information ComputerTechnology (ICT) and literacy merging within the curriculum, creating whatthey describe as a complex learning situation.
    • Overview/Synthesis cont.Teachers need to be aware of the way students currently interact with ICToutside of school and set challenging, meaningful tasks that critically engagestudents in multiliteracies. Ljungdahl (2010) acknowledges the increasingnumber of technologies making their way into classrooms and believes thatthrough ongoing professional development educators can keep abreast of thebest ways of integrating technology into learning programs. Asselin andMoayeri (2011) add their concerns of ethical, privacy and miscommunicationissues that can arise from the implementation of Web 2.0 tools. No doubt anongoing concern shared by members of the wider community. Beavis andO’Mara (2010) believe that students can be enlightened of the far reachingeffects of working within a ‘wall-less classroom’ through effective pedagogicalpractice and curriculum guidelines.
    • Overview/Synthesis cont.Kinzer and Verhoeven (2008) highlight the benefits of multimodal softwarein conjunction with focused instruction enables students to becomeinteractive learners. Kinzer and Verhoeven (2008) go on to list theimplications and benefits of literacy as a social tool. Anstey and Bull (2006)provide their implications of multiliteracies on pedagogy and suggesteducators follow a ‘Productive Pedagogies’ and ‘The Four Resource Model’by Luke and Freebody, to develop a pedagogy that addresses multiliteracies.A study conducted in 1996 by The New London Group was revisited by Copeand Kalantzis (2009) to gauge whether the core concepts of their findingsremain valid. It is believed that regardless of recent advancements intechnology, that have created new literacies, little changes have occurred tothe ‘why’, ‘what’ and ‘how’ of literacy pedagogy. As advancements intechnology continue and the way in which it is utilised in classrooms changesso too will the list of implications and benefits on all who use it.
    • ICT Reflection What goal did you set?I wanted to approach the ICTelement of this assessment with a‘can do’ attitude and to not beintimidated by technology. I had adesire to further develop my skillsin a PowerPoint Presentation(PPT) beyond my currentknowledge. Vygotsky as cited inSigelman and Rider (2009) refersto working within this space as the‘Zone of Proximal Development’.Lack of experience andopportunity has previouslyrestricted me from creating aPowerPoint, something that I hadvirtually no experience in creating.
    • ICT Reflection cont.What did you learn?Using technology to create amultimodal presentation requirestrial and error, drawing uponknowledge of literacy previouslyexperienced by the user across amyriad of contexts. Despite Healy’s(2006) statement regarding thedevelopment of literacy from bothdigital and written text, I believe itwould be impossible to create thepresentation without having solidbackground knowledge in acombination of written text, visual,audio, linguistics and spatial designelements.
    • ICT Reflection cont.What were the barriers to yourlearning?I need to visually observe how atask is done, read how it is doneand refer back to written text asreference when required. Receivingencouraging, timely feedbackregarding progress would havehelped to build confidence.How did you overcome them?I overcome barriers by referring toother reliable sources available inmultiliterate formats. I repeatedlylistened to YouTube presentationson the internet while writing notesto refer back to later and watchedfor visual prompts.
    • ICT Reflection cont.What would you do differently nexttime?PowerPoint Presentations canbecome boring for the reader so itis important for the creator to useinteresting, yet minimal amount ofslides as possible so the viewer caneffectively engage with the content.How might your experience withthis task inform your teaching as afuture literacies teacher?Be aware of what ICT skills andliteracy knowledge students bringwith them to the classroom.Incorporate technology intoeveryday multiliteracy rich tasksand allow students to teach otherswhat they know and build uponthose skills by providing morechallenging tasks.
    • ReferencesPictures. [Pictures]. (n.d.) Google Images.