On October 23rd, 2014, we updated our
By continuing to use LinkedIn’s SlideShare service, you agree to the revised terms, so please take a few minutes to review them.
Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2006). Developing pedagogies for multiliteracies. In M. Anstey, & G. Bull (Eds.), Teaching and learning multiliteracies (pp. 56-81). Newark, USA: International Reading Association.Anstey and Bull provide many useful strategies for educators in developingtheory into practice and applying dynamic multiliteracy pedagogies within thelearning environment. Importance is placed on the educator’s relationship withthe students and desired learning outcomes. The authors provide ideas on howto make decisions and provide opportunities for students to explore and engagewith literacy. However, Anstey and Bull indicate through research, that for thislearning to be successful the educator must provide a multiliterate environmentthat is flexible to the students and cohesive in the way classroom talk andlessons are planned. The authors believe that this will provide a socialenvironment in which diversity in the classroom is addressed in making studentsbecome multiliterate citizens.
Bennett, R. (2006). Mathematics and ICT in the early years.In M. Hayes, & D. Whitebread (Eds.), ICT in the early years (pp. 55-71). England: Open University Press.In this chapter, Bennett discusses the theoretical underpinning of the waysin which children learn mathematical concepts based on contemporaryconstructivist views of theorists such as Vygostsky. He argues as towhether computer software is best suited to the teaching and learning ofmathematics in the early years. Research indicates that if the softwareproduces visual and symbolic information, then this could provide anenvironment ideal to mathematical learning. However, provided theteacher’s pedagogical practice is linked effectively to the use of ICT’s, thenthis would contribute to the child’s learning. He stresses that the role ofthe teacher in understanding databases and tools to navigate this softwarewas of utmost importance.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). Multiliteracies: New literacies new learning, pedagogies: an International Journal, 4(3), 164-195. Retrieved from https://usqdirect.usq.edu.au/usq/file/868a8bb9-2364-d7cd-e285-d97d505db344/1/Cope_2009_164.pdfIn this journal article, Cope and Kalantzis discuss the New London Groupof 1996 and their efforts in forming a Pedagogy of Multiliteraciesapproach to the teaching and learning of literacy. It is their belief thatdue to the changing world of technology, old literacies would no longerbe adequate in the future of education. The authors discuss in lengththe why, what and how of multiliteracies through exploring diversity andsocial factors in belief that their new approach would transform into apedagogy that would allow for change and diversity. Cope and Kalantzisconclude that in the last ten years or more, these changes have made animpact on the development of a multiliteracies pedagogy.
Healy, A. (2006). Multiliteracies: teachers and students at work in new ways with literacy. In R. Campbell, & D. Green (Eds.), Literacies and learnerscurrent perspectives (pp. 191-207). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education AustraliaHealy’s chapter suggests that it is vital for educators to acknowledge thechanges in text/teacher/student relationships and to incorporate a variety oftechnologies with a multiliteracies approach in the classroom. The authorhighlights that as society changes, children gain experiences that allow them tonegotiate multimedia digital texts. Computers are becoming more noticeable inthe early childhood classroom, thus allowing children to be more visual with theinformation they receive at an earlier age. Various snapshots in research wererecorded throughout this chapter, revealing that children appear to be moreresponsive to visual images as opposed to text. Healy believes that teachersneed to cater for the diverse textual experiences that children bring to thelearning environment.
Hesterman, S. (2011). A contested space: the dialogic intersection of ICT, multiliteracies, and early childhood. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 12(4), 349-361. Retrieved from http://www.wwwords.co.uk/ rss/abstract.asp?j=cie&aid=4824Hesterman’s article discusses the Pedagogy of Multiliteracies developed by theNew London Group (1996) and how this approach can improve the quality ofeducation in the early years context through the integration of ICT. The authorconducted research in two early childhood classrooms in order to determinehow these teachers integrated ICT to support children in a multiliteracieslearning environment. She reported that whilst the teachers were motivated todo this, it was evident that their approach was not secure in implementing ICTdue to lack of resources and support to cultivate this approach.
Martello, J. (2007). Many roads through many modes: becoming literate in childhood. In L. Makin, C. Jones Diaz, & C. McLachlan (Eds.), Literacies in childhood. Changing views, challenging practice (pp. 89-103). Marickville, NSW: Elsevier Australia.Martello’s chapter suggests that the early childhood educator can help childrendevelop an understanding of multiliteracies through linking curriculum andexperiences from the home environment. She highlights the importance that ayoung child’s first experiences of literacy begin in the early years of their life andcontinues through to adulthood. Young children become familiar withtelevision, computers, and many images that allow them to understandmultimodal texts. Discussing at length, her main focus suggests that in thehome environment a wide range of social practices can be gained and broughtto the learning environment as multimodal literacy experiences, allowing theearly childhood educator to accommodate for diversity in inclusive literacypractices.
O’Brien, J., & Comber, B. (2000). Negotiating critical literacies with young children. In C. Barratt-Pugh, & M. Rohl (Eds.), Literacy learning in the early years (pp. 152-171). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.Throughout this chapter, O’Brien suggests that many educators should engage incritical literacies with young children through questioning texts that are used intheir daily lives, and challenging the way they use these texts in reading andwriting. In one of her research examples in this chapter, she explores ways ofteaching children how to be a text analyst by reading a story then throughdiscussion of characters and events she asks the children to reflect on their ownexperiences by drawing pictures. According to O’Brien, when educators use thisnegotiated approach, children will respond to constructed texts, which areintegral to their everyday learning.
Vasquez, V. M., & Branigan Felderman, C. (2013). Yes we can! Using technology as a tool for social action. In V. M. Vasques, & C. Branigan Felderman(Eds.), Technology and critical literacy in early childhood (pp. 27-36).New York, NY: RoutledgeIn this chapter, Vasquez highlights the importance of creating spaces for childrenin classrooms and using resources and technology as a mean for social action.She conducted a “social action project” with the children whereby theybrainstormed a particular topic, formed discussion groups, then followed uptheir findings through internet research. Children from other classes wereinvited to attend the discussion on their findings. Vasquez believes that throughconducting internet research, young children learn social practices and how tocommunicate with resources such as computers as a learning tool.
Whitebread, A. (2006). Creativity, problem solving and playful uses of technology: Games and simulations in the early years. In M. Hayes, & D. Whitebread (Eds.), ICT in the early years (pp. 87-106). England: Open University Press.Whitebread argues that young children can be motivated to develop thenecessary skills to gather information and problem solve when playing computergames and simulations, just as much as conventional play does. It is his beliefthat computer games incorporate problem solving skills that allow the youngchild to see and understand the meaning of problems through making mistakesand being able to go back and correct them, thus allowing higher order thinkingto take place. The writer concludes that computer based tasks promotedevelopment in a child’s ability to be independent thinking and a problemsolver.
Yelland, N. (2007). Making meaning: technology as play. In N. Yelland (Ed.). Shift to the future (pp. 49-63). New York, NY: Routlage Taylor & Francis Group.Yelland’s chapter discusses the challenges and balances that parents and earlychildhood educators face when exposing children to technology in the real worldof play. She states that theorists such as Montessori and Froebel believe childrenlearn through constructing meaning through play. Research was conducted intonew technologies such as educational toys and story telling software in the earlylearning environment, and this was proved to be just as effective as concretematerial play. The author believes it is vital for guided interaction by theeducator to help build concepts utilizing the program to the benefit of thestudents.
Literacy is imbedded into our daily lives, and involves a range of practices thatshape our society and culture (Wing Jan, 2009). The theme of this assessmentfocuses on the use of ICT’s within an early childhood context.Most of the authors believe that due to the changing world of technology, it isvital for young children to become immersed in a multiliterate learningenvironment that caters to the many multimodal texts that they are exposed to.A common theme that has emerged from reading the various chapters andarticles was the importance that young children’s first experiences of literacybegin in the home. It was noted by Martello (2007) that children bring theseliteracy experiences to the learning environment, and impacts on what isexperienced in the classroom. Statistics report that most young children haveaccess to a range of technologies in the home everyday, and indicate thatclassroom computers play a significant role in a child’s social world throughaccess to a variety of information and cultural texts (Arthur, Beecher, Death,Dockett & Farmer, 2007).
Hesterman (2011) suggests that to improve the quality of education in the earlyyears, it is vital to follow a framework such as The New London Group’sPedagogy of Multiliteracies. However in contrast, The Early Years LearningFramework (2010) suggests that early childhood educators can promotetechnology learning within the environment through play, exploring newinformation, and provision of a wide range of technologies.One author, Yelland (2007) discusses how play and technology can be linked tothe early learning environment through the use of computer software andeducational toys and how this is just as effective as traditional play. According toVan Hoorn, Nourot, Scales & Alward (2011) the use of computers in an earlychildhood classroom has not harmed the development of young children andstate if it is to be a part of play, then the computers need to be a part of thelearning environment where children can work in small groups, allowing forsocial interaction to take place.
It is important to note that Bennett (2006) argues whether computer software issuited to the learning and teaching of early years mathematics and comes to theconclusion that it is the teacher’s pedagogical practices in linking ICT’s to thecurriculum that would contribute to the young child’s learning. This producesproblem solving and higher order thinking, vital to mathematical learning.In correlation with this, some of the authors suggest that the educators ownunderstanding of technology and how to use the software is imperative. As VanHoorn, Nourot, Scales & Alward (2011) state, educators need to frequentlyupgrade their knowledge of software and to consider the ways they use it topromote individual needs. According to Finger, Russell, Jamieson-Proctor &Russell (2007) it is essential for all educators to develop competency indeveloping skills in ICT in order to gain knowledge and be able to integrate intothe learning environment.In summary, the annotated articles highlight vital information for earlychildhood educators to consider when implementing ICT’s into their pedagogicalpractice and how best young children’s literacy learning can be enhancedthrough the use of technology.
Throughout my university degree, I have been required to use technology topresent some assessment pieces, these being: Wiki Webquest Mahara E.Portfolio Number of PowerPoint PresentationsSome presentations consisted of group work and younger members of the grouppreferred to take control of the technology side of things. I was happy for themto take on this role, as I felt I lacked that knowledge. For the assessments I didon my own, I utilized the help of my son asking for guidance and assistance.However for this assessment, I chose to do a PowerPoint presentation entirelyon my own. The first step was to create the slides, choose backgroundcolour, font colour and where I was going to place my text on the slides.Immediately this became a learning curve. Text boxes provided allowed me tonavigate my way around the slides. Further to this, I accessed images andalthough this was frustrating at first to insert an image in the correctplace, through practice and prior knowledge this was achieved.
I was challenged in uploading the PowerPoint presentation to the internet, as this is something I have not attempted before. As an educator of the future, I believe it is vital to implement digital literacies into my pedagogical practices. I believe that in creating this PowerPoint presentation, I have developed skills and knowledge that I know will remain equally important as I strive to implement appropriate forms of ICT to my students.
Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2006). Developing pedagogies for multiliteracies. In M. Anstey, & G. Bull (Eds.), Teaching and learning multiliteracies (pp. 56-81). Newark, USA: International Reading Association.Arthur, L., Beecher, B., Death, E., Dockett, S., & Farmer, S. (2007). Programming & planning in early childhood settings. (4th ed.). South Melbourne, VIC: Cengage Learning Australia.Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations for the Council of Australian Governments. (2009). Belonging, being & becoming. The early years learning framework for Australia. Commonwealth of Australia.Bennett, R. (2006). Mathematics and ICT in the early years. In M. Hayes, & D. Whitebread (Eds.), ICT in the early years (pp. 55-71). England: Open University Press.Children and teacher gathered at computer [Image]. (2012). Retrieved fromhttp://marcplamondon.nipissingu.ca/wiki/2011_Education.Print.aspx?Page=2011_Education.Advantages-and- Disadvantages-of-Digital-Technology-in-EducationChildren using laptop at home [Image]. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.treehugger.com/clean- technology/surprisingly-persistent-gender-gap-in-computer-technology-short-circuits-our-future.htmlCope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). Multiliteracies: New literacies new learning, pedagogies: an International Journal, 4(3), 164- 195. Retrieved from https://usqdirect.usq.edu.au/usq/file/868a8bb9-2364-d7cd-e285- d97d505db344/1/Cope_2009_164.pdf
Finger, G., Russell, G., Jamieson-Proctor, R., & Russell, N. (2007). Transforming learning with ICT: Making it happen. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.Healy, A. (2006). Multiliteracies: teachers and students at work in new ways with literacy. In R. Campbell, & D. Green (Eds.), Literacies and learners current perspectives (pp. 191-207). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education AustraliaHesterman, S. (2011). A contested space: the dialogic intersection of ICT, multiliteracies, and early childhood. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 12(4), 349-361. Retrieved from http://www.wwwords.co.uk/rss/abstract.asp?j=cie&aid=4824Martello, J. (2007). Many roads through many modes: becoming literate in childhood. In L. Makin, C. Jones Diaz, & C. McLachlan (Eds.), Literacies in childhood. Changing views, challenging practice (pp. 89-103). Marickville, NSW: Elsevier Australia.O’Brien, J., & Comber, B. (2000). Negotiating critical literacies with young children. In C. Barratt-Pugh, & M. Rohl (Eds.), Literacy learning in the early years. (pp. 152-171). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.Teacher and young children at computers [Image]. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.tech-kidz.com/program.htmlVan Hoorn, J., Nourot, P. M., Scales, B., & Alward, K. R. (2011). Play at the centre of the curriculum. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Vasquez, V. M., & Branigan Felderman, C. (2013). Yes we can! Using technology as a tool for social action. In V. M. Vasques, & C. Branigan Felderman (Eds.), Technology and critical literacy in early childhood (pp. 27-36). New York, NY: RoutledgeWhitebread, A. (2006). Creativity, problem solving and playful uses of technology: Games and simulations in the early years. In M. Hayes, & D. Whitebread (Eds.), ICT in the early years (pp. 87-106). England: Open University Press.Wing Jan, L. (2009). Write ways. (3rd ed.). South Melbourne: VIC. Oxford University Press.World globe multiliteracy [Image]. (2011). Retrieved from http://evosessions.pbworks.com/w/page/33494462/Multiliteracies%202011Yelland, N. (2007). Making meaning: technology as play. In Shift to the future (pp. 49-63). New York, NY: Routlage Taylor & Francis Group.