PDK_96_3_Zoch_32_Art_554x350pxGiven access to the technology,  encouragement, and assistance, even elementary school students can become engaged and enthusiastic digital authors.

As you enter the elementary classroom, students are posting online sticky notes, searching for video clips, creating graphic organizers, and recording their voices. Some talk with peers, read snippets of their writing to their table groups, provide technical assistance to one another, and navigate back and forth between various programs and web sites.

This scenario above is from a summer writing camp in North Carolina in 2013, where students had an opportunity to use digital tools. Changing times demand that we equip students with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to be successful. This requires knowing how to use new technologies and adopting a broader conceptualization of literacy that encompasses digital as well as written forms of texts. “New literacies” is a term many scholars use to refer to new ways of reading and writing made available by technology as well as the competencies associated with them, such as design, navigation, and collaboration (Leu et al., 2004).

Despite changes in technology and literacy, most schools continue to “privilege traditional texts, beliefs, and forms of reading and writing” (Lapp, Moss, & Rowsell, 2012, p. 367), and technology integration is largely lacking (Pallak & Walls, 2009). Even when access is not an issue, many teachers feel ill-equipped to incorporate new literacies into their instruction (Kajder, 2005) or do not feel they have instructional time due to testing constraints (Hutchinson & Reinking, 2011).

Studies documenting how adolescents use digital tools outside school highlight their complex and rich lives when engaged in social networking and collaboration (Lam, 2012; Lankshear & Knobel, 2006). Little is known, however, about how elementary students use new literacies. Knowing that students of all ages must be able use digital tools as part of the writing process, we designed a two-week digital writing camp.

Teachers don’t need to be technology experts; students are quite motivated to learn through exploration and collaboration. They actually might learn best this way.

We found that students were engaged, motivated, and crafty 21st-century authors.

Digital writing camp

The digital writing camp was designed for students entering grades 3-12, but we’ll focus on what we learned from elementary students. The goal was for students to complete a digital text by the end of the two weeks, which was then shared with their families and published on the camp’s web site.

A typical day started with a visit from a published author, which included a playwright, e-book author, and a journalist. Afterward, two classroom teachers worked with the 20 elementary students. They provided a brief lesson on technological tools and resources for writing; then students explored and constructed their own texts. All students created a VoiceThread (an online slide show narrated with voice recordings), choosing their own genres and topics. They also used kidblog.org to collaborate and share ideas, popplet.com for creating concept maps, linoit.com for online sticky notes, and Microsoft Word to draft their texts. They found information, pictures, and video clips online and used digital cameras to take pictures or brought in flash drives with pictures from home.

Throughout camp, we observed and recorded field notes, audio/video-recorded interactions, and conducted informal interviews with students. From this, we learned:

  • Students had limited access to technology at home and school;
  • Students learned to use technology through experimentation and collaboration;
  • Students were highly motivated to construct digital texts and learn new technologies; and
  • Technology had a positive effect on students’ writing process and final products.

Limited technology access

Most students lived in homes with digital devices, but their access often was limited because the technology did not belong to the students themselves. For example, Lucas (all names are pseudonyms) explained, “I only get to play on the computer when my parents don’t need it for work, or my brother doesn’t need it for homework; so not too much.” Like Lucas, many students frequently referred to an older family member’s device and their limited access based on the needs of the owner.  When students did have access to technology at home, they used it primarily for gaming devices (e.g., Nintendo) or specific web sites (e.g., pbskids.org).

At school, student access to technology also was limited. They discussed how there were few computers in classrooms. Grayson, a 4th grader, said, “We have three computers, but one is just for the teacher. We go to the computer lab once a week, but we don’t really get to do this stuff (create digital text with digital tools) there.” When asked what they did, he responded, “We mostly type up stories or play on pbs.com or starfall.com or some other web site.” Grayson’s explanation highlights two of the most common uses of technology in schools: putting writing into a final form, rather than as part of the writing process, and educational entertainment.

Alice, a 5th grader, explained her limited access to classroom computers. “Well, at school, I am a slow worker, so there are never any computers when I am ready. So I write with paper and pencil.” Alice’s statement highlights another common use of computers in school — as a reward for finishing work early and to fill time. As a consequence, students like Alice aren’t given the opportunity to use computers because of their inability to finish work quickly. This creates an unfair determination of who has access to technology in schools.

In sum, students had limited access to technology in schools with few usable computers in the classroom, weekly visits to the computer lab, and possibly a cartful of tablets or laptops. In addition, using technology was generally limited to word processing, educational games, and publishing traditionally written texts. Based on student descriptions, we did not see evidence that they engaged in learning new literacies at school.

Most students’ technology know-how was limited to game-play, basic word processing, and Internet searches.

Experimentation and collaboration

Most students’ technology know-how was limited to game play, basic word processing, and Internet searches. This is likely due to limited access at home and school, as well as their choice of activities when given access. A few students with more experience helped others during camp and described taking on this role in their regular classrooms. For example, Matthew said, “At school, I would usually be the one helping everybody on technology. Like, if somebody didn’t know what to do, the teacher would ask me to help.” Matthew was one of the few campers who had regular access to technology at home, and the knowledge he developed from using technology at home crossed over into his school life.

At camp, students who were technology helpers took it upon themselves to assist their peers as new tools were introduced. They were not always identified as strong writers by traditional writing standards, but their role at camp provided a means for some to see themselves as successful. In addition, they could see their vital role in moving not only themselves but also their peers forward in the writing process.

Although digital tools were new to many students and most had limited knowledge of the technology, they were motivated and engaged. They were comfortable exploring the new tools and learning through trial-and-error or peer support. Students seemed to learn most when collaborating with each other and experimenting with the technology rather than from adults. We made note of the following interaction after students had been introduced to popplet.com:

Hayley writes kinkajous in the first box of her popplet concept map. She then clicks on each of the icons around this initial box and leans over to ask Emma how to add a new box. Emma looks up from her own computer and shows Hayley how to click on the box to create new boxes. Hayley clicks on the circle on the left side of her first box and drags it out to the side to create a new box. Then she clicks onto her Internet browser to find facts on kinkajous.

The exchange between Hayley and Emma exemplifies the many interactions where students first experimented with the tools and, if stumped, would turn to a peer before asking teachers for assistance. For Hayley, learning how to add on to her popplet merely consisted of asking Emma and took only seconds. This example also highlights the sophistication that students were able to achieve in order to compose their texts. Hayley moved fluidly between popplet.com and an Internet browser in order to research her topic and enhance her work using the multimodal utilities of the programs (color, font size, drawing, images). Teacher instruction was not necessarily needed when learning to navigate or compose with digital tools and texts.

Motivation and learning

Most students arrived at camp with positive feelings related to writing, as evidenced by interviews. They viewed writing as a means of self-expression and an outlet for their creativity. When asked why she decided to come to writing camp, Mallory said, “Because I wanted to learn more about writing and how to become an author.” Similarly, Shana said, “Writing is a way for me to express myself and my feelings. I can be creative and share my stories with my friends.”

However, not all students were as enthusiastic about writing. Some were signed up for camp by their parents because writing was a struggle for them. One student, Anthony, was particularly resistant to attending camp, yet he enjoyed himself after just one day. Incorporating technology and the freedom to create without the strictures that often accompany school writing assignments were extremely motivating for campers but, in particular, for those like Anthony who did not often enjoy school writing. “I like using the computer because it makes me feel more creative,” Anthony said. Several other students also said they preferred composing on a computer. Allison said, “I think I’m just bored of writing with paper and pencil because it’s what I always use.” Allowing students to compose digital texts and have choice over what they composed was motivating for even the most reluctant of writers.

Another motivating feature of the camp was that students were given full autonomy in choosing their genres and topics. Some came with specific ideas; others chose topics after brainstorming and discussions with peers. “I like to just come up with ideas and write about what I want to,” said Allison. “But I don’t really like writing small moments.” Writing about small moments was something Allison said she frequently was asked to do in school. Similarly, Emma explained how she did not like test writing in school because she felt pressured and sometimes the topics didn’t make sense. Through interviews and observations, we saw that giving students choices played an important role in their motivation to compose using digital tools.

Technology’s positive effect

While campers had varied experience and skills with technology, they frequently said that using technology made writing easier. “I don’t have neat handwriting, and, on the computer, you can make whatever kind of typing you want,” Matthew said. Shana added that, “Your hands don’t hurt as much, and, when your hand doesn’t hurt, it makes you want to do more.” Technology wasn’t only motivating; technology also freed students from the cumbersome nature of handwriting, although most had rather limited keyboarding expertise.

Students understood that technology enhanced their writing. “I might add more detail on the computer because it is harder to transfer things from paper to the computer,” Emma said. In her case, writing on the computer allowed her to increase the volume of what she wrote. Matthew saw VoiceThread as a mode for enhancing his writing. “They have actual pictures and what you are saying. You get an idea of the writer’s emotions as they are speaking,” he said, referring to the multimodal components of images and sound that VoiceThread offers.

We also noticed differences in how students approached texts. Frequently, schools teach students to move through stages of the writing process — planning, drafting, revising, editing, publishing — in a linear manner, completing each stage before moving on to the next. Although students underwent similar stages in camp, the writing process we observed was much less linear. Instead, students navigated back and forth between the stages, which is much more similar to the writing process described by accomplished authors. For example, our field notes captured the following observation of Derrick, a 5th grader:

Derrick is drafting his VoiceThread about Minecraft. He has a T-chart with pictures/descriptions on the left and his writing on the right. He is working on the narrative for his second slide to go along with a picture of a block-like man, labeled Stevie. He clicks on his popplet organizer and copies some information. He clicks back to the Word document and pastes the information. He reads over the pasted text and then types some additional notes. Next, Derrick clicks on a Minecraft wiki. He reads and clicks through several links, occasionally turning to his neighbor Matthew to share information. After several minutes of researching, Derrick returns to his popplet and adds three different boxes of information.

Like Derrick, other students also used this cyclical and iterative writing process. They continually refined ideas throughout the process, searching out additional information or revising previous work as their ideas evolved. This continual revision — and not just in the “revision” stage often used in classrooms — supports other studies that have found that technology can enhance students’ use of revising and increases the likelihood that they will revise (Suhr et al., 2010).

New literacy authors

Digital texts and tools have changed how we communicate and our literacy practices (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). A direct implication of these changes is how children are taught to read and write for meaningful purposes (Jewitt, 2008). Teachers can help students learn new literacies by teaching them to navigate and compose digital texts. While increasing the technological tools in schools is difficult, we encourage teachers to take advantage of the tools they do have and to go beyond traditional word processing and game play. Teachers don’t need to be technology experts to do this; students are quite motivated to learn through exploration and collaboration. They actually might learn best this way.

Digital tools support student writing growth and give them a deeper understanding of the writing process as fluid rather than linear.

Adopting a new literacies framework can help teachers and students expand their notion of literacy to include digital texts and tools. These should be used throughout the writing process so students learn not just the technology but also other important skills such as collaborating and designing. Digital tools support student writing growth and give them a deeper understanding of the writing process as fluid rather than linear. At the same time, teachers must think carefully about how they integrate technology into instruction. New literacies aren’t just about using technology but about using technology in purposeful ways, such as creating multimodal texts.

For elementary-aged students, access at school is especially important because their access outside of school is typically more limited than that of older students. For many students, school may be the only place where they’re allowed to explore and create using digital tools. Teachers should be mindful of how they integrate technology into instruction so that all students have regular opportunities to engage in digital composing where they have choice and autonomy over their process. Teachers also should ensure that all students have access, regardless of who finishes their schoolwork first or how much time they have to spend on test preparation. This digital writing camp taught us what is possible when students are invited to explore digital tools. We encourage teachers to integrate technology into daily instruction and find ways to offer similar experiences. Teachers will be amazed at what their students can do and what they can learn from their students.

References

Hutchinson, A. & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers’ perception of integrating information and communication technologies into literacy instruction: A national survey of the United States. Reading Research Quarterly, 46 (4), 312-333.

Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32 (1), 241-267.

Kajder, S. (2005). Not quite teaching for real: Preservice secondary English teachers’ use of technology in the field following completion of an instructional technology methods course. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 22 (1), 15-33.

Lam, W. (2012, December). What immigrant students can teach us about new media literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 94 (4), 62-65.

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2006). New literacies: Everyday practices and classroom learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Lapp, D., Moss, B., & Rowsell, J. (2012). Envisioning new literacies through a lens of teaching and learning. The Reading Teacher, 65 (6), 367-377.

Leu, D.J., Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J.L., & Cammack, D.W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In N.J. Unrau & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (5th ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Pallak, D. & Walls, R.T. (2009). Teachers’ beliefs and technology practices: A mixed-methods approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41 (4), 417-441.

Suhr, K.A., Hernandez, D.A., Grimes, D., & Warshauer, M. (2010). Laptops and 4th-grade literacy: Assisting the jump over the 4th-grade slump. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9 (5), 4-45.

 

CITATION: Zoch, M., Langston-DeMott, B., & Adams-Budde, M. (2014). Creating digital authors. Phi Delta Kappan, 96 (3), 32-37.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

default profile picture

Brooke Langston-DeMott

BROOKE LANGSTON-DeMOTT is a doctoral student of literacy, both at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

default profile picture

Melissa Adams-Budde

MELISSA ADAMS-BUDDE is an assistant professor of literacy education at West Chester University of Pennsylvania.

default profile picture

Melody Zoch

MELODY ZOCH is an assistant professor of literacy education at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.