An Integration Of Technology and Literacy
Before educators make our instructions effective in the classroom environment, teachers must meet students where they are, understand what their interests are, and will the content from the curriculum match their comprehensive level. Will students be able to use word processors to type their writing, stories, or can they dictate with voice recording? All these factors help support the process in which readiness, interests and learning profiles drive the instructional purposes for each activity.
Interests do not come in uniform. What is interesting to one student might not be interesting to others. Identifying each student’s interests “can be important to a student’s academic development” (Tomlinson et al., 2003, p. 128). Moreover, interests generate motivation, and deep understanding due to the relevance of students’ interests. In Vygotsky’s words “school is not simply a word or a physical structure but also an institution that seeks to promote learning and citizenship” (Schunk, 2012, p. 242). This emphasizes my take on measuring students' success that isn’t simply based on students' inherent intellectual capacities, as intellect cannot be separated from the environment. I define intelligence as a purposeful utilization of knowledge consistent with the perceived needs of the individual and the culture in which they reside. It is the interaction between student and learning milieu that we must evaluate if we are to develop the understanding needed to inspire student achievement on an individual level. In the current classroom, we have integrated technology in literacy to help Special Ed students do their activities such as writing their stories in google docs and using voice recording to dictate sentences for you.
In my own experiences, integrating technology in the curriculum does help to support the majority of students with different learning disabilities, allowing them to access the emotionally salient relationships with the book's characters and setting. One of the specific examples is how we use Learning Ally application which is read out-loud apps allow people with dyslexia to bypass the somato-sensory processing issues associated with visual language processing. Through the incorporation of audiobooks, difficulty with these mechanics is no longer as much of a barrier to comprehension, for some students. Though the benefits are not universal, the placebo effect is likely present depending on how the audio script is first introduced to a child. I believe in the wisdom of substituting this alternative to text without fanfare, observing the resulting level of comprehension. Also, with the students using this app, teachers can check their progress as well as be informed by predictive analysis as to which of the student’s interests would be reflected by a particular book. Allowing for easier meta-engagement with learning and personal motivation. This technological approach is discussed by Shute (2017): “It is incorporated directly into the classroom curriculum and uses results from learners’ activities as the basis on which to adjust instruction to promote learning in a timely manner” (p.2).
Where I am with planning for Literacy Technology Integration.
Planning lessons helps me stay focused on the objective’s contents that I intend to teach. A teacher is responsible for maintaining an optimal learning environment that everyone can thrive in, and to me it is the fundamental challenge we face. Consequently, my approach to instructional delivery style derived from this desire to support this purpose by employing many different instructional strategies. I consider distinctiveness as a personal asset when it comes to intelligence. This all comes down to one question: what and where are the resources, will these resources be useful for what I currently need? Or do I need to spend more time and my own investment to learn and get to know how to use any online applications? Since all the students in my school are assisted with iPad. Therefore, with the integration of technology, paper books have become electronic texts and more fluid. Like Richard and McKenna (2003) discuss that technology has changed how we read and interact with literacy. Electronic texts are interactive and dynamic. For example, if there is a word that students do not understand the meaning of, they can click on it to see the definitions and not wait to ask the teachers what it means. If there is a neuroscience derived font that is easier for someone with a learning difference to read, it is a simple matter to convert all text to that font. In terms of communication and material placeholder, students in my school can access Canvas app which is a learning management system where students can log in and see which works, they will need to finish and when the deadline is.
My future plan with Literacy Technology Integration.
In terms of differentiated instructions, I would say we are not fully equipped to support students with variance abilities, even with the integration of technology in literacy. The contents that we use for our lessons are still the same across all students regardless of their interests, learning profiles and readiness. What we did slightly different for Special Ed students are often relied on the modification of work assignments. To this regard, I found Taffe & Gwinn’s discussion (2007) of differentiation for Special Ed students “consists of watered-down content presented at a slow pace” (p.18) is relevant in my milieu.
For lesson planning, as time has progressed, the potential of educational technology has been advancing alongside human innovation. It has seemingly not kept pace with industry in terms of adopting cutting edge solutions, much less being a driver of technological research and development. Richard and McKenna also state that if we are not now teaching students to embrace the incorporation of technology in literacy, then when? Should we not place more emphasis on learning apps in students’ reading for all students? After all, more information is available through digital means than via paper. But perhaps there are also benefits to engaging students’ literacy through the reading of physical books, both to comprehension and satisfaction.
References
Richards, J. C., & McKenna, M. C. (2003). Integrating multiple literacies in k-8 classrooms: cases, commentaries, and practical applications
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Shute, V., Rahimi, s. (2017) Review of computer-based assessment for learning in elementary and secondary education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. V. 33. Pp1-19. http://myweb.fsu.edu/vshute/pdf/jcal.pdf
Tomlinson, C. Brighton, C. Hertberg, H. Callahan, C. Moon, T. Brimijoin, K. Conover, L. Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating Instruction in Response to Student Readiness, Interest, and Learning Profile in Academically Diverse Classrooms: A Review of Literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 27(2&3). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ787917.pdf
Watts-Taffe, S. M., Gwinn, C. B., Watts-Taffe, S., & Watts, T. S. (2014). Integrating literacy and technology: effective practice for grades k-6. Tomlinson, C.A. (2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse classrooms. Third edition. ASCD. Alexandria, VA