Technology for Engaged Learning in a Literacy Methods Course

Denise A. Schmidt
Donna J. Merkley
Carol J. Fuhler
Sara J. Rinkleff-Frizelle

For a printer-ready version of this article, click here. Use your browser’s “back” button to return to the Reading Online site.


Abstract

In recent years, the definition of literacy has evolved to include the ability to read and write not only print materials or various forms of creative and artistic expression, but also a unique array of visual sign systems and symbols. These systems and symbols are easily represented with technology. With this changing definition of literacy comes the challenge of using technology as a tool for student engagement and meaningful learning. It therefore seems essential that preservice teachers in literacy methods courses have experiences using technology for content knowledge development and for application in school settings. This article describes efforts to integrate technology into an undergraduate literacy course. It provides specific examples that illustrate how faculty use technology as a learning tool in classrooms.

   Related Postings from the Archives


Introduction | Changing Definition of Literacy | Supporting Faculty | Integrating Technology | Discussion | Conclusions | References



Times in our undergraduate literacy classrooms are changing. When faculty members happen to meet in the halls between classes these days, our exchanges often involve our latest efforts with technology. We excitedly share a resounding success or ruefully describe a time-consuming exercise in frustration (though it is reassuring to be able to troubleshoot temporary technological setbacks with colleagues). This is a change from the past, when such chats focused on an enthusiastic recommendation for the latest book to share with our preservice teachers or a suggestion of how best to model an innovative reading strategy in class.

Today, we are on a journey to integrate technology thoughtfully throughout our teacher education program and, more specifically, into our literacy courses. We are supported in our efforts by other educators and by organizations that underscore heightened expectations to enhance instruction with technology, targeting both inservice and preservice teachers (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1997; United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1995, online document). For example, results of a survey by the Milken Exchange and the International Society for Technology in Education (1999, online document) suggest that preservice teachers’ exposure to educational technology be increased. The International Society for Technology in Education (2000, online document) offers standards for teacher competencies in technology use, and the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, Task Force on Technology and Teacher Education (1997, online document), suggests restructuring teacher education programs to include technology as an essential component of all courses.

Educators reinforce the fact that beginning teachers should enter classrooms ready to use technology to enhance student learning (Milken Exchange and the International Society for Technology in Education, 1999; Soloman, 1992). Specifically, there seems to be overwhelming agreement that the content taught in technology courses within teacher education programs should be strengthened and extended by other faculty who model the use of technology for instructional and administrative tasks (Becker & Ravitz, 1998; Brush, 1998; Espinoza & Justice, 1994-1995; Novak & Berger, 1991; Stetson & Bagwell, 1999; Strudler & Wetzel, 1999).

Standard 8 of the Standards for the English Language Arts (National Council of Teachers of English & International Reading Association, 1996) emphasizes the need to promote student use of an array of technologies “to gather and synthesize information and to create and communicate knowledge” (p. 39). This endorsement of the role of technology in literacy directs that technology be considered a valuable learning tool to promote inquiry, interpretation, and sustained engagement in reading and writing (Behrmann, 1988; Collins, 1991; Hoffman & Pearson, 2000, online document; Sheingold & Hadley, 1990, online abstract). For this to happen, it is imperative that preservice teachers themselves gain experience with a variety of technologies. In the process they will discover the possibilities of using technology with children in their own future classrooms.

Reports indicate, however, that many new teachers have limited knowledge of how to work in a technology-enriched classroom or how to use a variety of technologies in their professional practice (Jerald, 1998; United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1995; Willis & Mehlinger, 1994). In fact, preservice teachers themselves report feeling ill prepared to integrate technology into their instruction (Becker & Ravitz, 1998; Topp, 1996). We administered a survey early in the semester in one of our literacy methods courses to ascertain students’ levels of knowledge in several areas, including the use of technology in the classroom. Fifteen of the 27 students indicated familiarity with four to seven content-specific software programs (e.g., Word Crunchers, Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego?, Reader Rabbit), along with competence in word processing and use of the Internet. The following comments were typical of the remaining students:

These students’ comments reflect the situation for many who must learn how to use technology while they are also learning about pedagogy. It is probable that all students can profit from additional exposure to technology as a practical tool in the literacy curriculum. In the process, they should also move beyond just being able to use content-specific software programs.

Back to menu


The Changing Definition of Literacy

Teacher educators today must also grapple with the changing definition of literacy. It is apparent that what it meant to be literate a decade ago is not what it means to be literate today — or what it will mean for tomorrow’s children. In The Literacy Dictionary, Venezky (1995) defines basic literacy as “a minimal ability to read and write in a designated language, as well as a mindset or a way of thinking about the use of reading and writing in everyday life. It differs from simple reading and writing in its assumption of an understanding of the appropriate use of these abilities within a print-based society” (p. 142). Leu and Kinzer (1999) point out that while this type of literacy drives classroom instruction, contemporary literacy educators must broaden the scope of the definition. They must still teach skills using instructional practices based upon such elements as quality children’s literature, reading and writing workshops, and guided reading. However, they must also incorporate new technologies of literacy — such as Internet activities and inquiry, keypals, electronic books, and wireless devices — as part of a daily routine.

Valmont (2003) concurs, stating that teachers must move beyond developing children’s capabilities merely to read books and other materials, which he considers to be a limiting kind of literacy. Instead, teachers can extend their efforts toward forging a new literacy-technology connection. Valmont offers a forward thinking, evolving definition of literacy as “the ability to read and listen to the verbal, language-based alphabetic symbolic world as well as the ability to interpret signs, signals, and codes within other nonverbal symbolic literacy worlds” (p. 8). In addition, he suggests a refined definition that connects literacy with technology: “Likewise, the literacy-technology connection is strong when we think of literacy as including not only reading and speaking but also constructing meaning using other multiple sign systems” (p. 8).

Those other sign systems might include a wide variety of online graphics and animations; a multitude of software options; and the vast collection of websites and Internet resources, including growing opportunities for online collaboration among classrooms around the globe (Harris, 1998; Leu & Kinzer, 1999). Without a doubt, the focus of teacher educators must expand to include the burgeoning realm of technology, so that they can model its use and demonstrate its potential in an effort to reinforce its value to preservice teachers. When their comfort level grows, these teacher candidates will be more likely to incorporate technology into their own literacy curricula in a meaningful way, at least to the extent that the resources of their future schools allow.

Back to menu


Supporting Faculty Who Use Technology

Attention must also be given to faculty members who want to learn how to use technology themselves, while they are discovering its potential for their own classrooms at the same time. In our department at the Iowa State University (Ames, IA, USA), support structures for faculty have been established to reinforce our efforts to infuse technology thoughtfully into our courses. For the past 12 years, faculty members have had the opportunity to participate in a technology mentoring program in which they work one on one once a week for at least an hour with a graduate student who is enrolled in an advanced class in technology and teacher education (Thompson, Schmidt, & Hadjiyianni, 1995). The primary purpose of these sessions is for each pair to discuss, design, and determine how to apply technology ideas in teacher education courses.

In addition, a “technology scholar” program was initiated three years ago as further support for faculty who are working on project initiatives related to a “Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology” grant funded by the U.S. Department of Education. Many of the faculty who participate in the technology scholar program are also regular participants in the one-on-one mentoring program. As technology scholars, faculty members receive release time and graduate student support while they consider where they might include activities and assignments in their courses to guide preservice teachers to use technology effectively. The technology scholars meet on a regular basis to share and build upon one another’s ideas. It is this personal support afforded by the two programs that encourages the literacy faculty members to integrate technology into their methods courses. Their shared purpose is to provide preservice teachers with instructional models that integrate technology throughout the learning process.

Back to menu


Integrating Technology Into a Literacy Methods Course

Third-year undergraduate elementary education majors enrolled in a literacy methods course (“The Teaching of Reading and Language Arts in the Intermediate Grades”) at the Iowa State University are concurrently enrolled in a science methods class. During the semester, in addition to on-campus meetings of their courses, students also rotate into literacy and science field experiences in an upper elementary grade classroom. Prior to this literacy/science block, the preservice teachers have completed a primary literacy/mathematics block with a similar campus and field experience configuration, along with a required introductory instructional technology course.

Despite the fact that the preservice teachers have completed a required technology course, they come to the literacy methods course with varying levels of technology comfort and expertise. These students are used to a learning environment in which sharing expertise is expected and encouraged. This is especially evident regarding technology. We frequently observe students assisting peers in informal situations. However, several structures are in place to provide additional support for students as they use technology to complete course assignments:

Faculty members emphasize the eighth standard of the Standards for the English Language Arts (National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association, 1996) throughout the semester by

  1. Managing resources for communication and learning using technology
  2. Promoting active student involvement using technology as a literacy tool

When faculty redesigned the course, the emphasis was to infuse technology experiences that would accompany existing modules of study rather than to develop additional, isolated activities that simply used technology. As a result, preservice teachers would learn technology, learn through technology, and learn about technology (Bruce, 1998, p. 222, online document).

As we began to discuss possible uses and applications of technology in this course during the redesign process, we decided that the conceptual framework of engagement theory would provide a theoretical rationale for our work. For the purpose of this article, we have chosen to organize our course examples by relating them to engagement theory. Kearsley and Shneiderman (1998) state that the major premise of engagement theory “is that students must be engaged in their course work in order for effective learning to occur” (p. 5). The following three principles promote engagement:

Although engagement theory evolved from experiences gained in distance education (Kearsley & Shneiderman, 1998), the underlying principles of this conceptual framework are relevant and adaptable to face-to-face instructional situations. Providing opportunities in which students can work collaboratively on authentic projects that are meaningful to them and then share the finished projects with an outside audience should happen in face-to-face situations as well as online. Clearly, a number of technologies can be used as tools to facilitate learning when these three areas of engagement are present.

In the following two sections of this article, course activities and assignments with a technology “twist” are described. These examples are drawn from sections of the course taught by three different instructors, so not all students would complete each of the projects described. It is important to note that each instructor approaches technology integration differently. Thus, the examples illustrate how instructors who teach similar content can use a variety of technology tools to facilitate learning in a literacy classroom. Table 1 lists the examples and identifies which of the three principles of engagement theory are addressed in each.

Table 1
Course Activities and the Relevant Principles of Engagement Theory

  Principles of Engagement Theory
Activity Relate Create Donate
Managing resources for communication and learning:
   Course CDs
   Course WebCT site
   Literature databases		  
 
 
x		  
 
 
  		 
x
x
x
Promoting active student involvement:
   WebCT discussion groups
   Literature Circles Across the Miles
   A Voice From the Trenches
   Introduction project
   Internet scavenger hunt
   WebQuest on literature WebQuests
   Poem picture book
   Book talks
   Learning with handhelds
   Virtual reality		  
x
x
 
 
x
x
x
x
x
x
  
 
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
 		  
 
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
 

Managing Resources for Communication and Learning

Several mechanisms were developed to use technology in managing course resources and materials. Through them, preservice teachers gained a deeper understanding of how to prepare and use class materials in a digital or online format with children. These management mechanisms included course CDs, a course WebCT site, and two searchable literature databases. The following descriptions are drawn from material posted at the course website.

Course CDs. At the beginning of the semester, each student received a compact disk that contained a “To Do Folder” (assignments, scoring rubrics, and sample projects) and a “Web Sites Folder” that included links and annotations for literacy websites in various categories. These resources were for the students’ professional and classroom use. At the end of the semester each student received an additional CD that included the semester’s collection of colleagues’ units, lesson plans, newsletters, and digital video book talks.

Course WebCT site. Students used the WebCT site to access course materials and to participate in discussion groups related to course topics. Throughout the semester, student-created activities and lesson plans were posted on the site for colleagues to access.

Literature databases. One instructor had students add records to two databases, one devoted to science and poetry and the other to science and literature. Using a template, students entered information into their own record and then reviewed and sorted records entered by other students. For the science and literature database, students entered a record for a science activity linked to a young adult novel for a group-created literacy unit.

Faculty Reflections

Discussion throughout the semester focused on the advantages and challenges of using technology to manage resources for communication and learning. In addition, considerable discussion focused on issues of equity, access, and assessment associated with classroom technology and literacy projects. Students appreciated having access to course materials on the CD because that meant Internet access was not necessary for retrieving some course materials. The WebCT site allowed faculty members to make additional course materials available, provide links to new websites, and give general notifications and reminders to the whole class. These examples illustrate how one might manage resources and materials using technology and then engage students in the creation and dissemination of additional resources.

Promoting Active Student Involvement

The examples in this section explain how selected course experiences were redesigned to involve preservice teachers in meaningful learning tasks that used technology to teach literacy concepts. At the same time, special emphasis was placed on connecting faculty with students, students with students, and students with classrooms. The first three examples describe activites that promoted communication and reflection between communities of learners over time and distance. These projects lasted the entire semester. The remaining examples describe how preservice teachers became engaged while learning literacy concepts and strategies and using technology.

WebCT discussion groups. Throughout the semester, students used the asynchronous features of WebCT to enhance the communication, sharing, and reflection activities embedded in the course. The Web-based discussion forums were especially helpful in maintaining contact during the students’ field experience in the middle of the semester. For example, the following tasks were posted for a threaded discussion topic:

Literature Circles Across the Miles. Literature circles, a procedure taught in all sections of the course, provided an organizational strategy to promote response to literature and to deepen comprehension (Farris, Fuhler, & Walther, 2004). The WebCT environment became the vehicle for communication with a literacy methods class in another state, as the two groups of students engaged in a long-distance version of literature circles. This project began after the instructor read an article about electronic collaboration between classroom teachers and librarians as they discussed children’s literature (Johnson, 1999, online document). How could this be adapted to work with college students? First, digital pictures were scanned into the participants section of the course Web CT site so that preservice teachers could meet their long-distance classmates. A short written introduction was included with the pictures. Both classes from each institution read Kate DiCamillo’s award-winning Because of Winn-Dixie. Each class was divided into five literature circles that read the same group of chapters, performed their varying roles to prepare for discussions, and then spent about 30 minutes in class in literature circle discussion. Before the next class and literature circle discussion, students extended their discussions across the miles with their partner group using the discussion area of the WebCT environment (Cambourne, 2001; Grisham, 1997). In addition, classroom activities on the Iowa State University campus were videotaped, and short iMovies were created from three different class sessions. The iMovies were posted on the WebCT site for the partner class to view in an effort to make them more a part of the literature circle process.

A Voice From the Trenches. Throughout the semester, one instructor used electronic mail to connect the preservice teachers with a veteran sixth-grade reading and language arts teacher located in another part of the state. Each week, “the voice” would compose and send an e-mail message that described her past week “in the trenches” of a sixth-grade classroom. These messages contained her thoughtful perceptions of what it means to be a teacher as she openly shared her personal observations, ideas, challenges, and reflections with students in the class. Topics covered in each message varied from recollections of her own first day of teaching to the steps she took to resolve a conflict between herself and a parent. At times, “the voice” even shared pieces of her own writing to illustrate how she encouraged her students to share and write for an outside audience. The preservice teachers were always encouraged to respond directly to “the voice” if they had any questions or comments.

During the course, there was an exchange of ideas between this practicing teacher and the preservice teachers. While the sixth graders wrote an autobiography about a senior friend, the preservice teachers created a timeline of events from 1900 to 2002 to include in their senior friends’ autobiographical books. After completing literature circles on a variety of books, the preservice teachers shared their digital video book talks with the sixth graders. During the last week of the semester, “the voice” made a surprise visit to the class to share additional experiences, personal anecdotes, and sixth-grade projects.

Faculty Reflections

Of course, all instructors attempt to ensure that meaningful classroom discussion permeates course meetings and includes every class member. In reality, however, it is often impossible to include all students in whole-class discussion. We felt that the use of the WebCT online discussion environment enhanced our attempts and provided an additional avenue to solicit and acknowledge each student’s perspective — that is, the technology served to support student-centered, interactive dialogue and to address the diverse needs of class members as questions were posted or as misconceptions surfaced.

As teacher educators, we understand the value of conversation and discussion in the comprehension process (Farris, Fuhler, & Walther, 2004). That process was in place when students participated in literature circles, in which they had an opportunity to present, exchange, and perhaps alter ideas as they interacted during their reading of Because of Winn-Dixie. While there were some technical kinks to work out along the way, learning through online social interactions was a memorable experience for both students and their instructors. Furthermore, the students all remarked that they learned a great deal about the literature circle process and the role that technology could play in it, and they were eager to try it on their own some day.

The value of this conversation and discussion was also realized by the instructor and students involved in weekly e-mails with “the voice.” These experiences provided preservice teachers with a virtual connection to an inservice teacher and her classroom. Online conversations with a teacher in the trenches strengthened and reinforced in-class discussions as connections between the theoretical aspects of teaching literacy and day-to-day practice in classrooms were made. In addition, the experience demonstrated how easily technology can be used to connect educators and classrooms at all levels for meaningful discussion and shared insights. Educators need not be isolated from one another when technology can be used to connect them.

Course experiences with WebCT discussion groups, literature circles across the miles, and a voice from the trenches lasted the entire semester, but each instructor also integrated technology with additional targeted literacy assignments to further promote active student involvement.

Introduction project. Instructors required students to use software familiar from the introductory technology course (e.g., HyperStudio, PowerPoint, KidPix) to combine graphics and text in a substantive, appealing, informative self-introduction for use in their field experience classroom. Content needed to address an audience of 9- to 11-year-olds and to include, but not be limited to, information about family, hometown, hobbies, friends, vacations, favorite quotes, and favorite authors. Projects, which were shared in class and with children during field experiences, varied in format. Students also used WebCT asynchronous discussion postings during their field experience to summarize children’s reactions to their work. Many of these reactions suggested how this project might be strengthened or modified for use during student teaching or the interview process.

Internet scavenger hunt. This assignment was prompted by a desire to have preservice teachers search the Web for quality literacy sites for children to use. At the same time, preservice teachers were encouraged to think of creative ways in which to use technology to extend and enrich their literacy curriculum (Valmont, 2003). From a starter set of websites, students broadened their search to include sites that would help teach a reading or writing skill or strategy. To provide practice in collaboration, scavenger hunts were developed by five-member learning teams. The teams picked their strategy and developed a logically progressing scavenger hunt. To share the learning, completed hunts were presented in class. Each one was loaded onto a computer and teams rotated around the room, exploring the hunts and reviewing a literacy strategy at the same time. Hunts were posted on the WebCT course site for downloading in one class section and burned onto CDs for students in another section.

A WebQuest on literature WebQuests. One instructor had students examine WebQuests as a way of using Internet resources in an inquiry-oriented manner. Because students had studied, evaluated, and created WebQuests in their required technology course, they could easily apply WebQuest experiences to literature in this course. Students read Sarah Plain and Tall by Patricia MacLachlan while studying and practicing the whole-class literature study approach, and student teams completed an instructor-created WebQuest for the book. Special emphasis was given to the “tasks” portion of the WebQuest as the group formulated a science-related task for Sarah Plain and Tall and as the group located an additional literature WebQuest to recommend to colleagues.

Poem picture book. Throughout the course, students in all sections were encouraged to consider using poetry in classrooms (Glazer & Lamme, 1990; Huck, Hepler, Hickman, & Kiefer, 1997). They reviewed poetry websites and explored various types of poetry books: comprehensive anthologies with poems arranged by categories, collections of poetry written by a single author or on a single theme, and picture book versions of a single poem (Tompkins, 2002). In one class, discussion on the use of poem picture books included how to supplement commercial books with instructor-created and children-created samples. Using multimedia software programs, student teams collaborated to create a poem picture book for classroom use.

Digital video book talks. While participating in literature circles, preservice teachers in one section of the course created book talks using iMovie. After completing their literature circle book, each group wrote a script to storyboard their talk. Groups were given a digital videocamera and were allowed to go anywhere on campus to tape their book talk. Next, iMovie was used to edit the tape and produce a book talk about the literature circle books. These video book talks were posted to a website for others to view.

Learning with handhelds. After acquiring a class set of 30 hand-held personal digital devices, a concerted effort was made by one instructor to model their use in class. In whole-class literature study on Sarah Plain and Tall, preservice teachers used handhelds to create a discussion web (Alvermann, 1991) with PiCoMap software. The preservice teachers first worked individually and then in pairs to discuss the pros and cons of whether Sarah should stay on the prairie. As ideas were brainstormed and discussed, students created a discussion web to document their responses. Each group shared their answer to the discussion web question with the class.

Later in the semester, the literacy methods students visited a sixth-grade classroom to observe a learning environment where children had unlimited access to handhelds. Each preservice teacher was paired with a sixth-grader to complete a variety of literacy activities using a handheld. First, the preservice teachers took a weekly spelling test with their sixth-grade partner. Next, the preservice teachers taught PiCoMap to the sixth-graders, who completed a concept map about themselves. The children were excited to teach and “beam” programs to their partners. A lively discussion ensued during the trip back to campus as the preservice teachers began to share their experiences and to reflect on the new paradigm of learning they had experienced.

Virtual reality. Virtual reality (VR) is computer-based technology that allows users to explore a 360-degree environment and to interact with elements in that environment (Jackson & Winn, 1999; Lanier, 1992; Middleton, 1992). Applications in business, medicine, and the military abound, and educational applications are growing in number and sophistication. In one section of the course, VR technology was used in a number of ways. During the introduction to literacy assessment and evaluation, students wrote their impressions while viewing an instructor-created VR of “measurement tools.” Prior to their field experience, student groups analyzed the literacy features of a classroom after a VR tour of that classroom. Later, students compared the environment of that classroom to their field experience classroom. Additional Internet examples of classroom applications of VR were made available for analysis. At another point during the course, an instructor-created VR served as a prompt for a creative writing activity, and students examined sample children’s writing generated by the VR. Most important, student groups analyzed how VR might enhance their own teaching endeavors.

Faculty Reflections

Faculty members experienced using the power of technology to enhance learning and discovered the nuances of engagement theory by implementing these activities in their literacy courses. Students were required to carefully consider the relationship of graphics and text to promote reading and comprehension as they created products for real audiences. Sharing the products with children allowed these preservice teachers to evaluate further how their work communicated a meaningful idea or message.

These diverse projects both exposed students to and involved them in a wide variety of literacy-technology options. In each case, students and instructors were learning together, assessing the value of technology as a means to enhance literacy learning. And the learning did not end with the completion of the projects, because we continue to be eager to learn more about one another’s activities, perpetuating an ongoing cycle of teacher as technology learner. As they engaged in the various projects, the preservice teachers were also strengthening their knowledge about literacy, learning literacy with technology, and developing a personal comfort level with technological applications. That comfort was noticeably missing according to the student surveys mentioned previously in this article.

Back to menu


Discussion

It is important to note that we are especially fortunate to have technology-rich classrooms for literacy instruction on our campus, along with superior technology support. Classroom laptops, document cameras, and interactive whiteboards are serviced regularly by the college and department technology staff; software needs are quickly met; help with troubleshooting is always just a telephone call away. Overall, the collegial atmosphere regarding technology integration fosters developing applications and extends and refines instructors’ comfort level, even for the most intrepid learner.

It is not enough to have such access, however. We are also intent on using technology in wise and beneficial ways in our literacy methods courses. Awareness of the relationship between technology and literacy has redirected our thinking about how we can most effectively prepare future teachers. That relationship, illustrated by an expanded definition of literacy, has led us to rethink several aspects of this intermediate-level literacy course. For instance, we continue to explore the best way to use content-specific software. Previously, considerable class time was devoted to reviewing, evaluating, and demonstrating several literacy software programs. Time is now spent using technology in ways described in this article. Learning with technology is emphasized and promoted by actively engaging students in projects and activities that require technology. We maintain that the emphasis on communication, productivity and multimedia tools will create a more student-centered approach to technology integration in classrooms.

In addition, the broadened definition of literacy demands that classroom use of Internet resources be thoughtful. We (experienced teachers and critical consumers) are absolutely awed by the explosion of Internet literacy resources. We can only imagine how daunting these same discoveries can be for our preservice teachers, who are just beginning to understand what it means to teach literacy. We remain challenged to guide our students in becoming thoughtful users of Internet resources in their classrooms and their own professional development.

Understandably, our greatest challenge is to monitor the quantity and the quality of technology integration. Infatuation can result in attempts to adapt everything to a computer (Robertson, 2003). Instead, we must critically examine the role of technology in teaching literacy so, when used effectively, these tools engage students in the learning task. This is especially relevant as computer hardware and software evolve.

It is essential that we model technology use not as an artificial “add-on,” but as a literacy teacher’s tool. This approach features technology as a natural, yet unobtrusive means of enhancing learning rather than the focus of the learning. We are constantly mindful that technology connections are made in meaningful literacy contexts. This means that during planning and instruction, we need to monitor pacing. Thoughtful integration of technical elements requires more time during class and more preparation prior to class (Wepner & Tao, 2002). The framework of engagement theory also proves useful in guiding careful preparation and pacing of learning tasks that require the use of technology. Our goal in our own literacy methods course was to engage our students actively in course work that promoted the principles of “relate, create, and donate.”

Back to menu


Conclusions

The research aspects of technology integration remain elusive. We need to devote attention to how preservice teachers can use technology “to gather and synthesize information and to create and communicate knowledge” (National Council of Teachers of English & International Reading Association, 1996, p. 39) so they are better prepared to assist young learners in those same endeavors. Our students’ self-efficacy and comfort with technology are easily measured and observed; our students’ proficiency and the products they create are likewise easily measured and assessed. Our next step is to document more fully the effects of technology experiences on preservice teachers’ use of technology in their own classrooms. We need to research more carefully whether our students are able to use technology effectively, efficiently, and meaningfully to assist children in their literacy development.

The long-term impact of technology integration in our literacy methods course is yet to be discovered, and questions remain to be answered. Will our students become computer-using educators who are leaders and change agents in their schools? Will they continue to address issues of equity and ethics related to technology use? Will they be advocates for using technology to enhance classroom learning? As we begin to address these questions, we face the ongoing, challenging task of refining our existing efforts while discovering innovative ways to enhance our literacy courses with technology.

Back to menu


References

Alvermann, D. (1991). The discussion web: A graphic aid for learning across the curriculum. The Reading Teacher, 45(2), 92-99.
Back

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (1997). Report of the task force on technology. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Back

Becker, H., & Ravitz, J. (1998). The influence of computer and Internet use on teachers’ pedagogical practices and perceptions. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(4), 356-384.
Back

Behrmann, M.M. (1988). Integrating computers into the curriculum: A handbook for special educators. Boston, MA: College Hill.
Back

Bruce, B.C. (1998). Dewey and technology. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42(3), 222-226. Available (retrieved January 2004): www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=/electronic/jaal/Nov_column.html
Back

Brush, T.A. (1998). Teaching preservice teachers to use technology in the classroom. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 6(4), 243-258.
Back

Cambourne, B. (2001). Conditions for literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 54, 784-786.
Back

Collins, A. (1991). The role of computer in restructuring schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(1), 28-36.
Back

Espinoza, S., & Justice, M. (1994-1995). Preparing technology-using teachers. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 11(2), 9-11.
Back

Farris, P.J., Fuhler, C.J., & Walther, M. (2004). Teaching reading: A balanced approach for today’s classrooms. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Back

Glazer, J., & Lamme, L. (1990). Poem picture books and their uses in the classroom. The Reading Teacher, 44(2), 102-109.
Back

Grisham, D. (1997). Electronic literacy learning: Teachers’ on-line dialogue journals. In C.K. Kinzer, K.A. Hinchman, & D.J. Leu, Jr. (Eds.), Inquiries in literacy theory and practice (pp. 465-473). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
Back

Harris, J. (1998). Curriculum-based telecollaboration: Using activity structures to design student projects. Learning and Leading With Technology, 26(1), 6-15, 46.
Back

Hoffman, J., & Pearson, P.D. (2000). Reading teacher education in the next millennium: What your grandmother’s teacher didn’t know that your granddaughter’s teacher should. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(1), 28-44. Available (retrieved January 2004): www.catchword.com/ira/00340553/v35n1/contp1-1.htm
Back

Huck, C.S., Hepler, S., Hickman, J., & Kiefer, B.Z. (1997). Children’s literature in the elementary school (6th ed.). Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.
Back

International Society for Technology in Education. (2000). National educational technology standards for teachers. Eugene, OR: Author. Available (retrieved November 2003): cnets.iste.org/
Back

Jackson, R., & Winn, W. (1999). Fourteen propositions about educational uses of virtual reality. Educational Technology, 39(4), 5-14.
Back

Jerald, C. (1998, October 1). By the numbers. Education Week, pp. 102-105.
Back

Johnson, D. (1999). Electronic collaboration: Children’s literature in the classroom. The Reading Teacher, 53(1), 54-60. Available (retrieved January 2004): www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=/electronic/rt/9-99RT.html
Back

Kearsley, G., & Schneiderman, B. (1998). Engagement theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning. Educational Technology, 38(5), 20-23.
Back

Lanier, J. (1992). Virtual reality: The promise of the future. Interactive Learning International, 8(4), 275-279.
Back

Leu, D.J., Jr., & Kinzer, C.K. (1999). Effective literacy instruction (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Back

Middleton, T. (1992). Applications of virtual reality to learning. Interactive Learning International, 8(4), 253-257.
Back

Milken Exchange and the International Society for Technology in Education. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age? Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family Foundation. Available (retrieved November 2003): www.mff.org/publications/publications.taf?page=154
Back

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, Task Force on Technology and Teacher Education. (1997). Technology and the new professional teacher: Preparing for the 21st century classroom. Washington, DC: Author. Available (retrieved November 2003): www.ncate.org/accred/projects/tech/tech-21.htm
Back

National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association. (1996). Standards for the English language arts. Urbana, IL, and Newark, DE: Author.
Back

Novak, D.I., & Berger, C.F. (1991). Integrating technology into preservice education: Michigan’s response. Computers in the Schools, 1(1/2/3), 89-101.
Back

Robertson, H. (2003). Recycled promises. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(5), 414-415.
Back

Sheingold, K., & Hadley, M. (1990). Accomplished teachers: Integrating computers into classroom practice. New York: Center for Technology in Education, Bank Street College of Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 322 900). Abstract available (retrieved November 2003): www.edrs.com/Webstore/Detail.asp?q1=@Meta_PubID%20338316&txtSort=Meta_DocID[D]&txtMaxdisplayed=10&txtDocType=ED&vNameID=23021739
Back

Soloman, G. (1992). The computer as electronic doorway: Technology and the promise of empowerment. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 327-329.
Back

Stetson, R., & Bagwell, T. (1999). Technology and teacher preparation: An oxymoron? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7, 145-152.
Back

Strudler, N., & Wetzel, K. (1999). Lessons from exemplary teacher education programs. Paper presented at the ninth annual conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Washington, DC.
Back

Thompson, A.D., Schmidt, D.A., & Hadjiyianni, E. (1995). A three year program to infuse technology throughout a teacher education program. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 3(1), 13-24.
Back

Tompkins, G. (2002). Language arts (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Back

Topp, N. (1996). Preparation to use technology in the classroom: Opinions by recent graduates. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(4), 24-27.
Back

United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection (Rep. No. OTA-EHR-616). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available (retrieved November 2003): www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1995/9541.html
Back

Valmont, W.J. (2003). Technology for literacy teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Back

Venezky, R.L. (1995). Literacy. In T.L. Harris & R.E. Hodges (Eds.), The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Back

Wepner, S.B., & Tao, L. (2002). From master teacher to master novice: Shifting responsibilities in technology-infused classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 55(7), 642-651.
Back

Willis, J., & Mehlinger, H. (1994). Information technology and teacher education. In J. Sikula & T. Buttery (Eds.), Handbook on research in teacher education. New York: Macmillan.
Back

About the Authors

Denise Schmidt (e-mail) is the associate director of the Center for Technology in Learning and Teaching at Iowa State University (N031 Lagomarcino Hall, Ames, IA 50011, USA). Her research focuses on the impact of technology use in both teacher education and K-12 schools.

Donna Merkley (e-mail) is an associate professor of literacy at Iowa State University. Her research interests include classroom strategies for enhancing children’s comprehension and classroom technology integration.

Carol Fuhler (e-mail) is an associate professor of literacy at Iowa State University. She is a long-time advocate of integrating fine children’s literature into the elementary literacy curriculum and beyond, across the content areas. A current research interest includes studying ways to integrate technology into preservice elementary-level literacy methods courses.

Sara Rinkleff-Frizelle (e-mail) is the director of distance learning at Everett Community College, Everett, Washington. She is a recent graduate of Iowa State University, where she earned her master’s degree in curriculum and instructional technology.

Back to top



Authors’ note: Many of the initiatives described in this article were stimulated and supported by funds from a “Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology” grant from the U.S. Department of Education.

For a printer-ready version of this article, click here.

Citation: Schmidt, D.A., & Merkley, D.J., Fuhler, C.J., & Rinkleff, S.J. (2004, January/February). Technology for engaged learning in a literacy methods course. Reading Online, 7(4). Available: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=schmidt/index.html



Reading Online, www.readingonline.org
Posted January 2004
© 2004 International Reading Association, Inc.   ISSN 1096-1232