Effective literacy pedagogy: amplified by technology?

摘要: For some time teachers have been identified and even vilified as impediments to technology uptake in classrooms. It has demonstrated that the purchase installation of modern (and often costly) is no guarantee will use it facilitate improve learning. We argue longer appropriate blame for their slow technology. Instead important we investigate understand ways innovations fit (or mismatch!) with culture schooling established pedagogical practices teachers. ICTs made way into classroom literacy sessions varying degrees ‘success’. The literature provides us conflicting opinions about whether, how why should be used teaching. While said considerable potential enhance education, focus on alone too long dominated research educational settings. necessary reframe issue consider teaching first a ‘tool’ mediate complex social world classroom. This paper examines three explore nature pedagogy environments where newer technological tools are featured. synergy between technologies, school explored using Activity Theory (Engestrom, 2001). theory offers useful insights relationships teachers, pedagogic goals available. Literacy highly contested term field claimed by competing disciplines such psychology, linguistics, cultural studies literary theory. Traditionally thought cognitive activity involving cracking alphabetical code, phonics, grammar comprehension skills. In contrast this more psychological or autonomous view (Street 1995, 2003), ideological models variable practice understood acquired only within sociohistorical milieu which occurs (Snyder, 2008). What means literate 21 century changed. Contemporary described “situationally specific (Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear & Leu, 2008, p. 5) “multimodal, multimedial, dynamically changeable enterprise” (Hull Nelson, 2005, 7). many may identify “past pencil bound” (Barone Wright, 292), these new conceptions involve constantly changing reading writing practices. Affordances support might assumed access laptops, wireless connectivity, Interactive White Boards mobile communication devices innovation education. However, reality structures computer-based technologies place 20 years (Dunleavy, Dezter Heinecke, 2007). Johnstone (2003) documents 1:1 laptops private Melbourne 1990. Snyder (2008) describes laptop computers were distributed mid-1990s. late 1990s Microsoft initiative “Anytime Anywhere Learning Program” engaged than 1000 students laptops. New Labour introduced policies significantly increase ICT UK schools mid-1990s (Moss et al question remains then, after period classrooms agenda? O’Byrne, Zawilinski, McVerry EverettCacopardo (2009) quite firmly problem framing debate. If our “...a less productive set policies” emerge namely: separation standards from other curriculum areas; becomes taught separate class; teacher not one technology; assessment areas (p. 265). long, focused education Instead, secondarily learning communicating (Castek, 2008; Kinzer, Coiro Cammack, 2004) dispositions discourses (Gee, 2007; Kress, 2003) semiotic contexts characterised multimodality (New London Group, 1996; Hull Schultz, Research broad ranging; addressing problems diverse interactivity (e.g. Bennett Lockyer, 2008), pitfalls technical issues software design, access, student response (Dwyer, Kervin, 2005), (Hughes 2005; Kennewell, Tanner, Jones Beuchamp Labbo 2006). fragmented body interests gives but partial picture pedagogy, lacks consistent needed better implications practice. renewed examination begins her/his goals. central barrier Teacher reluctance embrace cited main hindrance successful integration (Kervin Mantei, 2009; Durrant Green, 2000) because power enable constrain Abas Khalid (2007) observe Owston argues needs (a) learning, (b) result higher costs (c) lead improved cautions jump onto “another bandwagon”. (Zhang, 2009), critical fit, mismatch, Karasavvidis (2009, p.437) suggests study “conflicts existing practices” understanding integrate daily There growing explores teachers’ perspective. Conflicting Harste downplays importance classrooms, arguing get lost hype rather continue designing experiences they past, emphasising role analysis developing students’ ability different texts position them. Leu al. (2004) suggest Web digital meaningfully integrated do play large lives. Although there suggestion inclusion change interactions, modes work product generated students, found always case (Jones under review; Smith, Hardman, Higgins, faster pace lessons, spent group work; range electronic resources being used, poor selection control content these. tendency assume at front class when IWBs (Maor, increased opportunity taken off task working independently activities (Mantei 2009). Greenhow, Robelia Hughes assert “The supporting typically replaced amplified non-digital activities, yet strives towards transformative uses”. An effective calls advanced pedagogies. As Moss colleagues concluded scale interactive technologies,” When took precedence over clear purpose, was exploited would could substantially subject learning.” al, 2007, p.7) adopt driven instruction (through spending programs), need document affordances critical. Framing “...will accommodate easily [their] entry ... curriculum” (Leu 2009, 267). Teachers contemporary So faced number questions; pedagogy? what purposes used? Who uses technologies? knowledge skills enabled And most importantly purposes: relationship latter concerns here leads examine interacts factors network shape