Models of Technology and Literacy in Secondary Ed. Classrooms

In this entry, I will again reference the article by Justine Cassell, “Towards a model of technology and literacy development:  Story listening systems.”  Mostly, I found her thoughts on student collaboration to be most appealing when I was reading the article, so I’ll start there.  Peer involvement for literacy, especially at an early age, is very important.  There are very few, if any at all, instances when we aren’t sharing literacy in order to express something to someone else.  In fact, my favorite quote in the article states literacy “… as the ability to communicate with an audience not in the immediate physical or temporal context.  Literacy, then, is the ability to make meaning for others across space and time” (p. 77). 

Let’s assume that this definition of literacy is accurate (it sure sounds cool).  Who are students communicating with in a traditional secondary education setting?  In traditional prompt-then-essay paper formats, students are traditionally writing for the purpose of getting a grade, with the exemption of peer-reviews.  I remember during student teaching, an essay prompt I assigned asked students to reflect on a day they believe changed their outlook on life forever.  Even though they were hesitant writers, I was confident that they would take to the essay with zeal. I thought I had understood from other classes that if the subject matter was relevant to the student, then the student would take to the assignment without many problems in attention or clarity.  That assumption was half-wrong.

After allowing students to free-write for 15 minutes, I assigned them partners to share their stories.  And boy did the classroom buzz with talk about everyone’s stories, and questions about their partner’s stories.  But as soon as I asked students to separate again to begin formally writing their rough draft, half of the class went back to their seats to scribble on paper.  It was fine with them to collaborate with peers, but to them the writing portion was terrible.  They weren’t writing to a peer, or for a peer.  They were writing for a teacher, and for a grade a majority of them at that time didn’t care about. 

I can imagine telling students that they would be posting their final drafts to a blog, where their peers would then be required to make comments on their finished project (hypothetically of course; there were no computers in the room, or in the computer lab at that point in the semester).  Would the effort have increased?  I believe it possibly could have.  Even if a handful more students became more engaged with the activity, it would have been worth-wile.

“Literacy, after all, is about participating in a community of meaning-makers” (p. 102).   That is the final statement of Cassell’s at the end of the article, and it resonates with what I have written earlier about blogging.  There are many ways to increase student motivation in the classroom, and to me placing meaning behind assignments and activities can prove to be the most challenging.  However, I believe technology can be a useful tool in accessing meaning behind learning.

Cassell also mentions, albeit for ages 4-7, that most technology for literacy promotes an “inside-out” approach, rather than a “more social and functional approach” (p. 81).  In an age where cognitive and collaborative thinking are gaining more emphasis in the workplace, it only makes sense that student writing should be approached from this “outside-in” direction, at least in most circumstances.  Otherwise, there simply isn’t much meaning as to what students are doing in the classroom.  Blogging, and technology in general, can definitely change that.

Cassell, J. (2004). Towards a model of technology and literacy development:  Story listening systems. Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 75-105. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.lib.iastate.edu:2048/science/article/pii/S0193397303001369