Stephanie Cutler

LITR 630/Instructor Mary Morgan

Assignment 2: Online Literacy Assignment
June 23, 2017

Research

Within the educational setting much time and discourse is given to preparing students for

life after school and how to navigate the 21st century world. If you take a reflective look at your

classroom, school, and/or district you may find there is a lack of appropriate preparation,

especially technological preparation. You could blame the Common Core State Standards and

the stresses of testing accountability. The common core has a very print-centric view of text,

which has implications for planning literacy and learning experiences (Drew, 2012). Many

teachers and administrators focus majorly on print opposed to digital sources as a direct result of

their interpretation of the standards. Due to an omission of explicit technology standards in the

CCSS, there is little incentive to teach literacies of online comprehension (Lue et al, 2011). As

the IRA states, however, it is the teachers responsibility to provide equal opportunity and

access for all students to use ICTs that foster and improve learning (2009). This statement puts

the ethical and moral imperative on us as teachers, especially teachers seeking social justice.

We as educators need to be cognizant of the ambiguity of the CCSS and its omission of

technology standards so all students can be prepared for 21st century literacies and technology

(Drew 2012). It is important for all schools to focus on teaching skills and strategies that promote

higher order thinking, problem solving, and collaboration. We need to move away from

accountability measure stress that makes great teachers make very poor pedagogical choices.

Braverman points out that low income schools tend to focus less on digital literacies, because the
school prioritizes test prep. If we and our students are living in a technological advancing world

why are these skills not at the forefront?

If you look closely at the CCSS there is a call to using digital sources and media, but

without explicit standards many choose to ignore and focus on print or attempt to incorporate

technology but in a very superficial way. Davies argues that in todays educational field teachers

must be highly qualified but this doesnt mean a teacher is highly effective. Davies continues to

point out that to be a highly effective the teacher must demonstrate TPACK at the phronesis level

(2011). These teachers not only possess content knowledge (CK) and pedagogical knowledge

(PK) but also know how to integrate technology knowledge (TK) into the learning process in

authentic ways.

The skill required to analyze and synthesize digital sources and media are not inherently

present just because a student knows about technology, owns a device, or even engages with tech

regularly. Reading online requires the ability to identify important questions, locate information,

critically evaluate information, synthesize and communicate information (Lue et al, 2011).

Possessing technological knowledge supports the idea that teachers need to teach students

strategies for finding kid friendly material that is readable and to evaluate the trustworthiness and

usefulness of the material quickly (Baildon and Baildon, 2008).

When thinking about how to plan and design a highly effective lesson (TPACK) that

would enhance a Science Unit about Animals in my Kindergarten classroom with reading,

writing, and technology standards my thoughts focused around a few words written by Baildon

and Baildon, many students lack the skills and strategies for finding resources online that are

just right for their research (2008). Thinking about this idea and Henrys idea that analyzing

search engine results is the first reading strategy that is used (2006) framed my pedological
decision making. I decided to narrow my teaching focus on locating information but since this

will be the first time many of my students have conducted online research I wanted to also teach

how to safely navigate through the internet.

Lesson/Standards Break Down

During the creation of the lesson I attended to KTS standards 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3. These

standards were met during planning but will also be met as I implement the lesson. Using

Weebly, Voice Thread, Kid Rex, and Common Sense Media to design and plan instruction

attended to KTS 6.1. Designing and planning to implement modeling, small group, Collaborative

pairing, 1:2 device sharing, and gradual release with the use of Ipads attends to KTS 6.2 and by

providing an authentic opportunity for all students to extend a Science unit with technology that

fosters reading and writing skills and strategies I attended to KTS 6.3. During the planning stage

of the lesson I attended to IRA standard 1.2 when I planned for the use of technology to enhance

reading and writing.

Throughout the introduction of the lesson I focused on the CCSS SL.1a, SL.6, and L.6.

These standards will be met as students followed agreed upon rules for discussion, speak clearly,

and are prompted to use vocabulary to discuss places they have been and share safety rules.

After the introduction, the lesson will move into the Teaching Digital Literacies 1.

During this section I will focus on teaching students skills for navigating the internet safely and

making comparisons to the real world. This section meets CCSS L.6, IRA 2.2 and 5.1, and ISTE

5b. These standards will be met when we review vocabulary words and stretch out sounds, when

students use classroom space to meet in whole group at the carpet and collaborative groups

around the room, and when I state Ipads can help us learn.
 As we move into the Internet Field Trip-Digital Literacy Skill 2: Locating, many

standards will be addressed including: ISTE 5b, CCSS L.6, IRA 2.2, IRA 4,2, ISTE 5a, ISTE 3a,

SL.3, ISTE 3b, IRA 2.3, CCSS W.7, ISTE 5a, and IRA 5.1. International Society for Technology

in Education standard 5b will be met when I point out that Ipads help us visit faraway places.

Common Core State Standard L.6 and IRA 2.2 will be met when we focus on vocabulary and

stretch sounds out to write the new words. International Reading Association standards4.2 and

ISTE standard 5a will be addressed when students are given choice and multiple disciplines are

integrated: Science, Reading, Writing, and Technology. The teaching method of gradual release

mets standard ISTE 3a and the We do part addresses CCSS SL.3 when it provides time for

questioning and clarity. As students begin to search/locate, use a variety of digital sources, and

participate in shared research with a collaborative partner they will met standards ISTE 3b, IRA

2.3, and CCSS W.7. While engaged in collaborative work the lesson prompts for the instructor to

monitor and point out the safety rules addressing ISTE standard 5a and the movement of students

from whole group carpet work to just right spots around the room for collaborative pairings

addresses IRA 5.1. Common Core State Standards SL.1a and SL.6 are further addressed as

students discuss their findings by following agreed upon discussion rules and use learned

vocabulary before the assessment portion of the lesson.

During the assessment students will met CCSS W.2, W.8, and SL.5. All three standards

will be addressed with the assessment handout. The assessment meets W.2 as students share

information with writing and drawing about the animal they researched. W.8 will be addressed

when students are asked to answer a self-assessment of the usefulness of the website. Finally,

when students share their work the drawing will help aid discussion and address SL.5.
 This lesson will address a multitude of standards. What is most important is that this

lesson will serve as a first step into a world of digital literacies. This lesson will allow me to

build on students technology knowledge and enhance learning in authentic ways. It will promote

collaborative reading of online information. Leu states, collaborative reading of online

information can lead to important learning gains. It is the ethical and moral imperative for all

teachers to work toward being not only highly qualified but highly effective with TPACK. My

hope is to continue this work and find way to support my Kindergarteners in using 21st century

literacies and technology as tools for knowledge and collaboration.

 References
Davies, R.S. (2011), Understanding technology literacy: a framework for evaluating educational
technology integration. Techtrends, 55 (5) 45-52
Levy, E. (2007). Gradual release of responsibilities: I do we do you do (pdf). E.L. Achieve, 2007.
Baildon, R., & Baildon, M. (2008). Guiding independence: Developing a research tool to support
Student decision making in selecting online information sources. The Reading Teacher,
61(8), 636-647.
Henry, L. A. (2006). Seaching for an answer: The critical role of new literacies while reading on
the internet. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 614-627.
Drew, S. V. (2012). Open up the ceiling on the common core state standards: Preparing students
for 21st-century literacy-now. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(4), 321-330.
Leu, D. J., McVerry, J. G., OByrne, W. I., Kiili, C., Zawilinski, L., Everett-Cacopardo, H.,
Kennedy, C. (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: Expanding the
literacy and learning curriculum. Journal of Adolescents and Adult Literacy, 55(1), 5-14.
International Reading Association. (2009). New literacies and 21st century technologies A
position statement of the international reading association, [Brochure]. Newark, DL.
Braverman, B. (2016). The digital divide: How income inequality is effecting literacy instruction
and what all educators can do to help close the gap. Literacy Today, 16-20.