UNDERSTANDING NEW INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES: AN
EXAMINATION OF EVERYDAYDIGITAL LITERACY PRACTICES IN AN
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Chapter 1: Introduction
As I embarked upon this dissertation, a classroom encounter made me reconsider how I
thought about my daily literacy practices. It started simply with overhearing a heated literary
debate. Two first-grade boys, Max and Harrison1, thundered into the classroom, arguing loudly
about specific details concerning the Mary Pope Osborn books. Our class had been reading her
Magic Tree House series, so the subject of the debate did not surprise me. Max reported hearing
from his older sister that Mary Pope Osborn had published over 35 books and that the latest book
was about baseball. Harrison disagreed. He argued that not only was the number of books
incorrect, but the last book was not about baseball, and he could prove it. Harrison hollered,
“Hey Mrs. Maier, how many books has Mary Pope Osborn written, and is the baseball one the
last one she wrote?” (Fieldnotes, 01.16.15). I knew Mary Pope Osborn was a prolific writer but
had no idea of the number of titles or the last title she had written. I replied, “Go over and check
the white bookshelf. I think I have all her books” (Fieldnotes, 01.16.15).
The boys headed for the shelf of chapter books, pulled the last title from the shelf, and
Harrison stated, “See, I was right about the baseball book about Jackie Robinson. That wasn’t her
last one. Look, see, this was written two years ago” (Fieldnotes, 01.16.15). In response to their
inquiry about the number of books published, I stated, “Hmm, I’m not sure how many she has
written, and I have no clue what the last one was. Run down and ask the library teacher. She’ll
1
Pseudonyms.
know” (Fieldnotes, 01.16.15). “Forget the library teacher, are our computers logged on yet?”
responded Max (Fieldnotes, 01.16.15).
Max and Harrison did not wait for my response. Instead, they walked over to the class
computer, clicked Google, and searched with Max typing and Harrison providing the correct
spelling of the author’s name. “See, I told you she wrote more than 35 books,” Harrison said as
the printer recorded the titles. Sure enough, Mary Pope Osborn had written 100 books, and the
final title was about the ancient Roman army, not baseball. Motivated to search by a real-life
interest, the boy's everyday literacy experiences became the catalyst to search the Web
collaboratively to find out the information they did not know separately (Danby and Davidson,
2020). My computer-savvy boys had located the answer to their question without teacher
assistance. They found the answer like an adult—through a Google search. When asked about
this sudden interest in her books:
Max: “We have some ideas for her next books, and we don’t want to be embarrassed if
she has already written about them.”
MRM: “Will you be writing her a note to offer your suggestions?”
Max: “Not exactly, that’s way too slow. We were thinking we would email her and if she
liked our ideas, we would ask her when our class could Skype her, and we all could talk
to her. Everybody could help her out and give her ideas for new Magic Tree House books
like we do when kids can’t think of something to write at writing workshop time. Do you
think if we went back to Google, we could find out what her email address is? Maybe we
could get her phone number from the website and text her.” (Fieldnotes, 01.16.15).
This discourse left me both speechless and puzzled. Where did all these amazing ideas
originate? Max and Harrison were not privileged students. Neither child had access to a tablet or
computer at home, only their parents’ smartphone. I told them I loved their thinking and that they
should ask their class members if they were also interested in contacting Mary Pope Osborn. My
interest piqued; I wondered where they got the idea to contact the author as it was not something
I had ever discussed. When questioned the boys stated that they got the idea from our class
activities.
Early in the school year, we used Skype to contact a fourth-grade teacher when the class
was trying to figure out several Spanish words. Furthermore, although I never formally taught the
kids how to initiate a Google search nor mentioned when it might be appropriate to Skype, the
technology had become part of their everyday lives (Danby & Davidson, 2020; Lewis & Fabo,
2005). The entire class had observed me email happy teacher messages at dismissal time for kids
who have computers at home and happy teacher phone calls or texts for those who do not have
computer access. As a community of writers, we always gave each other suggestions of things to
write about, and advice to Mary Pope Osborn seemed like a natural progression to Max and
Harrison. Rogoff (1990; 1994; 2003) would argue they had learned these practices through
guided participation.
According to Rogoff, guided participation is the process by which children and their
caregivers “build bridges from children’s present understandings to reach new understandings
and skills” (1990, p. 8) to help children assume increasingly skilled roles in the activities of their
community. In other words, Max and Harrison had learned a variety of literacy practices made
available by digital technologies through participation in a valued classroom activity with more
knowledgeable others. Neither boy had access to computers or tablets at home, and while they
may have observed others using computers or smartphones, I knew they had observed my actions
in our everyday activities. They were able to initiate the Google search even though they were
never directly instructed. By first observing and then trying on their own, they had taken on the
digital practices our class employed. As Max and Harrison incorporated new practices that were
modeled earlier during whole class lessons, they demonstrated they were self-motivated,
knowledgeable, and capable users of the new technologies (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011). If
literacy develops as children take up more complex literacy practices supported by peers,
parents, or teachers (Marsh, 2016; Rowe, 2010, 2016) then it is important for teachers to initiate
practices and opportunities that allow for learning in meaningful ways. Atwell (2015) and
Calkins (2013) remind teachers of how important it is for children to write and talk about what is
alive, vital, and real in their lives and to let them discover their interests and passions. The
teacher’s job is to support those efforts. Dyson (2013) suggests that teachers who recognize and
appreciate the rich range of text practices children bring to the classroom have an increased
opportunity to improve children’s learning.
This encounter with Max and Harrison led me to reflect on my daily literacy practices. If
these two six-year-olds could negotiate the internet with such ease after just a few brief
exposures, what would happen if I embedded technology in all my subject areas, not just using
technology, but integrating it into my everyday subject matter? Would the students integrate
skills and knowledge so that they could use technology to suit their interests? Often, early
childhood educators, although technologically savvy in their everyday lives, do not integrate
technology into their instructional practices (Kildan & Incikabi, 2015; Maher & Twining, 2017;
Koehler et al., 2014; Wohlwend, 2009). I speculated that my standards-based, Common Core
driven curriculum limited my students from opportunities and experiences offered by the new
technologies. Did my mindset view literacy as a set of skills to master (Street, 1995) and
technology as the tool of choice to master those skills (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011)?
Although classroom computers were used daily, I have found that six-year-old children
need programs that they can operate without a great deal of teacher support. Reflecting on my
teaching practices it became evident that in responding to the pressures of working in a
standards-based school environment of administration demands, curriculum pressures, new
Common Core curriculum standards goals, and accountability of student’s scores (Burnett &
Merchant, 2014, 2015; Haslip & Gullo, 2017; Rooney, 2015; Twining et al., 2017) I primarily
utilized computer leveled self-paced programs. By focusing on those pressures, the need to have
children collaborate using new technologies, which are not a part of the state assessments, was
negated.
Access to new technologies is not the issue. Information and communication technology
(ICT) has been integrated into 98% of all public and private schools in the United States
(National Center for Educational Statistics, 2019). The problem is that many schools, mine
included, have not changed the substance of instructional practice (Burnett & Merchant, 2015;
Gee, 2004; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003, 2008, 2011; Larson & Marsh, 2015; Leander, 2007;
Snow & Matthews, 2016). Entrenched teaching methods that see technology as “a matter of
reading and writing on screens now rather than on paper with pencils and pens” (Coiro et al.
2008, p. 6) remain and outdated and obsolete classroom practices, where iPads and computers
are ultimately used for basic skill applications and drills, continue (Buchholz, 2016; Lankshear &
Knobel, 2011; Wohlwend, 2016). As a consequence, the potential for meaningful social purposes
associated with the new literacies where children learn to co-construct through guided
participation or guided engagement for authentic purposes in their everyday literacy practices
remain unrealized (Burnett et al., 2014; Marsh et al., 2017; Wessel-Powell et al., 2016).
However, a substantial body of literature reveals how educators have adapted to the new literacy
demands and have integrated the changing technologies into both their daily lives and teaching
practices (Burnett & Merchant, 2015; Sessions et al., 2016; Wohlwend, 2018).
Transforming the teaching practices of early childhood teachers to integrate technology
in meaningful and authentic ways into their everyday school practices requires that they not only
develop and integrate new instructional strategies but learn the nuances and proficiencies of the
new literacies, a challenge in itself (Leu et al., 2017). This shift to embrace 21st-century literacies
requires a multimodal view of reading and writing that counters many early childhood teachers’
linear views emphasizing the privilege of “traditional literacy skills and printed text” (Burnett &
Merchant, 2015, p. 271) and the teachers’ role as expert (Gee & Hayes, 2010). The research
conducted within this dissertation contributes to the growing picture of an educational
philosophy that understands digital technology as part of the repertoire of literacy practices
(Jacobs, 2008), which includes children, engagement, what learning can look like, and how a
multimodal view of reading and writing (Miller & Rowe, 2020) can inform everyday classroom
literacy practice.
Statement of the Problem and Research Questions
Although ICT has been integrated into most school's literacy programs for nearly three
decades (Burnett & Merchant, 2015; Passey & Zozimo, 2015), there remains limited
understanding of authentic literacy practices related to digital technology in readers and writers
(Coiro et al., 2017; Leu et al., 2017). Lankshear and Knobel (2003) claim that although new
technologies have arrived, schools have not embraced or changed the substance of instructional
practice. They found that many teachers tended to perpetuate old literacy practices rather than
engage in new technology-mediated literacy practices even when using digital tools. As such, the
ways of thinking or “ethos” (Lankshear & Knobel, 2006, p.7) engendered by the new literacies
were not being developed within such teaching and learning environments. This personifies the
idiom “old wine in new bottles” (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003, p. 29), where the substance of
teaching and literacy learning remain more or less the same as it was before computers. More
than 15 years later, a majority of early childhood teachers continue to operate in this paradigm.
Reluctance, suspicion, and/or insecurity among many teachers to embed information technology
(IT) or ICTs into everyday classroom literacy instructional practices persists (Blannin, 2015;
Burnett & Merchant, 2014; Burnett et al., 2014; Lankshear & Knobel, 2011; Leu & Kinzer, 2000;
Wohlwend, 2015).
The reluctance to embrace technology in daily lessons may result from a perceived lack
of time resulting from the challenges of teaching in a standards-based environment. After the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001was replaced by Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015,
many districts implemented a scripted curriculum developed by textbook publishers that aligned
to specific assessments (Haslip & Gullo, 2017). For many districts, including my own, any
subject matter “not tested becomes expendable,” which often resulted in severe reductions in
time allotted to writing workshop, science, and social studies (Haslip & Gullo, 2017, p. 254).
Teachers are frequently required to use prescriptive curricula in reading and math and to teach
only to the test (Haslip & Gullo, 2017). Technology in these classrooms is not an educational
priority and is often replaced with basic skill and application programs that are designed to raise
test scores (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2015; Roswell & Wohlwend, 2016). The challenge of using
technology in authentic, meaningful, and developmentally appropriate ways within a scripted
environment continues to be a problem for early childhood educators (Coiro et al., 2016; Leu
et.al., 2014; National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2015; Vrasidas, 2015).
Another issue is how can educators best prepare young children for the challenges of
learning to read and write with new technologies. This is particularly relevant given the changing
nature of literacy concerning ICTs and the importance of online places and spaces (NGA Center
& CCSSO, 2010). As such, children need to be competent when reading and writing on screens,
which includes the basic skills to read and write as well as navigate and communicate online
(Davis et al., 2021; Kingsley & Tancick, 2014; Leu et al., 2013). Educators frequently struggle to
provide authentic 21st-century learning opportunities where children can learn to navigate and
participate online for their interests and purposes while maintaining sound instructional practices
required by their administration and districts (Davis et al., 2021). Districts report daily usage of
ICT in primary schools, yet Blannin’s (2015) research indicates early childhood educators are
“not making effective use of online resources in the classroom” (p.188). The lack of training in
how to use technology to design and implement content into daily practice is especially
problematic in low SES schools like mine (Mouza & Barrett-Greenly, 2015).
Wohlwend (2010) posited, “how might early literacy education change to prepare
children to read, write, be and act as full participants in digital worlds and unknowable futures?”
(p. 144). To accomplish such a goal, teachers need to integrate digital forms of reading and
writing into children’s everyday life experiences so they can experience authentic forms of
meaning-making among insiders and discourse communities as well as acquiring knowledge
(Lankshear & Knobel, 2011). Reading and writing are not just important elements in academic
settings, but are vital to the pursuit of personal interests, enabling and encouraging children to
critically engage with the world around them through multiple modalities (Davis et al., 2021;
Marsh, 2010, 2011, 2015; Wohlwend, 2018).
As a researcher and a teacher with more than 35 years of early childhood teaching
experience, I am interested in research that (a) explores how young children learn to read and
write using a range of resources and (b) ways that provide children with the instruction and skills
they need to navigate the ever-changing digital world. I am interested in looking beyond the use
of technology for skill, drill, games, and digital worksheets to better understand how authentic
learning practices can be utilized as “coherent, meaningful and purposeful” activities that
“encourage students' individual interpretation of thoughts and quality teacher and student
interactions in everyday teaching practices” (Nystrand, 1997, p. 20). For example, rather than
scripted questions that have “prespecified” (Nystrand, 1997, p. 17) answers, grounding
instruction in authentic practices that encourage students to collaborate as they “think, interpret,
and generate new understandings” (Gallas, 1994, p. 305). The teachers' role in this authentic
learning needs to be flexible. In the case of digital technology, there may be distributed expertise
where the student may be more knowledgeable than the teacher (Gee & Hayes, 2010; Leu et al,
2017). Ultimately, the knowledge generated would be co-constructed in collaboration with others
(Lankshear & Knobel, 2011; Larson, 2014). In authentic learning situations, children are
ultimately the “producers of knowledge” rather than just “reproducers of knowledge” (Nystrand,
1997, p. 80).
In respect to this research, it is worth noting that the National Council of Teachers of
English (NCTE) position toward successful participants in a global society includes attention to
relationships, problem-posing, and problem-solving, as well as communicating information and
sharing information.
Active, successful participants in a global society must be able to: participate effectively
and critically in a networked world; explore and engage critically, thoughtfully, and across
a wide variety of inclusive texts and tools/modalities; consume, curate, and create actively
across contexts; build and sustain intentional global and cross-cultural connections and
relationships with others so to pose and solve problems collaboratively and strengthen
independent thought; promote culturally sustaining communications and recognize the
bias and privilege present in interactions; examine the rights, responsibilities, and ethical
implications of the use and creation of information; determine how and to what extent text
and tools amplify, and encourage one's own and others' narratives as well as counter
unproductive narratives; recognize and honor the multilingual literacy identities and
cultural experiences individuals bring to learning environments and provide opportunities
to promote, amplify, and encourage these different variations of language. (NCTE, 2019,
paragraph 2)
These are the skills demonstrated by Max and Harrison in the opening vignette.
The questions guiding this research are as follows:
1. What are the literacy practices of first graders as they use technology within their
everyday classroom community of learners?
2. How do first graders use technologies as they develop as readers and writers
within a new literacies paradigm?
This research was designed to provide researchers and educators with rich descriptive accounts
of authentic uses of literacy and technology as a way to inform early childhood literacy practices
and pedagogy and move it beyond individualized skills for personal expression to prepare
students for successful participation in the 21st-century global information and communication
economy (Larson & Marsh, 2015). This is a profound change in how standards-based Common
Core classrooms operate.
There remains tremendous promise for the use of technology as a means to support and
enhance children's literacy development (Davis et al., 2021; Gee, 2005; Hashemi & Cederlund,
2016; Lankshear & Knobel, 2011; Marsh et al., 2015; Marsh et al., 2018; Twining et al., 2017;
Vasquez, 2015; Wessel-Powell et al., 2013, 2015, 2016, 2018). However, despite the growing
fascination with technology in educational settings, there remain few systematic or empirical
accounts that identify practices associated with digital teaching, digital learning, and informal
learning spaces in early years settings (Bogard & McMackin, 2012; Burnett, 2010; Kontovourki
et al., 2017; Marsh et al., 2017).
Currently, there is a plethora of research documenting the relationship of literacy and
digital technologies at the middle school and high school level (Coiro et al., 2016; Lammers et
al., 2012; Lankshear & Knobel, 2011; Leander, 2007; Magnifico et al., 2015; Marsh, 2016, 2021)
and in the preschool and kindergarten years (Marsh, 2014, 2016; Merchant, 2015; Neumann,
2014, 2015, 2016, 2018; Rowe, 2008, 2010; Wohlwend, 2013. 2015), but there is a lack of
empirical first-grade data.
Major reviews of seminal research (Kamil & Intrator, 1998; Kamil et al., 2000; Laboo &
Reinking, 2003; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003) conducted in the late 1990s and early 2000s
indicated that the corpus of extant research focused primarily on skills-based curriculum
including educational games and phonics drills. Burnett's (2010) review also included a
substantial number of studies that focused on computer-based stand-alone technologies. More
recently, research has begun to address how to use technology in the early stages of writing
development (Kontovourki et al., 2017; Kurcirkova et al., 2017) and how technology can be
embedded or integrated into authentic literacy practices used in classrooms (Davis et al., 2021;
Larson & Marsh, 2015; Vasquez, 2015; Wohlwend, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2018). Wohlwend's
research (2015, 2018) addresses how students are emergent users of new literacies and examines
how children make meaning through the integration of literacy, play, and new technologies.
Brunett along with Larson and Marsh (2015) offers educators a way to understand play as a
space for children to make meaning, explore their worlds both physically and digitally, and build
relationships.
Given the shortage of research situated in traditional standards-based first-grade
classrooms, this study fills a gap in the literature. The study investigated the literacy practices of
first graders as they used technology within their classroom community daily and how they
authentically used new literacies and technologies in their everyday life (home and school) as
they developed as readers and writers in a Common Core accountability context.
Significance of the Study
Over the past decade, there has been an upsurge of research documenting how technology
is being implemented into early childhood classrooms, yet few studies demonstrate how teachers
use the 21st-century literacies and digital tools for learning to address literacy instruction.
Research concerning early readers and writers has focused on more traditional forms of writing
practice (Calkins, 2013; Wood-Ray, 2010) and not on how students are engaging digitally as a
way of interacting with each other and the world. The potential for digital technology to enhance
students' literacy development in early childhood classrooms is exciting and engaging, yet
lacking from most early childhood teaching practices (Larson & Marsh, 2015; Blum-Ross et al.,
2020).
If we expect students to design and share information for global communities, work
collaboratively, and gain the knowledge necessary to contribute meaningfully to society while
achieving a level of material well-being, then educators must develop proficiency with the tools
of technology and implement them into their daily teaching practices. This research provides
insight into how young children communicate and participate actively and reflectively in a
contemporary global society where digital technology plays a significant role while existing
within the limitations of a standards-based Common Core curriculum-driven environment.
Additionally, this study informs practice and suggests ways to help educators set up authentic
learning conditions where children can learn to navigate the online world for their interests and
purposes. Furthermore, it provides an understanding of literacy practices in a standards-based
classroom; a phenomenon rarely studied in early childhood research.
Purpose and Goals of the Study
In its broadest sense, this study provides a glimpse into the authentic daily 21st-century
literacy practices of classroom life and carefully examines what children do at the intersection of
traditional print-based reading, writing that support collaboration, creation, and the sharing of
digital communications with audiences within and beyond the classroom. Although using digital
technology with children is a common practice, what is unique in this study is the way digital
technology afforded opportunities across space and time and provided a way to understand new
writing spaces in a standards-based classroom. Literacy became collaborative as knowledge was
co-constructed, participatory as students interacted with people outside the classroom
community in shared interests, and distributed as teachers, students, and families communicated
between school and home.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into chapters that continue the discussion on literacy and
technology by arguing that early childhood educators need to integrate relevant digital forms of
reading and writing into children's everyday life experiences so that they can experience.
Chapter 2 examines the existing literature with specific attention to the latest research that
explores how reading and writing are being transformed globally through digital technologies in
primary schools.
Chapter 3 explores the theoretical frameworks useful for understanding how childhood
literacy is mediated by electronic information and communications technology. Specifically, I
argue that the interrelated theories of sociocultural theory, the New Literacy Studies, and new
literacies provide the required insight for answering the research questions. If researchers and
educators are to construct pedagogical practices that impact early childhood literacy research in
the future, consideration must be given to how new literacies provide valuable insight, which is
lacking in much of the current literacy research.
In Chapter 4, I set forth the methodology that best answered the research questions. I
examine how a qualitative research design based on a classroom case study in which I was a
participant/observer provided the necessary data to understand the nature of my first graders' use
of digital technologies as they developed traditional and new literacies skills. I explain how the
ethnographic case study design provided insights into the everyday meanings and daily literacy
practices of my students within a natural classroom setting over one semester.
In Chapter 5, I address the first research question and describe what the classroom
literacy and technology practices were and discuss the connections between the data and extant
scholarship in literacy and the use of technology. I explain how classroom practices using digital
technology afforded opportunities across space and time and provided a way to understand the
new writing spaces in which students and teachers, as co-authors, collaborated using the
technology that supported what happened in and between school and home.
Chapter 6 addresses the second research question. The data shows how the children
implemented technology as a tool to extend and enrich their daily literacy learning within the
classroom and communicated with broader audiences for specific purposes. Students took what
they learned and experimented with it. Specifically, they used technology at school and at home
to accomplish personal goals.
In the final chapter, I provide conclusions and implications for future research and
classroom practice. I specifically address the implications for elementary classroom teachers and
their practices. I also discuss implications for education policy and make recommendations for
parents. The Appendices provide documents related to the interview protocols, interview
questions for parents and students, letters of information, and letters of intent.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
This chapter aims to examine research about digital literacies and the literacy practices of
early readers and writers. There are numerous studies regarding youth's digital literacies
evidenced in research findings in junior and senior high schools (Abrams & Lammers, 2017;
Coiro, 2020; Coiro et al., 2016; Gee, 2000; Kress, 2003; Lammers et al., 2012, 2014; Lammers
& Van Alstyne, 2019; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003, 2011, 2013; Leander et al., 2017; Leu et al.,
2014; Magnifico et al., 2013, 2020; Marsh, 2016, 2021). However, it is evident from the
literature reviewed that there is a limited understanding of literacy practices related to digital
technology among early readers and writers, especially in Common Core standards driven
environments.
This comprehensive review of the literature has been organized into three parts. In the
introductory section, I briefly define key terms and concepts that impact my research. In the
second section, I discuss what is currently known about digital literacies in early childhood. I
focused on several critical landmark reviews of literacy learning, beginning with Kamil and
Intrator’s (2000) and then moving into Lankshear and Knobel (2003), Labbo and Reinking
(2003), and Burnett (2010). Using these literature reviews to establish the early research into
childhood literacy learning and technology, focuses on more recent empirical studies on young
children’s literacy practices as evidenced in the four literature reviews originating from the
“Digital literacy and multimodal practices of young children” (DigiLitEY) and its COST action
groups (2015 to 2019) and the latest updates in the Routledge Handbook of Digital Literacy in
Early Childhood (2020). Additionally, I reviewed and examined research literature that examines
emergent literacy, popular culture, and play identified by Marsh (2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017,
2020) and Wohlwend et al. (2014, 2016, 2018, 2021). I conclude this chapter with a discussion
of the gaps in the literature and the research to address those gaps.
Definition of Terms
In this section, I define the key terms and concepts for this research study, which
include the nature of literacy, digital literacy, authentic learning, and standards-based Common
Core environments. An exploration of these terms and concepts is necessary because they
impacted my selection of literature to review.
Nature of Literacy
As technology changes the nature of literacy, it become increasingly more difficult to
define. Literacy can be considered a contested domain, characterized by a traditional autonomous
model wherein literacy is defined narrowly as a set of skills to be learned and measured
quantitatively at one end of a continuum. Alternatively, it can be viewed as an ideological model
wherein literacy is conceptualized as a social practice that is constructed in everyday practices,
conversations, and interactions at the other end of the continuum (Bloome et al., 2005; Larson &
Marsh, 2015; Ochs & Capps, 2001; Street, 1984, 1993, 1995, 2003). Typically, schools focus on
the traditional autonomous model where state standards, testing, and “No Child Left Behind”
accountability assume literacy skills can be taught the same way across varying contexts (Larson,
2015). Therefore, schools treat literacy as “context-free” and “neutral,” and reading and writing
are taught the same despite the unique needs and diverse learning experiences children bring
from home to their classroom communities (Street, 1993, 1995, 2003). As such, “literacy fulfills
the political purposes of those in power to maintain a position of superiority by marginalizing
other forms of literate knowledge” (Larson, 2015, p. 17). Thus, the dominant, privileged, middle
class maintains power and the status quo.
I position myself at the opposite end of the spectrum and view literacy as ideological
(Street, 1984) and draw on a multiple literacies’ framework (Gee, 2004; Lankshear & Knobel,
2003; Larson & Marsh, 2015; Street, 2005) using lenses supported by the sociocultural theory of
literacy and learning (Rogoff, 2001, 2003) and the New Literacies Studies to explain my
classroom literacy practices. I define literacy as a set of social practices situated in social,
historical, cultural, and political contexts where social interactions play an essential role (Barton
& Hamilton, 1998, 2012; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003; Luke, 1994; Street, 1995, 2005). Therefore,
literacy is not “cultural competence” or skills to be acquired but is embedded within situated
contexts where social interactions, relationships, and classroom community play key roles
(Street, 1995).
Digital Literacy
Marsh and Sefton-Green et al. (2016) define digital literacy as “a social practice that
involves reading, writing and multimodal meaning-making through the range of digital
technologies. It describes literacy events and practices that involve digital technologies, which
might also involve non-digital. Thus, digital literacy can cross online/offline and
material/immaterial boundaries and, as a consequence, create complex communication
trajectories across time and space.” (p. 21). Therefore, digital literacy does “involve the
acquisition of skills, including traditional skills related to alphabetic print but also skills related
to the process involved in accessing, using and creating knowledge” (p. 22). Marsh and
SeftonGreen’s definition builds on Green’s (1988) dynamic 3D model of literacy, which
delineates the three elements of literacy as a social practice as operational, cultural, and critical.
Operational skills include the typical skills and competencies one needs to learn to read and write
such as decoding alphabetic print; cultural involves understanding texts in the cultural
environment as experienced; and critical is the ability and need to engage with digital texts and
artifacts in order to understand power, agency, and voice. Green’s (1988) definition and later
variations and adaptions of the 3D model by Colvert (2015) and Marsh (2015) provided a
dynamic research framework that I utilized to analyze digital literacy practices. The three-
pronged dimensionalities expanded the typical skills-based evidence approach. It allowed me to
better understand the impact of context in digital literacy practices beyond formal learning spaces
to informal spaces such as the student’s homes and communities.
Authentic Learning
The underlying ideological beliefs concerning literacy and authentic practice orient my
approach to this empirical review of early childhood literacy. Specifically, my interests concern
research that looks at how young children learn to read and write using technology through
authentic means and how that can transform teaching and learning, not where technology is
utilized primarily for skill/drill applications, games, or digital worksheets. Authentic learning
practices are “coherent, meaningful and purposeful, activities of the culture” that encourage
students’ individual interpretation of thoughts and quality teacher and student interactions in
everyday teaching practices (Brown et al., 1989, p. 34). Rather than scripted questions that have
“prespecified” answers, in authentic learning settings, teachers are looking for students to
collaborate as they “think, interpret, and generate new understandings” together (Nystrand &
Gamoran, 1991, p. 10), and there is a focus on collaboration and the exchange of thoughts and
ideas. Ultimately, the knowledge generated is “co-constructed in collaboration with others”
(Gallas, 1994, p. 305). Children are the “producers of knowledge” rather than just “reproducers
of knowledge” (Nystrand, 1997, p. 80).
Authentic writing practices occur when children write on relevant topics for real
audiences and purposes, not writing prompts, story starters, or prescribed writing exercises
(Atwell, 2015). For example, children who participate in writers’ workshops (Atwell, 2015;
Calkins, 2013; Graves, 2003; Wood-Ray, 2006) may conference with the teacher or with another
skilled or proficient student. The goal of the teachers’ modeled writing, conferences, and sharing
texts is not only to produce better documents, and to share writing, but also to create a
community of writers where both teachers and students learn together to become skilled users of
the cultural tools of writing (Larson & Maier, 2000; Larson & Marsh, 2015; Rogoff, 2003).
Standards-Based Common Core Environment
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are a set of rigorous high-quality academic
guidelines for English language arts and mathematics knowledge and skills. These standards
outline what children at each grade level should know so they are prepared to succeed in college,
career, and life, regardless of where they live in the US (CCSS, 2010, 2015). The K through 12th
grade standards established in 2010, updated in 2015, and adopted in 47 states delineated what
students needed to learn but did not dictate how teachers should teach. The national adoption of
these standards was supposed to allow teachers the authority to devise their lesson plans and
curriculum and tailor their instruction to the students’ individual needs (Allington & Pearson,
2011). Unfortunately, in New York State, the Common Core curriculum and accompanying
curriculum maps from Engage NY and NYLearns, have reduced the Common Core Standards to
a one-size-fits-all scripted curriculum model complete with mandated textbooks and teaching
materials, rigid pacing guides, and quarterly based four to ten week increment assessments
(Wohlwend, 2018).
In this first section, I first briefly summarize Kamil and Intrator’s (1998) seminal
findings, then explore the relevant research identified by Lankshear and Knobel (2003) and
Labbo and Reinking (2003). I end with a discussion of several relevant empirical studies
conducted since 2003, trends that Rowe (2013) and Spencer et al. (2013) reported, and the most
current and extensive literature reviews in the last few years that directly relate to the research
study. I focus extensively on recent empirical studies on young children’s literacy practices
evidenced in the four literature reviews originating from the “Digital literacy and multimodal
practices of young children” (DigiLitEY) and its COST action groups (2015 to 2019) and the
latest updates in the International Handbook of Digital Literacies edited by Erstad, et al. (2020).
The literature reviews conducted by Kamil and Intrator (1998), Kamil et al. (2000), Labbo and
Reinking (2003), and Lankshear and Knobel (2003) each provide an evolving picture of how
technology contributes to early childhood literacy learning. Kamil and Intrator created an
extensive, comprehensive database of empirical journal data concerning literacy and technology.
Their work analyzed more than 350 articles, categorized the significant findings, suggested new
research directions, and discussed the trends in the data set. Kamil et al. (2000) continued the
systematic search and updated the categories (computers and composition, hypermedia,
hypertext, and literacy, multimedia effects on literacy, special populations, motivation, and
computers and collaboration) with subsequent extant research, including the new technologies’
reviews. Besides advancing the discussion on literacy and technology and providing directions
for future research, they acknowledged the paucity of research considering literacy and
technology and argued for future research agendas addressing the applications of technologies to
literacy.
Additionally, Lankshear and Knobel (2003) provided a synthesis of previous research
specifically identifying early childhood concerns. Their four-quadrant organizational heuristic
incorporated the current classroom research and investigated new literacy learning technologies
that evaluated learning outside of the classroom contexts. Moreover, the heuristic revealed there
was an overwhelming research emphasis on “conventional alphabetic print” rather than on the
types of literacy experiences “required for higher levels of participation in the information
society” (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003, p. 77). Lankshear and Knobel noted digital technology in
schools continued to promote the dominant skills-based practices. In contrast, out-of-school
practices equipped children with literacy practices that are part of everyday literacies.
Similarly, Labbo and Reinking’s (2003) synthesis of the research included experimental
studies, ethnographies, case studies, surveys, and formative experiments that provided valuable
insights into children’s use of technology and how technology can be integrated into early
literacy practices. Labbo and Reinking’s viewpoints offered a much-needed emphasis on the role
of technology in actual classrooms and the teacher’s role in setting up natural and authentic
learning conditions. All four of these reviews (Kamil et al., 2000; Kamil & Intrador, 1998; Labbo
& Reinking, 2003; Lankshear & Knobel, 2003) indicated a great promise in using technology to
support children’s literacy development.
Merchant and Burnett (2010) furthered this research with a review of literature that
focused on learning, literacies, and “the new technologies.” The authors lamented the fact that
there were only a “handful of studies” that addressed the work that “explored children’s reading,
writing and interactions with digital texts” (p. 576), while there were numerous studies that
centered on using technology associated with “print based reading and writing” based on
cognitive models of reading (p. 576). My research in a first-grade classroom exemplifies
children’s first attempts to utilize digital technology in a school setting and contributes to the
“new technologies” research.
More recently, more comprehensive research has begun to address how to use technology
in the early stages of writing development (Kontovourki et al., 2017; Kucirkova et al., 2017),
how technology can be embedded or integrated into authentic literacy practices used in
classrooms (Larson & Marsh, 2015; Vasquez, 2015; Wohlwend, 2013, 2015, 2021), and the
online and offline digital literacy practices of young children (Marsh et al., 2015).
Other contributions to early childhood scholarship include Chaudron et al.’s (2018)
extensive qualitative study coordinated by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) from 2014 to 2017
that underlined the benefits and challenges concerning digital technologies at home, school, and
reported trends of young children’s digital engagement over time.
In addition, the Makerspaces in the Early Years: Enhancing Digital Literacy and
Creativity (MakEY project) project has added to this corpus of research and identified the need
for change in schools as “our educational systems are outdated and failing to promote the
necessary digital literacies that will adequately prepare our children for the future” (Marsh et al.,
2020, p.189). These groups’ collaboration has made the most substantial contribution to research,
policy, and practice ensuring children develop both skills and knowledge required for the digital
age and will provide a foundation of knowledge from which my research will draw.
Supporting Writing Development
Authentic writing practices occur when children write on relevant topics for real
audiences and purposes, not writing prompts, story starters, or prescribed writing exercises
(Atwell, 2015). Children who participate in writers’ workshops (Atwell, 2015; Calkins, 2013;
Graves, 2003; Wood-Ray, 2006, 2008) may conference with the teacher or another skilled or
proficient student. The goal of the teachers’ modeled writing, conferences, and sharing texts is
not only to produce better documents and to share writing but also to create a community of
writers where both teachers and students learn together to become skilled users of the cultural
tools of writing (Larson & Maier, 2000; Larson & Marsh, 2015; Rogoff, 2003).
There is a substantial body of literature addressing early childhood writing (Cazden 1998;
Dyson, 1997, 2000, 2006, 2010, 2018) as well as the writing processes (Atwell, 1987, 1998,
2015; Calkins, 1994, 2004, 2013; Fletcher & Portalupi, 2007; Graves, 1991, 1995, 2003; Wood-
Ray, 2006). Proponents of these writing programs engage students in a writing workshop that
supports students in topic choice, drafting, revising, and publishing. Other studies extended the
earlier research and noticed how children use talk and drawing to rehearse and then compose
texts (Dyson, 1997, 1998; Schneider, 2003; Wiseman, 2003) or draw only after the text is
completed (Tower, 2005). Researchers have confirmed that writing patterns documented decades
before still hold true. For instance, over time, children’s writing has come to contain more
conventional directional patterns (Yang & Noel, 2006) and are reflective of the writing systems
of their cultures (Dyson, 2018). Additionally, researchers have noted that as children gain writing
experience in school, they demonstrate knowledge of “micro-level features of story and
information genres” (Rowe, 2013, p. 425). For example, Maguet et al. (2020) and Pappas et al.
(2009) observed that first through third-grade students used appropriate scientific registers and
vocabulary in science writing. These findings are not surprising as the Common Core and the
state standards have mandated writing across the curriculum. Teachers are expected and required
to create writing tasks related to science and mathematics. Therefore, as teachers focus on
teaching writing specifics, such as science reports, students become able, with support and
practice, to produce written text that serves these purposes (Rowe, 2008).
Rowe (2013) reported a resurgence in both research and interest in childhood authoring,
especially in twenty-first century technologies (Bjorkvall & Engbloom, 2010; Kontovourki &
Siegel, 2009; Mavers, 2007; Merchant, 2008; Wohlwend, 2009). However, research from the
past decade considered “children’s authoring processes temporary approximations of mature
authoring” and not “young authors leading the way toward new literacy practices for the
twentyfirst century” (Rowe, 2013, p. 441). Innovative teaching and writing practices embedded
into children’s learning are essential in developing their ability to communicate in the digital
world. Children who have experienced open-ended rich digital environments can create texts
using both writing and visual modes. Rowe (2013) and Bjorkvall and Engbloom's (2010)
research acknowledged a shift in perspective, viewing writing beyond product to one that
centered on sharing information and focusing on various topics and purposes.
Labbo and Reinking (2003) acknowledged a growing corpus of research examining how
computers assist early childhood-aged students with writing through word processing and
creative expression from a multiple realities perspective. They posit that technology can and
advance and transform instruction. Additionally, technology should prepare children for the
literacy of the future and should empower them. Labbo and Reinking argued that computer
technology could support children’s literacy including writing, yet teachers must consider using
technology “based on potential goals, motivations, or reasons for integrating (or in some cases
not integrating) new digital technologies with literacy instruction” (p. 481). Their research
recognizes the importance of considering if the technology adds value or replicates and
perpetuates contrived traditional activities.
Kucirkova et al.’s (2017) literature review followed a socio-cultural orientation that
identified studies focused on writing and composing and advanced the field by broadening the
definitions of writing and screens. This research team, understands writing as a multimodal
composing practice that includes all modalities available to young children’s composing,
including oral (audio), verbal, written, and
pictorial mode, which encompasses drawings, marks or digital photographs and a
linguistic component where the multimodal and linguistic components need to be present
to count as writing on screens. (Kucirkova et al., 2017, p. 11)
This definition advances the field and challenges and blurs the boundaries of writing on and off
screens. It is unique as its focus is both on the process and product, and it has both multimodal
and linguistic components so that the child can communicate and compose in various mediums.
Additionally, they generated a “deductive-coding framework” based upon Green’s (1988, p.60)
and Colvert’s (2015) 3D model of literacy that, when applied to published literature, directs
attention to the macro influences (researchers’ and society’s perspectives), meso influences
(social, home, and adult influences on the activity), and micro influences (child’s dispositions,
engagement, and behaviors related to the activity.) The broadened definitions of writing and
macro, meso, and micro influences allowed for a “richer spectrum of research concerned with
children’s writing on the screen and can be used as a reference point for practitioners who plan
writing activities.” (p. 36). This coding system will inform my research and challenge the
traditional standards-based writing definitions as my research does.
In the next section, I review recent early childhood empirical studies that have examined
the use of computer technology and trends in research that focus on young children’s writing on
screens, specifically considering the affordances of laptops, iPads, apps, and digital cameras
while composing. I show how the literature broadens the field of literacy research and adds to the
comprehensive overview of historical developments and current trends in literacy and
technology. I conclude with suggested areas in which research needs to be directed with
particular attention to research that examines children’s digital literacy practices.
Young Authors Composing Using Digital Tools
Writing in primary schools is currently undergoing a significant change due to the
availability of a myriad of digital tools such as computers, laptops, mobile phones, and tablets
(Yelland & Gilbert, 2013). In this section, I review studies that demonstrate how digital tools can
support children’s development as “writers, composers and meaning makers” (Miller & Rowe,
2020, p. 327) including those that incorporate the new literacies into classrooms.
Several studies have affirmed that integrating writing apps into instruction during writing
time positively influenced student motivation and learning. In a nine-week study of students in a
US suburban school Sessions et al. (2016) demonstrated that although both “traditionally
instructed students and students using iPad apps made good progress,” students with iPads
writing apps wrote “more cohesive, sequential stories using more sensory details than those with
paper and pencil” (p. 218). Additionally, elementary students approached writing in more
“collaborative ways acting as consultants to each other” (p. 225), thus making “writing more
social and engaging” (p. 218). Sessions et al. also noted that young writers, using digital tools,
maintained a topic more often than students who wrote with pencils. Their study is also one of
the few that contributes to writing scholarship from a Common Core State Standards Initiative
perspective.
In another study that incorporated iPads, Flewitt et al. (2015, 2016) lent iPads to a
primary class of 30 four- and five-year-old children who, at the onset, had never used iPads.
Throughout the two-month study, children used closed apps for skill lessons, “edutainment” apps
(combining education and entertainment), and open apps like Our Story, where children could
take photos and create stories. In addition to the teaching and learning potentials (such as
motivation, independence, concentration, and collaboration), this study “created opportunities to
redress the knowledge/power imbalance ‘expert’ roles while at the same time increasing their
knowledge and skills with digital devices” (Flewitt et al., 2015, p. 296). Children demonstrated
new identities such as “brilliant at computers,” “ahead of the staff” (p. 297), and “good spellers
or more able readers” (p. 305), which validates a broader sense of identity.
Other recent scholarship provided insights on the benefits of students using a range of
ICTs to increase students’ level of engagement and participation (Beam & Williams, 2015;
Hitchcock et al., 2016; Howell et al., 2017; Mills & Exley, 2014), encouraged interaction and
collaboration (Batsila & Tsihouridis, 2016; Beam & Williams, 2015), supported improvement of
writing skills for reluctant and struggling writers (Hitchcock et al., 2016; Peterson & McClay,
2012), composed texts that were easy to read and publish (Genlott & Gronlund, 2013; Kerwin &
Mantel, 2016; Warschauer, 2006), and documented how students’ literacy skills (e.g.,
organization, word choice) improved (Yamac & Ulusoy, 2016). While these studies highlight the
benefits of digital technology, Leu et al. (2016) acknowledged, “These findings indicate that the
mere exposure to technology does not equate with the development of more advanced digital
literacies” (p. 3). My study adds to the research demonstrating how integrating technology using
new literacies inform everyday literacy practices and does not perpetuate the concept of
technology usage for only basic skill applications.
Several researchers demonstrated how children compose using digital images. Luke et
al.’s (2015) work with digital cameras identified how children were motivated to work
collaboratively to create captions and write about their observations using images and
photographs during literacy activities. Marsh (2015) examined how children took digital photos
and created slide shows representing their world outside school. Schiller and Tillett’s (2004)
research project examined digital images with second-grade students. They reported positive
unintended consequences when they noticed how the role between teacher and student shifted as
students assumed the role of an expert while they learned the nuances of the new technologies
while capturing their unique digital texts’ perceptions of school (Schiller & Tillett, 2004).
Using digital technology, including digital images, is not yet an integral part of writing
instruction (Applebee & Langer, 2011; Coker et al., 2016) in a standards-based classroom
practice like in my school, but the ability to use writing apps with iPads is beginning to change
how children create texts and develop as writers.
Writing with Apps
Embedding the new technologies into everyday activities, like existing reading and
writing workshop models, is a first step in helping teachers think beyond the print-based
curriculum and into the new literacies. Like Luke et al.’s (2015) study, Roswell (2017)
researched eBook composing using open apps, Kucirkova et al. (2014) examined writing with
the Our Story app, and Alberg et al. (2015) studied the use of the Storybird writing app. These
studies highlight how joint problem-solving and collaborative learning resulted in the children’s
ability to create and write stories, including images and recorded voices in diverse cultures.
In a two-year school and home study Rowe and Miller (2015, 2016) researched
bilingual/biliterate children as they composed e-books using iPads and digital cameras. Guided
by adults, four-year-old children took digital cameras home and, once back at school, transferred
their photos onto iPads. Children used touchscreen tablets and apps equipped with writing,
drawing, and bookmaking to compose their texts with teacher assistance. Using available apps,
they were able to make illustrations with a stylus or their fingers, incorporate image stamps from
the iPad gallery, or add home or classroom photos to create their eBooks. Additionally, with the
Book Creator app (Red Jumper Studio, 2013, 2014), children added an oral recording of their
text to be shared at school and home.
Although the children had numerous ways to compose, the two-year study found that
75% of students used a stylus or finger, and 60% attempted to type using a keyboard (Rowe &
Miller, 2014, 2015). Furthermore, 90% of the e-books included a picture from the classroom or a
photo from home, which supported Rowe’s (2008) findings that when children had access to
iPads and digital cameras, they incorporated images into their e-books and play.
In Rowe and Miller’s (2020) study with second graders, the children’s ability to use
digital cameras and iPads at home opened up opportunities for them to share their interests,
heritage languages, and cultural backgrounds, creating a dynamic literacy learning. In the
second-grade study, where all 18 students spoke a language other than English at home, students
were allowed to bring digital cameras, tablets, and writing journals home to record descriptions
in their heritage language independently. Composing with second graders began with
conversations about a picture/illustration or digital photos from home. Children discussed the
photo or drawing, created a title, added images or details, wrote messages in two languages,
recorded in both languages, read, revised, and finally shared the eBook with the entire class.
Asking children to compose after taking photos “creates an authentic purpose for authoring that
is both culturally relevant” (Miller & Rowe, 2020, p. 334). Adding sound recordings to writing
allowed children to combine their heritage language for meaningful school writing tasks.
Moreover, this positioned children as experts in their heritage language, teaching their classmates
about their language and supporting translingual instruction within the classroom. These eBooks
were publicly shared on the SmartBoard, allowing “opportunities for families to become virtually
part of the literacy content of the classroom” (Rowe & Miller, 2020, p. 338) as people could ask
questions and interact with students. Rowe and Miller’s (2020) work is relevant to this
dissertation. My study also allowed, supported, and valued opportunities for children to share
their family experiences using digital images and videos recorded at home and school. Miller
and Rowe’s (2020) findings align with Murray and Olcese’s (2011) research supporting digital
cameras and composing. Other researchers (Aberg et al., 2014; Baker, 2017; Genlott &
Gronlund, 2013; Rowe et al., 2014) also illustrated how composing using sound recordings and
speech recognition software for first and second graders supports young children as they learn to
represent their ideas in writing.
Although commonplace, composing with digital tools has not been incorporated into the
curriculum of many standards-based classrooms because assessment and accountability are based
on the traditional encoding and decoding view of literacy (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003, Applebee
& Langer, 2011; Cooker et al., 2016; Graham, 2019). My research acknowledges this tension and
suggests how teachers can incorporate 21st-century literacies into everyday literacy practices
empowering students without replicating writing with paper and pencil, thus allowing students
new opportunities to participate in a digital world. (Miller & Rowe, 2020).
Barriers
Other researchers have examined technology use that perpetuated contrived or traditional
writing practices. These included teachers who lacked confidence in their abilities to use
technology (Plumb & Kautz, 2015), those who used technology in their lessons yet did not
provide opportunities for children to use laptops, chrome books, or iPads to write; instead,
students used the digital tools to play games (Lynch & Redpath, 2012; Peterson & McClay, 2012;
Vrasidas, 2015); and those whose own negative beliefs about using technology made them
reticent to integrate ICT in meaningful and transformative ways to support literacy learning
(House, 2012; Miller, 2005; Mills & Exley, 2014; Plumb & Kautz, 2015). As a result, any chance
of authentic learning that might enhance technology learning was compromised. My research
illustrates how technology can be integrated into authentic everyday classroom literacy practices
presenting opportunities for learners to work together, read, write, share ideas, and coconstruct
knowledge.
Connections between Children’s Writing and Other Communication Systems
In the last several decades, there has been an increase in research that focuses on how
young children use multimodal features in writing. When Wohlwend (2008) proposed a new way
to perceive play “as a multimodal way of making texts, accessing remote resources, and
importing distant identities” (p. 136), she challenged researchers to rethink the boundaries
between literacy and play. Wohlwend argued that play is literacy in its own right, just as is
reading. writing, and multimodal design, and demonstrated how kindergarten students “through
engagement in play transform the multimodal texts they create with peers in the social space of
schooling” (2013, p. ix). In an ethnographic case study of kindergarten students over three years,
Wohlwend (2008) observed five and six-year-olds learning to read, write, and design by working
and collaborating as they participated in their daily literacy practices.
Wohlwend (2008) identified early kindergarten research as being particularly relevant to
authentic writing practices as they involve “writing to play/ playing to write,” wherein children
authored books, puppet shows, designed a video game, and wrote plays during workshop time. In
these instances, two or three children shared the responsibility for creating and producing the
texts, which is not typical writing workshop practice. Writing for these students was not to fulfill
school assignments but to negotiate friendships with peers and to have real audiences with whom
to share writing. The products of these texts had non-linear narrative structures, had multiple
challenge levels, and demonstrated how children create spaces for imaging themselves as twenty-
first-century multimedia users (Wohlwend, 2009). Wohlwend’s work showed how very young
children were taking risks and leading the way into the new literacies through “multimodal
semiotic practices with available classroom materials” (p. 119). Wohlwend expanded the
definitions of literacy, challenged current trends toward scripted writing and reading programs,
and made a case for play instead of “skill and drill” activities in kindergarten.
Wohlwend’s (2013) introduction of the “Literacy Playshop” (as a playful expansion of
reading and writing workshops) builds and draws upon the early childhood studies which
investigate young children’s engagement with the new technologies at home (Marsh, 2004, 2005,
2006, 2009, 2010, 2011) and early writing classroom studies (Dyson, 2003, 2006, 2008).
Literacy Playshop offers specific examples of how digital media and popular culture can be
infused into a model that can be used to enhance and develop young children’s literacy skills in
an attempt for educators to think beyond print-based and update literacy curriculums. The
Literacy Playshop model derives its framework from the sociocultural views of learning “in
which children learn the ways of doing and being” (Gee, 2010, p. 16) and Vygotsky’s, “where
children use literacies as cultural tools to access, understand, and make meaning as they learn to
mediate the world” (1978, p. 43).
In the Literacy Playshop model, Wohlwend (2013) provides samples of curricular
activities that incorporate the components of teacher inquiry, child explorations, shared meaning
mediator, and guided engagements. Each component facilitates student learning in four
meaningmaking processes with media (i.e., play, storying, collaboration, and production). The
classroom examples scaffold learning for teachers who want to build on their expertise and
pedagogical knowledge and incorporate the new literacies into their classrooms. Thus,
developing teacher skills and providing the modeling needed to move from a standards-based
approach where individuals “interact independently with print text” (book or screen) to a way of
thinking that is similar to 21st-century mindset where “global participation, multi-user
collaboration, and distributed resources and knowledge” are evidenced (Knobel & Wilber, 2009,
p. 5).
Wohlwend (2018, 2021) more recently expanded upon the Playshop and a
writing/storytelling model to include “Maker Literacies,” where children experience
productionoriented literacies. In this scenario children and older youth (third graders) had the
have opportunity “to make and remake artifacts and text through playful tinkering with materials
and technologies” (Wohlwend et al., 2018, p.148). Children used/reused materials and hacked
toys to create new characters and then featured their characters in live-action child-created films.
Wohlwend’s (2021) research recognizes and appreciates the rich cultural expertise
children bring to school (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003); infuses that with family, home, digital
literacies, and technologies (Marsh, 2020; Kontovourki et al., 2020); and attempts to disrupt the
dominate literacy discourse. Literacy Playshop and Maker Literacies compel teachers to think
beyond scripted standard-based lessons to a progressive curriculum model that could create
unique and powerful places for children to take responsibility for their learning, incorporate
digital media and popular culture, and improve children’s literacy skills.
Children’s Digital Practices at School
Studies that illuminate children use of digital practices in classroom settings that use ICT
for perfunctory tasks instead for authentic literacy activities are numerous. Although Leander’s
(2007) seminal study of an all-female school where each student had a personal laptop was not
an elementary study, the findings have implications for using digital technology authentically in
classrooms. Leander documented teachers' unsuccessful use of Web 1.0 type activities like typing
class notes, mundane class reports, and searches for research. Instead of the positive results the
teachers anticipated, laptops were found to be distractions, and even physical barriers. However,
Leander observed students using the laptops during class for 21st-century type functions such as
shopping, blogging, gaming, and instant messaging. The disconnect between what teachers
thought would be an effective use of technology and how students perceived using their laptops
has continued to challenge my daily practice.
Lim et al. (2010), Pifarre and Staarman (2011), and Sanden et al. (2011) explored the
web-based ICT writing practices of children using wikis. Wikis offer different and exciting ways
for teachers to extend beyond traditional classroom writing. Pifarre and Staarman reported that
wikis “provided a shared dialogic space in which students were open to one-another’s ideas and
where they use these ideas to solve a task together” (p. 203). Additionally, they stated that their
wiki project “shifted the role of pupils from consumers of Web 2.0 to creators of new to creators
of Web 2.0 content” (p. 203). These researchers have noted how wikis motivated writers to write
collaboratively and capitalized on the strengths of authentic writing. As a writing teacher, I argue
that wikis blur and challenge the lines between author, co-author, and audience because readers
of a wiki can alter a text at any time. Texts can evolve as multiple users edit content and
contribute to the piece. Moreover, there is little research using this tool in first grade. Except for
Wikipedia, wiki’s popularity in classrooms has diminished as current technology and Google
applications have evolved, creating new opportunities for suggestions and co-authoring.
Virtual Worlds
Research that has investigated studies of video games and virtual worlds with young
children has shaped how we think about the virtual and online gaming space both at home and
school. Marsh (2011) expanded the limited number of studies focused on young children’s
literacy practices in a virtual world. She first interviewed 175 primary school children about their
participation in virtual worlds. She found “that children used the virtual worlds to extend contact
with peers they had regular interaction within the offline world” (Marsh, 2011, p. 101).
Additionally, she filmed and interviewed three children at home using the virtual world Club
Penguin and found that children use the virtual worlds to extend contact with friends with whom
they had regular social contacts. This study “demonstrated that the literacy practices that the
children engaged in when using a virtual world not only served a number of purposes but also
fundamentally contributed to the maintenance of social order” (p. 114). Marsh’s research
illustrates how children make sense of their authorship across social and virtual settings.
Marsh’s (2014) later research with Club Penguin included twenty-six children aged 4–12
and illustrated how children are capable of participating in meaningful online exchanges that are
relevant to their current lives and how “literacy was central to the use of Club Penguin” (p.184).
Moreover, the children’s reading and writing activities included writing messages, sending
postcards, reading virtual books and newspapers in the virtual library, and reading directions for
games, which occupied 28% of the time spent in Club Penguin. Additionally, online social
networks established between school friends and unknown acquaintances were essential to
creating and advancing relationships and friendships while using Club Penguin. Marsh suggests
teachers allow children virtual collaborative playtime as it allows children to experiment with the
new literacies and promotes literacy learning.
Wohlwend and Kargin (2015) reported similar benefits for children’s social and academic
development while using Club Penguin and reiterated how vital it is for children to navigate the
virtual world through play and collaboration. Interestingly, they countered Prensky’s (2001)
notion of digital natives and argued that it is through nexus of practice — demonstrations,
listening to peers or family members, or copying the actions of others on the site —that children
learn to navigate Club Penguin. Wohlwend and Kargin’s research also examined how children
negotiate identities in interactions with fellow players in virtual spaces. As a teacher and
researcher with several students who were regular users of Club Penguin, I built on the children’s
knowledge and skills and capitalized on their abilities and identities as experts while adding to
the growing body of research in children’s virtual play worlds.
Wohlwend et al. (2011) studied children’s online web play in an after-school computer
club in an attempt to understand “how children’s navigation of avatars within a virtual world
engages two key aspects of participatory culture, collaboration and online connectivity” (p. 142).
The researchers observed multimodal collaboration and peered mediation as children traversed
social networks on a gaming site called WebkinzTM (www.webkinz.com). Webkinz TM pets are
stuffed animals that arrive with a unique code that lets you access the Webkinz WorldTM. The
researchers reported that children operated as a community of practice, helping, and coaching
each other as they engaged in parallel play on matching screens (Wohlwend et al., 2011).
Black (2010) also studied the WebkinzTM gaming site and provided an extensive
qualitative content analysis of the affordances it contained. Black concluded that although the
game provided entertainment and unique opportunities for engagement in literacy-rich contexts
and academic practices, including reading and writing, it was limited in its technical and
linguistic aspects. For example, in Webkinz WorldTM, children can only communicate from a set
of pre-constructed phrases and sentences, missing out on children’s ability to express themselves
but keeping youngsters safe from divulging personal information (Black, 2010). The WebkinzTM
studies are important as they were some of the few that discussed young children’s online play
and the connection to 21st-century literacies where students’ online home practices are shared
during initial informal conversations with students and parents. My dissertation adds to the
limited research on first graders’ online and offline digital practices and how participating in
virtual worlds allows children to recreate identities determining how they want others to view
them.
Home
Young children’s everyday digital literacy practices have been transformed as they use a
range of digital devices and media in their homes. Research on young children’s digital literacy
practices in the home has significantly grown since Marsh et al.’s (2005), seminal study that
surveyed 1,852 parents regarding their children’s use of popular culture, media, and the new
technologies. Marsh et al. argued that schools need to recognize the digital expertise children
bring from home and incorporate it into the curriculum as they are essential for education in the
digital age. Unfortunately, ten years later, the disconnect between home and school concerning
knowledge exchange still exists (Kumpulainen & Gillen, 2020).
Kumpulainen and Gillen’s (2017) extensive COST DigiLitEY literature review addressed
the literacy and multimodal practices in homes and communities (including schools). In 2020,
they updated and expanded the previously published DigiLitEY review. My review will be
limited to include only Kumpulainen and Gillen’s current pertinent home and school connections
that are relevant to my dissertation. In their updates they noted that many parents continue to see
digital technologies positively as an educational method to keep children busy, entertained, and
capable of exposing them to new information while playing games (Brito et al., 2017). While
others believed that unless monitored, children’s use of digital technology could lead children to
be dependent on the device (Brito et al., 2017), could lead to anti-social behavior (Yilmaz et al.,
2017), and children “engaged in too much screen time” (Teichert, 2017, p. 73). In a US study,
Vittrup et al. (2016) noted that only a few parents “could accurately identify their children’s
proficiency with various technologies not knowing about their children’s activities and skills” (p.
48) and indicated that “educators have little knowledge or understandings of children’s media
engagement and digital literacy at home” (Kumpulainen & Gillen, 2017, p. 103). These studies
highlight how parents view digital technologies as essential for children to use, yet see a need to
monitor and supervise for overuse and safety.
According to Radesky and Christakis (2016) and Palaiologou (2016), children’s media
engagement and literacy learning have increased their screen usage. In the US, 98% of children
have a TV and a mobile device available for everyday use (Rideout, 2017). In a study conducted
by McClure et al. (2017), parents requested information and advice recommending apps and
welcomed shared collaborative relationships with educators to promote student learning in
digital technologies at home. My research builds on this data, providing insight into how children
build relations and links to family and the community using Skype, the school’s website, and
how they learn to use the internet and apps to enhance learning and fulfill their interests and
needs.
Chaudron et al.’s (2015, 2018) research was more extensive than Kumpulainen and
Gillen’s (2020) as it included more than 234 family interviews across 21 countries and reported
how children under the age of eight engaged with digital technology, and the role of parents
managing their children’s use of technology at home. For the most part, their findings remained
similar to Kumpulainen and Gillen’s. Children’s first exposure to digital technologies occurs
before the age of two on their parents’ devices and they quickly develop skills by observing,
“mirroring” parents and older siblings, and using trial and error; digital technologies are an
essential part of family life (Chaudron et al., 2018). Additionally, Chaudron et al. (2018)
documented that children use digital technology for leisure and entertainment (primarily
YouTube and Google Play apps), information and learning (homework and personal interests),
creation (taking pictures and making videos), and communication (online groups and social
networks). Moreover, this dissertation adds to this literature by detailing how students instituted
a digital resource adopted by the school library and after-school program.
Given the findings from the research that demonstrated the potential of 21st-century
literacies for supporting literacy development, my study examined how traditional print-based
reading and writing are being transformed with digital tools, which support collaboration,
creation, and sharing of digital communications with audiences inside and outside of the
classroom. My research contributes to early childhood research by offering a much-needed
emphasis on the role of technology in an early childhood classroom and the role of the teacher in
setting up authentic learning conditions where children can learn to navigate the online world for
their interests and purpose. Additionally, it demonstrates how children connect with home and
community using digital devices.
Overall, the research literature provides descriptions and ideas that provide teachers and
scholars with new ways to look at literacy within the everyday life of our modern society
(Lankshear & Knobel, 2003; Rowe & Miller, 2016). Each of the aforementioned studies
acknowledged the growing corpus of research that examines the numerous ways computers assist
early childhood-aged students with writing through word processing and creative expression. The
literature supports and shows the “importance of digital literacies for young authors and
represents the leading edge of a line of research” (Rowe, 2013, p. 440) that is yet to come.
Gaps in the Research Literature
This chapter examined part of a growing body of research into technology integration
within early childhood literacy learning; however, an in-depth understanding of the impact of
technology integration upon the authentic literacy practices of a first-grade standards-based
classroom is lacking. Four significant research reviews conducted in the late 1990s Kamil and
Intrator’s (1998), the early 2000s (Kamil et al., 2000), then Labbo and Reinking (2003), and
finally Lankshear and Knobel (2003) indicated that the corpus of research focused primarily on
skills-based curriculum work like educational games and phonics drills. Decades later, there is
still limited research addressing how to use technology in the early stages of writing
development (Burnett, 2010; Kontovourki et al., 2017; Rhoades, 2016; Spencer et al., 2013;
Wohlwend, 2008, 2009), or how digital writing can be embedded into authentic literacy practices
used in classrooms.
This dissertation has the potential to address two substantial gaps in the literature. The
first is to document how a teacher, subjected to a standards-based curriculum and high stakes
accountability, used twenty-first century literacies and digital tools to implement digital literacy
practices into classroom practices and instruction. The second is to understand how young
students engage with the new literacies at school and how that influences their everyday life
experiences at home and in the community. Addressing these gaps will supplement, validate, and
explain how technology may enhance students’ literacy development in early childhood
classrooms and inform teaching practices.
Given the promise shown by the extant research, I argue that early childhood educators
need to update, integrate, and reconceptualize digital forms of reading and writing into children’s
everyday life experiences and curriculum so they can experience authentic forms of
meaningmaking among insiders and communities of learners. Thus, if teachers expect to support
and enhance literacy development, prepare students to learn to read and write with the new
technologies, and participate as full participants in digital worlds, additional research is needed
from the early childhood perspective to provide guidance on what authentic literacy practices and
learning in a technology-rich classroom can look like. Specifically, I asked how do first graders
use the new literacies and technologies as they develop as readers and writers within, across, and
beyond the classroom? There exists a need for additional rich descriptive accounts of authentic
uses of technology that can inform early childhood literacy practices and pedagogy, and prepare
our students for 21st-century learning opportunities to become participants in a global society.
Chapter 3: Theoretical Frameworks
In understanding the integration of authentic digital forms of reading and writing into
children’s everyday life experiences, it is important to understand the ongoing social nature of
literacy and social interaction where learners (both teachers and students) take responsibility for
their learning and where authorship is a goal directed activity of the classroom writing
community. In this chapter I frame three theories—sociocultural, new literacy studies, new
literacies—that provide insight into my ethnographic case study. I argue that the New Literacy
Studies informed and supported by a literacy as a social practice, learning as changing
participation, situated learning, and the new literacies work together to provide the
multidisciplinary theoretical approach required to examine how first grade children are using
technology in meaningful and authentic ways within their everyday school literacy practices, and
how their working together in everyday interactions help advance the goals of the class
community. According to Larson and Marsh, (2015), “in order to first understand literacy
teaching and learning” there is a need to “draw from multidisciplinary frameworks” or
“multidisciplinary perspectives” (p. 1).
No one theory provides a comprehensive lens; as such, a combination of related lenses
provides the framework necessary to view the complex ways children use literacy and
technology in their everyday lives. Shifting from traditional or cognitive perspectives to
sociocultural views of learning allows attention to be focused on the culturally valued activities
that occur within classroom writing communities rather than on the product of writing and the
use of digital technologies. As stated earlier, my stance toward digital literacy and technology use
within a classroom is derived from an understanding of authentic audiences and writing purposes
in an environment where the child is an active member of a community where knowledge is co-
constructed. Therefore, classroom teachers should attempt to provide spaces for children to use
literacy and technology in a variety of different contexts in authentic and meaningful ways
throughout their daily literacy practices. Thus, to inform theory and practice and build on
experiences children have with digital literacy, a multidisciplinary theoretical framework is
required to view the complex ways children use literacy and technology in their everyday lives.
Sociocultural theory is discussed first because it is the epistemological overarching
framework on which the other theories are built. Specifically, sociocultural theory holds that
learning is a social act embedded within cultural context (Barton & Hamilton, 1998; Heath,
1983, Street, 1995). Similarly, the New Literacy Studies holds that literacy is a social act
embedded within cultural context (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011). New literacies is similarly a
social theory; however, it provides a unique perspective by layering on an understanding of
digital technologies as a tool for supporting literacy. Within each of these three primary, yet
related theories, are concepts that are explored in more detail within this chapter.
Sociocultural Theory
Sociocultural theories of learning provide an understanding and framework from which to
study literacy learning that includes the social, cultural, historical, and political as well as how
working together in everyday interactions helps advance the goals of a community. Vygotsky’s
(1962, 1978) work transformed sociocultural-historical theory by pushing evolving concepts of
how culture influences learning and expanded our notions of literacy learning beyond limited
cognitive stages suggesting learning can occur before development. Vygotsky argued that
thought begins first with social interaction, and then the child begins to appropriate his or her
knowledge and meaning (Larson & Marsh, 2015). Therefore, the child actively participates in a
constantly changing school community where knowledge is co-constructed through tools the
children and teachers use daily (Larson & Marsh, 2015).
Learning occurs within social interaction and is reflected in changes in participation
(Rogoff, 1990); therefore, it is critical that the interaction of young children with one another and
with a more expert learner as they engage in writing and digital technologies in their everyday
life and the classroom is examined. However, sociocultural theory does not provide the necessary
tools for thinking about power, race, language, or the potential of new digital technologies. For
example, the ability to have new writing spaces for coauthors to collaborate globally, using the
technologies across time and space must be addressed. The New Literacy Studies and new
literacies theory provide those needed lenses.
Sociocultural theory has also been used as a lens to observe how children participate in
classroom writing events and literacy activities. From this perspective, writing occurs as children
participate in the social practice of their particular writing communities (Larson, 1999; Larson &
Maier, 2000; Manyak, 2001; Power, 1991; Rowe, 2008). Research from this perspective helps
teachers understand how social participation structures give children access to roles and
knowledge needed to become authors and members of the classroom writing community well
before they are able to take up these roles independently (Larson & Maier, 2000). Children can
shift between the roles of expert and novice (Manyak, 2001) and as a teacher, author, co-author,
and overhearer (Larson, 1995, 1999; Larson & Maier, 2000). In summary, studies drawing on
sociocultural theories of literacy demonstrate that through the power of observing and
participating with skilled adults or peers in a classroom community, children can take on greater
responsibilities during writing workshops and ultimately grow as writers and readers.
The Role of Oral Language
The role oral language plays in literacy development is apparent in Rowe’s (2003) earliest
discussion of children’s writing development. Rowe framed two broad theoretical vantage points
when she explored children’s writing, “location and semiotic system” (Rowe, 2003, p. 259). She
suggested that the cognitive, psycholinguistic, sociocognitive, and sociopsycholinguistic
researchers locate children’s writing “in the mind of the child and designed studies focusing on
children’s hypotheses about print and their formation in interaction with others” (p. 259). Those
working from the sociocultural, situated cognition, and New Literacy Studies locate “children
writing as occurring collectively between children and others in their communities” (p. 259).
Similar to Rowe, this study documents how children authentically participate in classroom
writing communities driven by student interests, friendships, and what is relevant in their lives.
Therefore, a theoretical tool that examines oral language is critical, and sociocultural theory
provides such a framework while situating language usage within cultural contexts.
According to Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory, social interaction is central to
learning. The nature of literacy learning is derived from Vygotsky, whose sociocultural theory
laid the groundwork to help integrate individual development in social, cultural, and historical
contexts (Rogoff, 2003). In contrast to cognitive theories that focus on age-specific stages
(Piaget, 1976) and the written product produced by the child, the sociocultural approach assumes
that individual development must be understood within and not be separated from context.
The Role of Social Interaction
Vygotsky (1978) profoundly influenced the way educational theorists think about
language and literacy when he analyzed of the relationship between thought and speech. He
suggested that the primary function of speech is communication or social interaction and
emphasized language as the most essential tool of thought for both thinking and communication
(Rogoff, 2003). Vygotsky described four planes of development as occurring at the same time on
multiple levels: (a) microgenetic development, (b) ontogenetic development, (c)
cultural/historical change, and (d) evolutionary development (Cole, 1996). Microgenetic
(moment-to-moment) and ontogenetic (changes within a lifetime) development occurs among
individuals as they evolve culturally, historically, and evolutionarily. According to Cole (1998),
“these multiple levels of development are not separate—rather they constitute and mutually
inform one another” (p. 459). The four planes described by Cole provide insight into how
children engage with technology and each other as they develop as writers. The multiple levels
offer a view into how children make sense of their text production in the moment, their lives, and
society. Thus, this theory is the epistemological framework used to examine and observe the
language and literacy practices as children engage and participate in writing and digital
technologies throughout their school day.
The Zone of Proximal Development
Vygotsky (1978) argued that children learn to use the tools for thinking provided by
culture through their interactions with a more skilled partner or peer in the zone of proximal
development (ZPD or ZOPED). In ZOPED, through interactions, collaboration, and support with
adults or more skilled peers, children learn how to complete challenging tasks well beyond their
level of competence (Rogoff, 1978, 2003; Wertsch, 1984). In other words, ZOPED is the
difference between what a child can do alone and what a child can do with the aid or support of a
more knowledgeable other. When collaborating as writers, interactions with more knowledgeable
others support the movement through the ZOPED. Vygotsky’s notion of ZOPED also informs
the popular notion of scaffolding, where help from peers or adults can increase the level of
understanding as well as performance (Bruner & Ross, 1976). Therefore, the zone of proximal
development provides an understanding of how knowledge is produced in collaboration with
knowledgeable others, broadens our understanding of how authorship is constructed through
interaction, and how instruction precedes development within classrooms communities.
Learning On Three Planes
Children take part in the activities of their community and engage with each other and
adults in routine, tacit, and collaborative ways. Rogoff (1990, 2003) extended Vygotsky’s four
planes of development by clarifying how participation in communities occurs. She proposed
three planes: (a) apprenticeship, (b) guided participation, and (c) participatory appropriation,
which helps children learn within the context of a community. These three planes are powerful
theoretical tools used throughout the study as they explain the role of community and the nature
of literacy learning on multiple levels within the classroom.
The model provided by apprenticeship “is one of active learners in a community of
people who support, challenge, and guides novices as they increasingly participate in skilled,
valued sociocultural activity” (Rogoff, 1990, p. 39). The concept of apprenticeship is central to
the study in that apprentices learn to “acquire and develop the tools and skills of their craft
through authentic work and membership of a trade” (Brown et al., 1989, p. 39). In the classroom,
teachers first model and guide during an authentic activity and then support students as they
attempt the task, empowering them to continue independently. Through apprenticeship, “teachers
and peers strive to create learning settings that offer novices new ways of participating and thus
support learning” (Nasir & Hand, 2006, p. 463). In a class designed as a community of learners,
classroom experts consisting of students fill the role of more knowledgeable others, supporting
the learning of less skilled learners as they demonstrate the desired skills.
Guided participation is the process by which children and their caregivers “build bridges
from children’s present understandings to reach new understandings and skills” to help children
assume increasingly skilled roles in the activities of their community (Rogoff, 1990, p. 8). Adults
guide children through tasks allowing the child choice and adjust and scaffold the activity to
allow for challenges within the goals that are attainable within their zone of proximal
development reach (Larson & Marsh, 2015). The guided participation premise is central to
Rogoff’s (2003) proposal “that learning is a process of changing participation in community
activities” (p. 284). The mutual understanding and the “focus on the side-by-side or distal
arrangements in which children participate in the values, skills, and practices of their
communities without intention” (Rogoff, 2003, p. 284), or co-construction process of literacy,
has powerful implications both for research and classroom practice.
Rogoff’s third plane is participatory appropriation, which addresses changing
participation in sociocultural activities over time. Participatory appropriation is where learners
modify and or adjust their thinking within the activity, and this helps the learner build on their
understandings or skills in the future. “Participatory appropriation corresponds to personal
process in which the individual changes through participation in an activity and indicates how
that preparation prepares the individual for future similar activities” (Larson & Marsh, 2013, p.
108). These planes of participation become quite apparent as people engage in the new literacies,
which are, by definition, participatory and collaborative. In other words, the person learns by
doing; participating in one activity is seen in preparation for another.
Rogoff’s (1995) three-plane analysis corresponds to the three features of social
interaction: “the personal, interpersonal and community or institutional plane” (p. 459).
Consistent with this theoretical perspective, Rogoff (1994) suggested a community of learners’
model where “both children and adults engage in learning activities in a collaborative way, with
varying but coordinated responsibilities to foster children’s learning” (Rogoff et al., 2001, p. 7).
In the community of learners’ model, learning is socially co-constructed through participation in
everyday routines. All classroom community members are active, and leadership is shared so that
the teacher’s role is to guide, support, and facilitate. Therefore, in a classroom constructed in the
community of learners’ model with participation in writing and other literacy events, the teachers
and students have the ability and accessibility to take on different roles (i.e., apprentice, novice,
expert).
Therefore, while sociocultural theory provides the lens needed to observe children
participating in their classroom, other lenses are required to understand how to create writing
spaces for coauthors to collaborate globally, such as using technologies across time and space. In
the following sections, I discuss how the New Literacy Studies and the new literacies framework
provide these essential lenses.
The New Literacy Studies
In order to understand everyday classroom life, it is imperative to think about what counts
as literacy learning and meaningful contexts. Since the New Literacy Studies use literacy as a
social practice tenet wherein literacy is constructed (Barton & Hamilton, 1998, 2012; Gee, 1996,
2000; Larson & Marsh, 2005, 2015; Street, 1995), it is an appropriate lens as it expands the
notion of literacy from the traditional autonomous view where literacy is narrowly defined as a
set of skills to be learned and measured to a social practice constructed in everyday practices,
conversations, and interactions (Larson & Marsh, 2015; Street, 1993, 1995, 2003).
The New Literacy Studies provides the flexible lens necessary to look at different kinds
of literacy and the unique needs and diverse learning experiences children bring from home to
their classroom communities. Instruction consistent with the New Literacy Studies allows
students to learn through innovative literacy approaches and provides the teacher-researcher with
a framework to analyze the ethnographic data that describes classroom practices. Additional
concepts associated with the New Literacy Studies are literacy events, literacy practices, and
authentic learning. These concepts are essential for understanding literacy in everyday life and in
classrooms as the teacher constructs meaningful, authentic contexts for literacy learning.
Literacy Events, Literacy Practices, and Authentic Learning
Much of the research under the umbrella of the New Literacy Studies draws upon the
different ways in which literacy is defined, how it is embedded in cultural practices and is
focused on context. The shift in research from considering literacy as occurring solely in schools
to including families and communities is highlighted in Street’s (1984) and Heath’s (1983)
ethnographies, which challenged the established autonomous approaches to teaching reading and
writing. Heath’s (1983) seminal work detailed descriptions of people’s uses of reading and
writing at home and compared these home practices to school practices. Heath examined three
different communities’ language and literacy discourses over a decade to understand how literacy
was embedded in contexts. Drawing from Hymes’ (1972) concept of the speech event, Heath
used the analytic frame of the literacy event, which she defined as “any occasion in which a
piece of writing is integral to the nature of the participants’ interactions and their interpretive
processes” (Heath, 1982, p.50). Broadly speaking, literacy events are the particular activities in
which literacy plays a role.
Street (1984) expanded Heath’s concept and proposed a broader, more abstract concept
he termed literacy practices. The concept of literacy practices “refers to both behavior and the
social and cultural conceptualizations that give meaning to the uses of reading and or writing”
(Street, 1995, p. 2). If literacy events are the particular activities, literacy practices are the larger
contexts within which those events occur and from which the events gain their meaning. In the
case of children writing online, the literacy event is the bounded occasion in which the child or
children are fully engaged in the act of writing. In contrast, the literacy practice is the context
within which the child or children are writing, whether it is for a school assignment or
WebkinzTM play. The event may be the same (writing online), but the practice differs because the
social context, audience, and purpose are varied.
Looking at the everyday literacy events and literacy practices (Heath, 1983; Street,1995)
show us how rich and varied literacy is and turns us away from marginalizing some communities
as deficient. To effectively support literacy learning among all children, teachers must understand
and utilize the diverse literacy understandings that children bring into classrooms (Moll &
Gonzalez, 1995). The concept of literacy practices and literacy events is essential to understand
in everyday life and classrooms as they construct meaningful, authentic contexts for literacy
learning. These authentic contexts encourage students’ individual interpretation of thoughts and
quality teacher and student interactions in everyday teaching practices (Nystrand,
1997). For example, rather than using scripted questions or IRE (initiation-response-evaluation)
(Mehan, 1979), a dominant discourse in many classrooms, instruction consistent with the New
Literacy Studies has students collaborate as they “think, interpret, and generate new
understandings” (Nystrand, 1998, p. 7). Ultimately, the knowledge generated is “co-constructed
in collaboration with others” (Nystrand, 1997, p. 17), and the children become “producers of
knowledge” rather than just “reproducers of knowledge” (Nystrand, 1997, p. 80).
Discourses
Another concept that connects to Vygotsky’s microgenetic and ontogentic concepts and is
central to the New Literacy Studies is discourse and Discourse (Gee, 2001). The New Literacy
Studies attempt to understand the learning and language development of children in terms of
discourses “rather than the more limited notion of language…since D/discourses are more
integrated and comprehensive” (Razfar & Gutierrez, 2003, p. 42). Discourses are ideological
ways of being in the world, which integrate words, acts, gestures, attitudes, beliefs, purposes,
clothes, and bodily movements—“ways of talking, listening, believing, valuing, and feeling… in
the service of enacting meaningful socially situated identities and activities” (Gee, 2001, p. 35).
Identity is integrated through secondary Discourses as individuals take on the beliefs, purposes,
and ways of speaking and acting as they participate in the multiple activities of their daily lives
(school, church, clubs). In authentic classrooms, as literacy practices and events are integrated
into children’s lived practices, and as children participate in their everyday activities across
multiple discourse communities, they become literate (Gee, 1996, 2001). Thus, the concept of
Discourses moves researchers beyond the sociocultural events of the individual to a more
ideological one where literacy practices are meaningful, purposeful, and authentic and are
embedded in broader social goals and cultural practices (Barton & Hamilton, 1998, 2012; Gee,
1995, 2001; Larson & Marsh, 2015; Street, 1995).
When we view learning as occurring within social interactions (Cole, 1996; Duranti,
1997; Heath, 1983; Ochs, 1988; Rogoff, 1990, 1994) and literacy as a social practice (Street,
1993, 1995, 2003), we better understand children’s development as readers and writers.
However, one question remains, how to understand new writing spaces where co-authors
collaborate and work with one another globally, utilizing technologies across time and space.
Therefore, there is a critical need to expand the theoretical lens to incorporate the theory of new
literacies (Gee, 2004; Kress, 2003; Lankshear & Knobel, 2011; Street, 2005).
The New Literacies
The new literacies theory explores new opportunities and possibilities for communication
and information (Leu et al., 2013), and is identified with an “epochal change in technologies and
associated changes in social and cultural ways of doing things, ways of being, and ways of
viewing the world” (Coiro et al., 2008, p. 7). Although epistemologically and ontologically
consistent with the New Literacy Studies, what makes the new literacies unique is the specific
emphasis on concepts of multimodalities, digital literacy, and the new mindsets associated with
ICT technology. These three concepts are explored to provide additional insight into how the
participants used digital technology as part of their literate world. When teachers consider how to
create new writing spaces for co-authors to collaborate across time and space through digital
technologies, the lens of the new literacies adds unique and essential insight into understanding
how children use technology.
Multimodalities
Digital tools allow children to engage more readily in multimodal text creation and
distribution than traditional paper and pencil. Furthermore, multimodalities differ from digital
literacy in that digital literacy focuses on how the child uses technology to navigate everyday
classroom life. Multimodalities view literacy “as socially framed active engagement with a range
of texts,” offering researchers a perspective on “how multiple modes work together to create
meanings where language may or may not play a central role” (Flewitt, 2013, p. 297).
Multimodal is the application of multiple literacies within one medium and highlights the various
ways children encounter and use a variety of modes as they go about their daily lives (Hull &
Nelson, 2005), and does not privilege written language over other communication forms
including speech, print, pictures, images, music, movement or dance, or even animation (Jewitt
& Kress, 2003). Kress (2003) maintained that the shift from “book and page to screen” and
“from the traditional print-based media to the new information and communication technologies”
(p. 5) alters the way we understand literacy. According to Kress, “it is no longer possible to think
about literacy in isolation from a vast array of social, technological, and economic factors” (p. 1).
Acknowledging these shifts is essential to exploring and understanding how children engage
with various texts in settings both in school and at home. Specifically, if children are going to
become “full-fledged participants in a symbolic world” (Flewitt, 2013, p. 298), we must
understand how they make meaning across a range of technologies.
Digital Literacy
Digital literacy is defined as “the capabilities required to thrive in and beyond education,
in an age when digital forms of information and communicate predominate” (Littlejohn et al.,
2012, p. 547). Digital literacy considers how individual children learn within classrooms with
“technology rich environments,” including the Internet, video games, and social media (Jacobs,
2013, p. 102). More than just using technology for locating information, digital literacy includes
all the technologies children might use to navigate within their everyday lives (Jacobs, 2013). In
elementary schools, digital forms include emailing, texting, Skyping, podcasting, or blogging.
“Digital literacies emphasize the knowledge and facility a learner has with information and
communications technologies” (Jacobs, 2013, p. 103) and is similar to Lankshear and Knobel’s
(2003, 2006) “new ethos” concept in that the focus is on the ways individuals make sense of a
digital world. However, the new literacies go beyond the concept of digital literacy by suggesting
individuals use the Internet for more than locating information or creating formal products or
commodities; the new literacies influence all areas of our lives (Leu et al., 2004).
According to Lankshear and Knobel (2003, 2006, 2007, 2011), the new literacies are only
new if they have two components: “technical stuff” and “ethos stuff” (p. 7). The technical stuff
refers to digital or new technological advances that focus on formal products or commodities.
Those commodities include the first iteration of the Internet (Web 1.0) and include locating
information, publishing, personal websites, and Netscape. Web 1.0 “changing knowledge
persona” (p. 93) practices align with a more autonomous model of literacy because they focus
primarily on procedural knowledge, web users using technology as a tool for learning or
acquiring information. Ethos, however, refers to a shift in mindset or ways of thinking about the
world that is represented as more participatory or collaborative—the second iteration of the
Internet (Web 2.0). The 21st-century literacies alignment more closely reflects an ideological
model of literacy (Lankshear, 2008) because it focuses on “services” and “enabling” through
practices such as Flickr, collaborating on Wikipedia, blogging, and wikis.
Mindsets
Mindsets are a set of beliefs that shape how an individual makes sense of their world and
their place in it. Lankshear and Knobel (2011) suggested that there are two diverging mindsets in
the contemporary world. Simply stated, outsider mindsets assume that the world is the same, just
more technologized, while the term insider mindset, they argue, assumes the world is very
different due to new ways of thinking and sharing communication using digital technology
across a global society. Understanding the different mindsets has implications for this research
because the students (6 and 7-year-old children) were digital insiders, having grown up in a
digital world. Conversely, the researcher is a newcomer who came to understand technology as
an adult.
Differing mindsets have implications for the way technology is used in schools. An
outsider mindset may perpetuate old literacy practices, such as having children finalize their
work by typing their copy onto laptops (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003, 2011), creating new digital
worksheets, filtering the Internet for safety reasons (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011). As a
consequence, the children lose on many levels. First, children with unencumbered internet access
at home are frustrated when school policy blocks YouTube, sports sites, and favorite gaming sites
(Lankshear & Knobel, 2011). More importantly, when teachers rely on filters, children do not
learn how to keep themselves safe online and grow up with a distorted internet experience
(Leander, 2005). In an environment created by newcomers, children get to use the technology yet
rarely have the opportunity to independently explore, collaborate, or interact socially when using
computers.
Mindsets also influence knowledge and learning. In many schools, it is assumed that the
“teacher is the ultimate author on matters of knowledge and learning” (Lankshear & Knobel,
2008, p. 55). Some teachers stick with the familiar because they are responsible for directing the
learning within their classroom (Lankshear & Knobel, 2008, 2013). Thus, the teacher as a
knowledge holder closely aligns to the autonomous definition of literacy, which “precludes
attention to the multiple literacies necessary for participation in a complex, global information
and communication economy” (Larson, 2006, p. 321). Instead of employing the dominant role of
an expert in the creative use of technology to guide their peers and teachers (Lankshear, 2000),
students are relegated to individual computers where they are instructed to work independently
on drill and practice applications. Adults who operate under the traditional mode deny children
the opportunity to discover that writing on the computer is a recursive process (Daiute, 1985),
that print is malleable, and that writing can be more than just words.
As insiders, children may be more technologically savvy than adults and able to utilize
their insider knowledge to inform the class. Furthermore, in a restricted environment, children
may miss the opportunity to participate in affinity spaces (Gee, 2004), where learners apprentice
to groups of people who share common interests or goals. In affinity spaces, new members learn
the practices through joint action with advanced peers or older experts, advancing their ability to
engage and work with others while taking responsibility for learning and participating in the joint
activity. Thus, Lankshear and Knobel (2008) argue that school separates learning from
participation in mature (insider) versions of Discourses, which are a part of life trajectories. Most
schools fail to acknowledge, let alone incorporate, the new and emerging social and literate
worlds of young people (Gee, 2003).
Implications for Research
Throughout this chapter I have maintained that sociocultural, the New Literacy Studies,
and the new literacies theories work together to provide the multidisciplinary tenets necessary to
view the complex ways children use literacy and technology in their classrooms. Moreover, these
tenets frame my research questions by providing a focus on the cultural activity or the valued
activities that occur within the classroom community. Specifically, sociocultural theory provides
the framework needed to understand what is happening as the students interact and learn with
one another around technology and literacy. The New Literacy Studies offer a way to understand
how those interactions are embedded within the social practices of the classroom community as
well as the larger cultural contexts of education. New literacies afford insights into the mindsets
developed by the children through engagement in digitally mediated literacy practices.
In primary schools, teachers of younger students need to look for new ways to build upon
the intellectual capital young children bring from home to expand their experiences in the
everyday literacy practices of their classroom community (Marsh & Merchant, 2008). Teachers
need to provide classroom opportunities that support, extend, and document literacy work with
ICTs. These opportunities should reflect the complexity of authentic online experiences and be
flexible enough to adapt to the continuous changes prompted by new technologies, global
learning communities, and ways of thinking (Merchant, 2008). Most importantly, schools need to
be relevant, meaningful places where everyone can contribute to learning and where everyone’s
learning counts (Larson, 2014). Now is the time to confront the issues of the new literacies and
build authentic writing practices that include digital tools into everyday literacy practice among
young children. If, as teachers, we expect technology to transform literacy instruction (Labbo,
2006), prepare students for their literacy futures (Leu & Kinzer, 2000), and prepare them for
participation in a global information and communication economy (Leu, 2017), then we need to
be creative and provide models and ideas that integrate the new technologies in our practices.
This research provided rich data on how children engage with the new literacies and technology
and what that engagement means to them as literacy learners within a technology-rich,
information-based society.
Conclusions
This chapter examined theories central to literacy and technology that provide a
framework for conducting early childhood writing and digital technology research including
sociocultural, New Literacy Studies, and new literacies. While these theories are not inclusive of
the theoretical frameworks that describe writing research, they provide essential insight into how
young children develop as writers.
Research from the sociocultural theory of learning provides an understanding and
framework from which to study literacy learning that includes the social, cultural, historical, and
political contexts, relations of power, and how working together in everyday interactions helps
advance and develop the goals of a community. These theories view children’s writing through
participation in culturally organized activities during which individuals acquire new ways of
thinking and being. The New Literacy Studies, with its base in sociocultural provides a between
children and others in their communities focus that incorporates Gee’s (1996) concept of
Discourses and how language and literacy can be used to form an identity as children participate
in their everyday activities across multiple Discourse communities. Thus, the New Literacy
Studies broadens the framework for investigating young children’s the language and literacy
practices. The new literacies, which focus on how digital technology provide opportunities for
participation across space and time, provides a way to understand the new writing spaces in
which co-authors collaborate and work with one another globally, across time and space. In the
next chapter, I discuss the methodological approach used to address my research questions and
how that is consistent with the theoretical frameworks presented in this chapter.
Chapter 4: Methodology
In this chapter, I explain and justify why qualitative research methods and an
ethnographic case study design (Dyson & Genishi, 2005) are necessary to understand how first
graders use digital technology in their daily literacy practices. I begin by restating the research
questions and providing the rationale for the research design. Next, I explain how an
ethnographic case study design helped me understand the everyday meanings and daily literacy
practices of my students within their natural classroom setting. In later sections, I describe the
research site and participants, data collection methods, the unit of analysis, and the analytic
framework. I conclude with a discussion of the limitations and implications of the study.
Research Questions
In order to investigate and explore the daily literacy practices of classroom life and to
carefully examine how traditional print-based reading and writing are being augmented with
21stcentury literacies, I posed the following research questions:
1. What are the literacy practices of first graders as they use technology within their
everyday classroom community of learners?
2. How do first graders use technologies as they develop as readers and writers within a
new literacies paradigm?
Qualitative Research
Research in the field of education is connected to finding new ways to improve
education. Qualitative and quantitative research, both of which are conducted in literacy
education, differ in the assumptions about the world, research purposes, methods, the
researcher’s role, and the importance of context (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; McMillan &
Schumacher, 2001).
Instead of emphasizing what is being measured or examined, qualitative researchers
stress the socially constructed nature of reality, the intimate relationship between the
researcher and what is studied, and the situational constraints that shape the inquiry…
they seek answers to questions that stress how the social experience is created and given
meaning. (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 4)
As such, qualitative research allows researchers to study children in their natural school
settings while “attempting to make sense of or to interpret phenomena in terms of the meaning
people bring to them” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 3). Qualitative researchers capture classroom
life while becoming immersed in the situation and the phenomena being studied. Given that my
research goals were to understand the literacy practices of children as they use technology in
their everyday classroom, qualitative methods were the most appropriate. Qualitative methods
provided flexibility to gain new understandings and perspectives as these children developed as
readers and writers (Corbin & Strauss, 2007) and offered ways to examine and explore the
everyday practices of children interacting with in their classroom context.
Study Design
To identify complex social phenomena and understand “how children, teachers, and other
educational participants experience the world around them” (Dyson & Genishi, 2005, p. 19),
many qualitative researchers use ethnographic case study design. For example, ethnographic
studies and ethnographic case studies have been used to share insights into the literacy practices
of early childhood classrooms, including but not limited to (a) writing shaped by family literacy
practices and authoring practices (Chaudron et al., 2018; Kumpulainen and Gillen, 2020; Miller
& Rowe, 2020), (b) children’s authoring (Flewitt et al., 2016), (c) play as multimodal literacy
(Wohlwend, 2021; Wohlwend et al., 2018), and (d) composing in a digital world (Cremin et al.,
2017; Dowdall, 2020; Marsh et al., 2017).
Ethnography, which is “a description and interpretation of a cultural or social group or
system” (McMillan & Schmacker, 2001, p. 35), emerged from the field of anthropology and is
influenced by other areas, such as linguistics (Heath & Street, 2008). More specifically,
ethnographic case study research is an “in-depth examination of an extensive amount of
information about a very few cases or units across periods of time” (Neuman, 2006, p. 40). Thus,
the goal of an ethnographic case study is “not to establish relationships between variables (like in
experimental studies) but, rather, to see what some phenomenon means as it is socially enacted
within a particular case” (Dyson & Genishi, 2005, p. 10). Accordingly, ethnographic case studies
are intended to provide detailed descriptions of the people of a particular community over a
prolonged period (Duranti, 1997). This is accomplished with the use of comprehensive close-up
observation of the natural world and multiple sources of evidence (Yin, 2003). Such inspection
can only occur within a real-life context.
According to Walton (1992), case studies help researchers connect the micro level, or the
actions of individual people, to the macro level, or large-scale social structures and processes.
Thus, case studies also connect to Vygotsky’s (1978) concepts of microgenetic and ontogentic
levels and Gee’s (2001) D/discourse. A case study perspective is consistent with the New
Literacy Studies, which seeks to connect local literacy events and practices to broader cultural
contexts. According to Walton, “the logic of the case study is to demonstrate a causal argument
about how general social forces shape and produce results in particular settings.” Therefore, he
posited, “case studies are likely to produce the best theory” (p. 129). Ultimately, the result of the
ethnographic case study should be a deep understanding of what children’s literacy practice looks
like in the classroom and what it means to be a member of the classroom community of learners.
This dissertation provides essential insight into understanding the nature of my first graders’ use
of digital technologies as they developed traditional and new literacies skills.
Ethnographic case study research helped me understand the everyday meanings and daily
literacy practices of my students within their natural classroom setting over one semester.
Multiple data sources such as participant observation verified by field notes, memos, reflective
journals, student writings, audio-recorded interviews, and video-recorded classroom sessions
allowed me to examine classroom life through my eyes as a researcher and the teacher.
Context of the Study
Data collection for the study occurred as part of a district and IRB-approved research.
The setting for data collection was a suburban first-grade classroom during the second half of the
school year. I was the teacher in this classroom and responsible for data collection. I collected
data primarily during English Language Arts block time and when the children were using
technology for reading and writing purposes throughout the day.
Etic Versus Emic Knowledge
The familiarity of using convenience sampling to secure both access and permission has
both benefits and limitations. Conducting research in one’s own classroom is problematic, but
also offers opportunities for rare insight into an educational phenomenon. A researcher who
approaches a phenomenon from the position of an outsider brings etic knowledge. Pike defined
an etic viewpoint as “behavior from outside a particular system” (Pike, 1971, p. 37); therefore,
the etic is the point of view of the observer. He described the emic viewpoint as “results from
studying behavior as from inside the system” (p. 37). Simply stated, emic is the point of view of
the members of a group. In my classroom situation, these included terms and actions distinctive
to the classroom setting or to the children. An insider takes an emic position and is thus studying
their own situation. Using an emic point of view was appropriate in this study because it offered
insight and enhanced my understanding of the everyday meanings and daily literacy practices of
the students within their natural classroom setting over long periods.
The problematic nature of researching from an emic viewpoint resides in issues of power,
coercion, and the risk of the researcher seeing what they wish to view rather than what actually
exists. Furthermore, because an insider has implicit knowledge, they may take things for granted
and miss opportunities for “making the familiar strange” (Geertz, 1973). Additionally, the insider
perspective provides knowledge of context and practices that may be invisible to an outsider. To
establish validity and avoid bias, I employed triangulation, which is explained in detail later in
the chapter.
Gaining Access and Permission
Access and permission to collect data were given without questions or reservations
because of my familiarity with the site. I taught at Union Village Elementary School
(pseudonym) for more than five years and have over 35 years of experience as a teacher. I
contacted the school administrator to gain permission to use the school and my first-grade
classroom as a research site. I then sought written approval from the school administrator and the
district office administrators and received a formal letter of authorization to conduct the study
(Appendix B). The school administrator was supportive of my research and had received her
doctoral degree researching the writing practices of emergent writers. The principal was
extremely interested in how teachers could use technology in their daily teaching practices,
which was a goal of the Common Core curriculum.
Demographics
Central School District (CSD) is one of the largest suburban school districts in upstate
New York. A suburb close to the City of Rochester, CSD has 20 schools: 13 elementary, 3 middle
schools, 3 high schools, and 1 middle/high school (grades 6 through 12). According to the district
website, at the time of the study, the district enrolled 12,580 students in prekindergarten through
grade 12 (CSD, 2015). There were 5,585 students at the elementary level, 2,775 middle school
students, and 6,995 in high school.
Union Village was one of the 13 elementary schools in a small suburban neighborhood
just two blocks from the city of Rochester boundaries. Union Village School enrolled 386
students: 60% White, 3% Multiracial, 2% Asian, 16% Hispanic or Latino, and 19% Black or
African American in grades prekindergarten through grade 2. During the study, there were eight
sections of first grade at Union Village School, or approximately 182 students. CSD utilized the
federally funded National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program
(SBP) to provide free and reduced lunches (FRL) to more than 60% of its school population
(CSD, 2015). This figure was higher than the school district average of 28%. Approximately
55% of Union Village families receive public assistance. In the classroom utilized in this study
60% or 13 out of 22 students, received free or reduced-priced lunch.
Union Village was a Title I school. In Title 1 schools, the federal government provides
special funds to “ensure that all students have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a
high-quality education and reach at minimum, proficiency on State academic achievement
standards and state assessments” (U.S. Government, 2004, sec.1001). Only six elementary of the
13 schools received Title I funding.
First Grade Participants
Data were collected during the spring semester in a heterogeneous first-grade classroom,
which included me, 22 students (16 male students and 6 female students), two hamsters, a
tarantula, and a large box turtle. The class ethnic composition included 17 White students (77%),
four Black students (18%), and one Latino student (5%). Three students received pull-out
services for additional reading support. The study was a convenience sample based on two
significant relationships: (a) the school principal was interested in the study of literacy and
technology and assisted in attaining district approval, and (b) the students were those enrolled in
my first-grade classroom. The selection of participants was based solely on students whose
parents gave written permission for them to participate in the study. Before the study, I
mentioned my research ambitions at parent-teacher conference meetings and received
overwhelming support and verbal permission from all the parents. Once the Research Subjects
Review Board (RSRB) approved the study, I sent home the parent information letter and forms to
obtain official parental permission (Appendix B) and consent to collect data.
Data Collection
In this section, I review the data collection methods and data sources. Data were collected
through the following qualitative methods: (a) classroom observations; (b) audio-recording and
videotaping; (c) interviews; and (d) field notes, informal conversations, artifacts, and memos.
Accuracy is challenging to warrant in qualitative studies, so triangulation of sources was used to
obtain a more realistic representation of the authentic daily literacy practices of classroom life.
These data sources allowed me to examine children’s reading and writing development within a
classroom that had access to and valued digital tools for learning, which supported collaboration,
creation, and the sharing of digital communications with audiences within and beyond the
classroom and school. The majority of the data were collected three to four days a week.
Triangulation
According to Bogdan and Biklen (2003), the findings in a qualitative study need more
than one source of information to establish facts and corroborate findings. Marshall and Rossman
(2011) extended that idea positing that multiple sources lead to a fuller understanding of the
phenomena studied by verifying the repeatability of the observation or interpretation. In
qualitative case study research, the process of using multiple perceptions to clarify meaning is
called triangulation (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000), and to establish validity, Denzin (1978)
recommended using one or more types of triangulation. For example, comparing data from
multiple sources using the same data collection method; working as a team two or three
researchers analyze the same data; or having the work examined by researchers with opposing
theoretical views.
I used methodological triangulation (Marshall & Rossman, 2011), comparing data
collected by different collection methods, which included field notes, interview transcripts,
memos, participant observation, artifacts, and video recording (Table 4.1). Validity was further
supported through investigator triangulation, where I enlisted the insights of fellow doctoral
students, my advisor, and committee members to investigate and probe my findings and provide
feedback. Theory triangulation (Marshall & Rossman, 2011) occurred through the direction of
my dissertation committee, which consists of experts from a variety of theoretical disciplines
who reviewed my research and provided feedback and suggestions as they interpreted the data
through their unique perspectives. Table 4.1 provides a summary of the data collection methods,
data sources, quantity of data, purposes, and a timeline of when the data were collected.
Table 4.1
Data Collection Matrix
Data
Collection
Method
Time
Frame
Resulting
Data
Source
Quantity of
Data
Purposes
Participant
Observations
Spring
Field notes
Memos
Video
recordings
50
30
100 hours
To document daily classroom
literacy practices; to
understand how children use
technology in their daily
routines and lives
Interviews Spring Audio
recordings
Field notes
Transcripts
22 students
10 parents
1 administrator
50
To procure parent perspective
about how their child uses
technology; to understand
and gather perspectives of
how literacy is used at home
and at school; to understand
how administrators perceive
literacy and technology being
used
Documents
and
Artifacts
Spring Student
writing
Classroom
journals and
logs
100 To obtain further
documentation from a variety
of sources
Participant Observations
Traditionally, most researchers choose a site, gain access, and observe people and their
actions. Over time the researcher gradually begins to participate in everyday events by building
trust and relationships with the people. During the period of immersion, the researcher copiously
records “written accounts and descriptions that bring versions of these worlds to others”
(Emerson et al., p. 352), including detailed field notes, audio recordings, and video recordings
“describe and analyze patterns of interactions, roles, ceremonies and rituals, and artifacts” that
occur at the site (Marshall & Rossman, 2011, p. 19). Observations over prolonged periods reveal
rich, detailed contextual descriptions (Marshall & Rossman, 2011).
Therefore, in order to investigate, experience, and accurately represent the social
processes that occur in the classroom setting it is vital to be immersed in the field as both a
participant and an observer for an extended time (Emerson et al., 2002).
In the study, my position as a researcher and participant-observer did not follow the
traditional researcher role. Although the observations took place in a standard classroom setting
as part of the subjects’ regular educational practice, I was an active participant in these
instructional practices because I was the teacher. That unique positionality afforded me flexibility
as “an insider” to capture not only when children were participating in their everyday lessons but
the ability to shift directions to follow leads and seize opportunities. As the teacher/researcher, I
video-recorded the daily literacy lessons at least three to four times each week throughout the
semester. Additionally, I recorded informal times when children used technology for other
purposes, such as Skype, playing math games with other schools, or when we had Children’s
Choice Fridays where children demonstrated a new website or video game. Literacy lessons
were video recorded three to four times each week for the spring semester (six months).
Field Notes
Field notes are the “written account of what the researcher hears, sees, experiences, and
thinks in the course of collecting and reflecting on the data in a qualitative study” (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2003, p. 110). Field notes are an essential element of participant observation because
they supplement other forms of data collection by adding meaning and context to the observed
event (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). “Rich, detailed field notes thus provide means for developing
and working through new theoretical connections and analytic understandings; theoretical
insights and compelling ethnographic monographs” (Emerson et al., 2007, p. 353). Throughout
the study, field notes were more than just a running log of daily events, they were a method
employed to precisely record (a) what I observed and learned, (b) my reflections on those
observations, and (c) questions to ponder (Emerson et al., 2007, p. 354).
Balancing participation and observation while teaching was challenging and made it
challenging to immediately type up daily field notes. Most of my observation notes were
handwritten “jottings” on my daily lesson plans. Emerson et al. (1995) define jottings as “quickly
rendered scribbles about actions and dialogue” (p. 20). I used these quick notes as reminders
primarily when something special or unique occurred during lessons, such as when the children
used the laptops or iPads, or recorded video using the handheld Kodak Zi8. Yin (2003) contends
that handwritten notes may also provide rich information and detail. When my teaching schedule
allowed a block of time immediately after the morning lesson, I wrote up my field notes. Writing
directly after a lesson turned the moment “from a passing event, which occurs only in its own
moment of occurrence, into an account, which exists in its inscription and can be re-consulted”
(Geertz, 1973, p. 19). These field notes served as a critical data collection tool.
Interviews
Interviews were utilized as a qualitative data collection method for the study. Yin (2003)
argues that interviews may be “one of the most important sources of case study information” (p.
89). Employing face-to-face or one-to-one meetings allows the researcher “to obtain a rich,
indepth experimental account of an evident or episode in the life of the respondent. There is
inherent faith that the results are trustworthy and accurate pictures” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p.
646). Furthermore, Seidman (2009) recommended that researchers use interviews because
interviewing allows the researcher to “a powerful way to gain insight” (p. 14), “hear participant’s
stories,” and that these “stories are a way of knowing” (p. 7). Interviewing the children and
parents provided insight into `the children’s use of digital technology in their daily literacy
practices that could not be obtained solely by observation. The interviews were vital to answering
the second research question regarding how students used the new literacies and technologies as
they developed into readers and writers.
Before the study, as part of my regular teaching practice, informal surveys were sent to
parents. Parents filled out the survey and returned them during a meet and greet event in
September before the school year commenced. I had casual, spontaneous conversations with all
the families, which provided insight into potential research questions. Additionally, after IRB
approval, I regularly contacted families to initiate informal exchanges on the phone, in emails,
texts, or in person at pick-up or drop-off time. Those conversations were what Marshall and
Rossman (2011) refer to as informal interviews.
For the actual study, I requested IRB approval to employ up to three semi-structured
interviews with parents, students, and administrators. Permission for adult participants was
granted easily, but gaining approval for six-year-old children proved difficult and time-
consuming. After four IRB revisions, permission was granted for short semi-structured student
interviews with pre-approved questions only (Appendix J). An interview guide with a student
protocol script was also mandated (Appendix K). Interview guides are defined as “a listing of
areas to be covered in the interview along with, for each area, a listing of questions that together
will suggest lines of inquiry” (Weiss, 1994, p. 48).
To minimize the risk of interviews being “tainted by research subjectivity” (Charmaz,
2014, p. 80) by the researcher, I engaged my graduate field student to interview the students.
Sierra (pseudonym) had been a part of our class community for the entire year. She had earned
the children’s trust and respect and had experience interviewing and taking field notes as she
pursued an advanced degree at a local university. Sierra’s familiarity with the children, the audio-
taping devices, and field note-taking experience made her the ideal person to execute the student
interviews.
In order to minimize distractions and allow for audio recording and privacy during the
informal interviews, Sierra took the children, one-on-one, to approved locations in the school. As
a graduate student, Sierra was experienced and knowledgeable about handling children’s
interviews outside of the classroom. These informal interview spaces included (a) the school
cafeteria, (b) the playground, and (c) the multipurpose room where children spend recess time on
inclement days. Leaving the classroom allowed for a more natural open-ended discussion, and
the questions initiated a meaningful conversation (Appendices J, K, L).
Student interviews began with Sierra reading a note to each child that described the
mandated student IRB protocol and then asking each student for verbal assent. Once assent was
obtained, Sierra conducted the interview using the approved questions once assent was obtained.
The audio-taped interviews lasted approximately 15 minutes. The children took the task seriously
and answered thoughtfully and honestly. Sierra provided brief field notes indicating unique
insights not detected on the audio tape, such as the informal conversations to and from the
classroom and gestures like eye-rolling. Sierra’s interviews followed the strict guidelines set by
IRB yet “captured deep meaning of experience in the participants’ own words” (Marshall &
Rossman, 2011, p. 93).
Because Sierra, my graduate student knew the kids so well (she was with us most of the
year) they had no problem chatting up a storm. The kids had a special close relationship
with her. She was part of us but had a distance because she wasn’t with us every day, just
a few days a week. So glad she was able to talk freely and individually with the kids in an
area away from the classroom. The kids weren’t pressured to say what they thought I
wanted to hear. Listening to the answers allowed me time to reflect on their answers and
ask further questions for clarification later with parents. (Memo, June 16, 2015)
The locations for parent interviews were not predetermined and were conducted based on
parent availability and convenience. One formal interview occurred at the University of
Rochester, where one of the parents worked. Some interviews were conducted in the classroom,
while other parents invited me to visit their homes so their children could demonstrate what they
did on their computers. Audio recordings allowed the “nuances and complexities” of
conversations to be captured (Weiss, 1994, p. 55). In contrast, other parents preferred casual
conversations about their child’s experiences with technology on the phone or at the baseball
field or playground while their child played. Scheduling interviews with busy parents proved
challenging but yielded “essential sources of case study information” (Yin, 2003, p. 89). All
parents were interviewed; however, not all interviews were audiotaped. When circumstances
would not allow audio recording, I attempted to use the same interview guide (hiding questions
in my phone) and then immediately fill in the answers to the questions afterward in my car. I
found that writing answers directly after the interview captured the essence of the parents’
thoughts. Formal and informal interviews were completed throughout June. Data from the
interviews were transcribed and saved to my laptop.
Based on Corbin and Strauss' (2008) claim that the interviews that provide rich data are
ones “not predetermined by a set of questions” (p. 27); hence I considered more open-ended
interviews with my administrator. Although I had numerous conversations with my principal
about my research, we scheduled two formal interviews in her office during the spring semester.
As she had just completed her doctorate, she was knowledgeable, understood the interview
process, and looked forward to our meetings. Following the advice of Charmaz (2006), I had
interview questions prepared (Appendixes G, H, I). However, I chose to listen and tried to
understand her perspective as she spoke about her efforts to support teachers as they attempted to
incorporate technology into their daily literacy practices (Charmaz, 2006). Instead of eliciting
specific answers to my interview questions, I invited her to share her perspectives and
experiences and provide background information on access to programs/technology, the district’s
attitude regarding firewalls, and what future plans with technology and professional development
might entail. I audiotaped each interview, transcribed it, and saved it on my laptop. The
transcribed interviews of the children, parents and my principal filled a two-inch three-ringed
binder.
Soklaridis stated (2009), “the primary advantages of qualitative interviews are the
flexibility they offer and the rich, detailed data they can provide” (p. 720). Therefore, the indepth
semi-structured interviews used for the study provided a vehicle to understand the parents',
students', principal's experiences, roles, values, interpretations, and meanings (Weiss, 1994).
Interviews provide the opportunity to “gather large and rich amounts of data in the respondents'
own words” (Steward et al., 2007, p. 42). The interviews led me to a deeper understanding and
appreciation of how children used technology in their everyday lives.
A review of the children’s interview transcripts provided me with their perspectives and
feelings about their digital classroom technology use (Table 2).
Table 4.2
Student Perspectives on Digital Classroom
Student
Interview
Perspectives and Feelings
Glen “I like going on computers. It is neat. It’s good because we get to do a lot of
stuff on it. We use the computer like every day. I do it at least two times a day.
So school is the only place I get to use a computer. I have two laptops; my dad
has one and my mom got one. I don’t think we have internet anymore, but I’ll
get it back when we have enough money to pay. (WS310042; 6-5-15)
Kyle “I don’t like Raz Kids or Success Maker. You have to read every book and get
through a level.” (WS310047; 6-8-15)
Sean “Every kid goes on computer every day. I don’t have a computer at home, but
my grandpa does. I like the games (at school) like I go on our class Webkinz
and we get to go on websites and look up games and stuff. I’m pretty good with
technology. What I don’t like about technology, sometimes it can be a pretty
pain in the butt dumb, like slow, you know.” (WS310046; 6-8-15)
Shaila “I use computers three times a day. I love to use computers. Fun math, games,
BookFlix, I like it. So, we put videos on our website and All about us and
Science with Zoomers so I made a video with my friend at home. On our
(school) website we have jokes.” (WS310066; 6-9-15)
In contrast, parent interviews transcripts of the allowed provided descriptions of how
their children used technology at home and shared how their child’s participation in everyday
practices using technology in school extended to home, which provided them opportunities to
pursue their personal goals and communicate with others outside of our school community
(Table 4.3).
Table 4.3
Parental Perceptions on Student’s Technology Usage
Source Parental Descriptions
Jay “She looks on your website all the time, pictures you guys post, stories you’ve
written, the videos you made she loves bringing and show what you did at
school home to me and my wife She use a iPad at home to read and write, take
pictures, design clothes.” (WS3100066; 8-16-15)
Karen “My kid hadn’t seen her grandparents in a long time because they live out of
state. She showed my parents how to Skype. Now we can visit face to face
more often.” (WS3100060; 6-15-15)
Sheila “My child loved that he could write and save to his own personal thumb drive
and continues to write his stories at home. Instead of watching TV and playing
video games my son is reading, writing things. He can download pictures too.
He showed his grandparents how to access your website so now they go and see
what you guys posted. Now that he can use the speaker on Google, he finds out
information about everything. It’s life changing.” (WS3100067; 6-15-15)
These multiple perspectives provided invaluable information that would not have been
otherwise accessible. Additionally, transcripts of interviews with the building administrator
provided a personal account of how the Common Core initiatives were affecting reading, writing,
and technology development and how funds for technology were distributed through the school.
Transcription of all interviews was done by me, in Word documents, on my computer.
Artifacts
McMillan and Schumacher (2001) characterized artifacts as “tangible entities that reveal
social processes, meanings, and values” (p. 42). In primary classrooms, artifacts may include
handouts, pictures, artwork, workbooks, papers, lesson plans, and journals. Objects collected
during the research included (a) student dialogue journals, (b) writing folders, (c) handouts, (d)
artwork, (e) photographs, and (f) co-constructed classroom anchor charts. Each artifact was dated
to provide a chronology. In this research, the meaning assigned to the artifact by the child and
the social processes of how and why it was produced were more critical than the final project.
The artifacts were the “material manifestations of cultural beliefs and behaviors” (LeCompte &
Preissle, 1993, p. 216). Analysis of the artifacts aided in the reconstruction of literacy events and
led to understanding through multiple perspectives of the children as they developed as readers
and writers.
Analytic Framework
Researchers can pursue various approaches within qualitative research (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2003; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Miles & Huberman, 1994). The approach selected must
be consistent with the theoretical stance taken by the researcher and be appropriate for answering
the research questions. The approach taken in this study, case study for data and grounded theory
for analysis, builds upon the work of several literacy researchers (Rowe & Miller 2015, 2016;
Miller & Rowe, 2020) who used case studies and grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006; Corbin &
Strauss, 2008) to explore children’s school writing practices. The following sections examine the
unit of analysis and how grounded theory fits my research questions and theoretical framework.
Later in the chapter, I explain how data analysis was conducted in relation to the analytic
frameworks. Table 4.4 provides an overview of the research questions, analytic framework, and
unit of analysis.
Table 4.4
Overview of Research Questions, Analytic Framework, and Unit of Analysis
Research Questions Analytic
Framework
Unit of
Analysis
1. What are the literacy practices of first graders as they
use technology within their everyday classroom
community of learners?
Grounded
theory
Literacy
Events
2. How do first graders use the new literacies and
technologies as they develop as readers and writers?
Grounded
theory
Literacy
Events
Unit of Analysis
Simply put, the unit of analysis is the entity that one uses to investigate and analyze the
study. Therefore, since the research questions seek information about the literacy practices, the
unit of study is the student’s literacy events. Heath (1982) defined literacy events as “any
occasions in which a piece of writing is integral to the nature of a participants’ interactions and
their interpretative processes” (p. 50). Literacy events occur within the larger context of literacy
practices, New Literacy Studies scholars use both to understand what literacy means in a specific
context. The concept of literacy practices “refers to both behavior and the social and cultural
conceptualizations that give meaning to the uses of reading and or writing” (Street, 1995, p. 2).
Literacy practices are the larger contexts within which literacy events occur and from which the
events gain meaning. In the case of children writing online, the literacy event is the bounded
occasion in which the child or children are engaged in the act of writing. In contrast, the literacy
practice is the context within which the child or children are writing. In this qualitative study of
first graders, literacy practices and literacy events are essential to understanding language and
literacy practices in a classroom context. However, by limiting the unit of analysis to literacy
events, I could clearly analyze the children’s practices within the life of the classroom. Given
that my research goal was to understand the children’s literacy practices as they used technology
in their everyday classroom, literacy events, as a unit of analysis, allowed the flexibility to gain
new understanding from multiple perspectives within a classroom community of learners.
Grounded Theory
Constructivist grounded theory considers “knowing and learning as embedded into social
life” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 14) and aligns well with Vygotsky (1962) and other social
constructivists who argue that thought begins with social interaction. Charmaz (2006)
distinguished two approaches to grounded theory: (a) the objectivist approach, where “theoretical
categories must be developed from analysis of the collected data and must fit them” (Charmaz,
2000, p. 511), and (b) a constructivist approach which “reaffirms studying people in their natural
settings” (Charmaz, 2000, p. 510).
In the objectivist approach theory (Glasser, 1992), the “use of systematic comparisons is
enough” to generate theory (p. 43). According to Glaser (1992), “categories emerge upon
comparisons and properties emerge upon more comparisons. And that is all there is to it” (p. 43).
In this approach, theory emerges from data separated from the observer. While in the objectivist
stance conveys a more behaviorist approach where grounded theory is a variation of an analytic
process comparing data to data, concept to concept, and category to category. Data is “not
discovered” instead, it is “part of the world we study. We construct our grounded theories
through our past and present involvements and interactions with people, perspectives, and
research practice” (Glasser, 1992, p. 17).
In the constructivist approach, grounded theory emerges from the data, offers insight,
enhanced understanding, and provides an essential guide to action (Charmaz, 2006, 2014).
Charmaz's constructivist grounded theory approach includes the “simultaneous collection and
analysis of data, the establishment of a data coding process that emerges from the data, the
collection of samples to hone the researcher's emerging theoretical ideas, and the creation of
analytic memos to explain, expand, extend, and advance the categories that emerged” (Charmaz,
2006, p. 510).
This dissertation employed a constructivist approach for analysis because it offered
flexible, open-ended strategies rather than formulaic procedures. Constructivism “assumes the
relativism of multiple social realities, recognizes the mutual creation of knowledge by the viewer
and the viewed and aims toward interpretive understandings of subjects' meanings” (Guba &
Lincoln, 1994, p. 43). It also allowed me to code and analyze data simultaneously while allowing
theory to emerge from the data. The ongoing data collection, coding, and analysis allowed me to
understand the everyday meanings and daily literacy practices of first graders.
Coding
Saldana (2021) defines a code as a word or short phrase “that assigns a summative,
salient, essence-capturing, and /or evocative attribute for a portion language-based or visual data”
(p. 5). In addition, Charmaz (2014) posits that coding is the pivotal link between collecting data
and developing emergent theory to explain these data” (p. 113).
Using a constructivist grounded theory approach to the coding process analysis involved
open coding, where “the data are broken down into discrete parts, closely examined, and
compared for similarities and differences” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 102). This analysis
method started with a line-by-line analysis of the children’s interview data. Those interviews
were the first attempt to condense the mass of data, locate critical terms, and key events, create
several categories, and assign code labels for themes.
The reassuring things Charmaz had to say that I think I did were things like sticking close
to the data, using gerunds, and looking for actions and letting the data take you where it
takes you. I’m thinking because I was a member of the class community, I have a
tendency to leave out or leave unsaid because I assume everyone just knows what is
going on...So, here is my plan for attacking the rest of the data that needs to be coded:
Remain open minded, I might find some great new information buried in my data. Keep
the codes simple and specific. Work through the data without dwelling on every single
line too long. I have a tendency to over think what is going on and make a big deal of
trying to capture the essence of what is happening. Look for gaps in what I am seeing in
the data. (Memo, July 17, 2015)
I was able to follow the data closely yet work through the interviews quickly. I found that gerund
coding (Charmaz, 2014) helped maintain a focus on actions and processes. All codes were
entered into an initial code spreadsheet (Appendix Q).
The second step involved focused coding (Charmaz, 2014), which necessitated decisions
regarding “which initial codes make the most analytic sense to categorize the data” (Charmaz,
2014, p. 138). In order to obtain further organization of the codes, I initiated another round of
coding, which Saldana (2014) referred to as “more salient categories” (p. 166). Focused coding
helped connect the themes and allowed me to organize and begin to cluster the codes (Marshall
& Rossman, 2011) (Appendix R). Later passes through the data were used to connect categories
and assisted me in arriving at themes. Grounded theory allowed for the collection of new data
during the analysis process, so data was collected throughout the semester. Categories were
systematically developed, refined, and linked with others to form a central explanatory concept.
The significant themes or concepts ultimately guided the analysis and were used to construct
emergent theories grounded in the data (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Analysis and
interpretation continued during and after data collection and into the writing phase to develop a
theory about the literacy practices of first graders as they use technology within their everyday
classroom activities.
While in the focused coding stage, I created lists for the codes and organized them into
categories. I revisited and re-examined my lists but needed to refine them; hence, I asked a
colleague for help. Returning to the data, we discovered several initial codes repeated in nearly
every interview. This repetitiveness indicated that those codes might be categories or themes. As
coding proceeded, I noticed codes that could be categorized by actions, interactions, and
classroom practices. I printed the list, cut them up, and then proceeded to group them (Figure
4.1).
Figure 4.1
Example of Focused Coding
This same process was used with the literacy lessons. Several focused codes emerged as tentative
categories. I wrote a memo addressing this significant finding.
I read through a few kids’ interviews noticing lots of similarities but also several
different themes then before. I thought I was in the combining codes and now I
have more to look at. This is actually a good thing. I think. Obviously, as I look at
the kids that were in this pile I remember separating them because they had
different points of view and their interviews were richer than the others. Also,
parents who were busy and I met at events had great things to say, but added
insights I had totally forgotten about, and they were not evidenced in transcribed
parent interviews. Hmm… a curse or a blessing? (July 15, 2015)
I waited to proceed to axial coding until I had some of the parents’ interviews and several of the
literacy lesson transcribed. Focused coding refined my data codes into additional categories and
several themes (Saldana, 2021). Table 5 illustrates four themes that emerged from the coding
process.
Table 4.5
Emerging Themes
Theme Description of Themes Emerged from Data
1 Everyday literacy practices are co-constructed by the teacher and the students. The
teacher initiates the practice, but through interaction with the group, the students
develop their own take on it. The technology supports the back and forth between
what goes on in school and what goes on at home.
2 Student definitions of reading, writing, and technology use are limited to standards
based and what they do in their lessons, such as guided reading, writing workshop,
and the use of specific technology such as interactive whiteboards.
3 The everyday practice of conversation and authentic literacy practices created
opportunities for students to pursue interests beyond that of the mandated school
activities. The students used technology to create products (such as an evite or
Wordle) in order to connect what they were doing in school with what they were
doing at home.
4 The students were fearless technology explorers who were able to take what they
observed and use it and expand on it to achieve their self-chosen goals.
It took several weeks after the focused coding phase before I attempted axial coding.
Charmaz (2014) noted, “The purposes of axial coding are to sort, synthesize, and organize large
amounts of data and reassemble them…bringing data back together again in a coherent whole”
(p. 147). This third and final level of coding exemplified how the subcategories, emergent
themes, and categories relate to each other (Saldana, 2021) (Appendix S). Axial coding helped to
connect the theoretical framework, and the literacy practices and events, allowing me to answer
my research questions (Table 4.6).
Table 4.6
Connecting Theoretical Framework to Axial Coding
Theoretical
Concept
Rogoff Community of
learners
apprenticeship,
guided
participation,
and participatory
appropriation
o
o
o
Working with a friend or more proficient or
knowledgeable class member on a task that
you both valued and wanted to work on
together
Use of the Smartboard during our morning
lessons shared roles
Teacher role was often that of facilitator and
learner rather than expert Smartboard lessons
Attempting new technology we were all
equally valued members of C-13
o Children experts on troubleshooting
technology issues throughout the research
podcasts noodle project
Gee
Identity o
Their identities as readers and writers grew
and changed (being technologically adept and
they were willing to engage in a variety of
technology-rich literacy practices)
Jenkins Participatory o culture
o
NoodleTools electronic cards YouTube
with skateboard
Lankshear & Knobel Deep learning o New ways to use technology, Skype, Podcasts,
Research Writing using NoodleTools, Evites,
Theorist Axial Coding
Wordle word clouds for invitations, Website
rating systems
Green/Colvert/Marsh
3D models of o
Literacy o
Operational,
Cultural, Critical o
Everyday
practices, literacy
practices and
events o
Morning Message to teach skills in context
Parent volunteers working in classroom
(baking)
Writing everyday…and loving it! Dialogue
journals, Smartboard, laptops, Daily 5 Guided
Reading, Independent Reading, Math,
Science, Spell - It and always eating together
Mother Day, Father’s Day
oNew Home- school connections by using
technology videos, text, website
Memo Writing
Analytic memos are written records used by qualitative researchers to assist in data
analysis and coding. Memos contain personal reflections and thoughts about the data and form
the basis of analysis in research. Charmaz (2006) stated, “Memo writing aids us in linking
analytic interpretation with empirical reality” (p. 171) and memos “record the progress, thoughts,
feelings, and directions of the research and the researcher” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 218).
Memos can help “stimulate critical thinking about what you see, speculate important insights,
create a space for emerging themes, and connections between pieces of data” (Bogdan & Biklen,
2003, p. 115). Memos helped me question what I was observing while collecting data,
developing new themes, and modifying coding systems. Memos also recorded problems faced
while collecting the data and served as a springboard to explore themes. They also assisted in
helping me analyze data and inform codes as I worked toward answering my research questions
and generating new theory. The following memo excerpt illustrates how a theme emerged
through the process.
SB...was spending lots of time with a teen-age cousin who loved to video skateboard
jumps and put them on YouTube. SB had been writing “how to” books and was creating
one called how to do an Ollie. After he wrote the procedure, he mentioned that he had
this on video and wanted to show the class. It took some time, but we wrote to the powers
that be and were granted permission to watch YouTube videos in class. YouTube had
been banned in our district. SB was able to bring his skateboard to school to demonstrate
and later on he was able to show his skateboard Ollie demonstration at the skateboard
park nearby. This was a huge moment for my class. Until this point technology has
happened within the classroom and within the school. Now technology was at home and
in the skateboard park and in kids’ activities at home. We had a breakthrough. We use
technology in our everyday lives! Kids were having events captured on their parents’
phones and then putting them on YouTube so we could watch at school. Home to school
and school to home and into the COMMUNITY beyond the walls of C-13. (Memo, April
8, 2015)
Additionally, SB’s breakthrough not only impacted our classroom community but also
expanded the definition of C-13’s community to extend beyond our school to home and into the
community. Shared collaborative relationships created by using technology created a new way to
look at literacy within the everyday lives of C-13ers. It validates how when children connect with
home, their family, and their community using digital devices, it enhances learning by creating a
space that fulfilling students’ interests and needs both at home and school. While this
dissertation began with community as defined as the C-13 classroom, examples such as this
highlight that community extended beyond the classroom and into the students’ home and online
experiences.
Study Trustworthiness
Qualitative research must address key issues and considerations to show that the study is
well-designed and that the results can be trusted. The seminal work of Lincoln (1985) offers
researchers a set of procedures to ensure trust, which includes establishing credibility,
transferability, dependability, and confirmability. In this section, I define each term and its
relationship to the study.
Credibility
According to Marshall and Rossman (2011), credibility refers to how the study was
conducted as to “ensure that the subject was appropriately identified and described” (p. 201) and
that the researcher provided an “in-depth understanding of the phenomenon” (Denzin & Lincoln,
2002, p. 5). This ethnographic case study had a “prolonged engagement” that extended more than
a semester, sufficient time to record and describe the classroom phenomenon factually and
accurately through video and audio recordings. A researcher, trusted friend, and college professor
reviewed my interpretations, ensuring my assumptions and analysis followed the data accurately.
Furthermore, analyzing the extensive collection of student writing together with multiple data
sources, including field notes, interview notes and transcripts, memos, and video recording,
provided triangulation and enhanced credibility—ensuring the participants’ lived experiences
were accurately represented and reflected.
Transferability
Within qualitative research, the potential to generalize from a single study to broader
contexts and conceptualize how research is applicable to other groups has implications that can
impact pedagogy curriculum reforms and move educational theory. Marshal and Rossmann
(2011) defined transferability as the way “findings will be useful to others in similar situations,
with similar research questions of practice” (p. 201). As a first-grade teacher in a suburban
school district facing the Common Core technology reforms, these rich descriptions and multiple
data sources will helpful assist other teachers attempting to integrate technology into their
practices. This work will also help researchers to understand better findings emerging from
similar settings.
Dependability
Dependability is used to measure or demonstrate the consistency and reliability of the
findings. In other words, the findings can be reasonably replicated with the same participants in
the same context or by explaining “the changing conditions in the phenomenon” (Marshall &
Rossman, 2011, p. 253). Dependability was achieved through thick description and triangulation.
The analysis method and memoing documented my internal thoughts throughout the study,
leading to a more precise record of the methods used during data collection, analysis, and
interpretation.
Confirmability
Triangulation of data establishes confirmability by justifying how the findings were
consistent across data sources and accounting for how the data was managed, organized, and
collected over time. Bogdan and Biklen (2003) posited that researchers could never be
completely free of bias. They suggested that since we cannot divorce ourselves from who we are,
what we believe, and what we value, we need to explicitly address the limitations or biases that,
are inherent in our research.
As a teacher and researcher, my thinking needed to be informed by the data, not my
opinions and prejudices. To arrive at the rigorous systematic, data set from which theory
emerged, I attempted to remain open-minded and see beyond the ordinary occurrences of daily
classroom literacy practices. I strived to arrive at new understandings that informed how others
use technology in their everyday literacy practices. To help avoid the dilemma of bias, I did not
interview my students. Furthermore, I shared analytic memos and field notes with my fellow
doctoral student friends, professors I worked with, and my research committee, who probed my
research and provided feedback and suggestions based on their unique interpretations of the data.
Together, these elements reduced the risk of bias and enhanced the degree to which others could
corroborated results.
Ethical Considerations
As a researcher, it is imperative to have safeguards in place to protect the participants,
especially if they are only six or seven years old. During the research application process, I
submitted a full description of the study, its significance and included pertinent information
regarding the participants, the methods, timelines, and procedures. I followed the ethical
guidelines established by the University of Rochester’s Institutional Review Board’s Guidance
for Investigators (IRB). In doing so, I ensured the highest levels of protection for the “vulnerable
population” I researched. Although the protocols for the Research Subjects Review Board
(RSRB) necessitated careful consideration based on the age of the subjects, the study was
considered to be “at minimal risk” because it occurred within a typical classroom setting as part
of the subjects’ standard educational practice. As the study presented little or no risk to students
and complied with all IRB standards, it was approved.
Protecting Participants
To further protect participants, I provided the students with a parent/guardian information
letter and consent form (Appendix B). These documents explained the study, participant’s rights,
benefits, risks, confidentiality, and contact information. Parents were invited to give permission
for their child to be a part of the research study. The consent forms they signed gave consent for
their child to be interviewed, audio and video recorded.
Throughout the study all identification references such as names were removed, and
pseudonyms were applied. Prior to the children’s interviews Sierra, read an oral assent form that
explained the interview was voluntary and that they could stop at any point without any negative
consequences. Additionally, she mentioned there were no right or wrong answers and the
information provided would be kept confidential.
Parent Permission and Child Assent
The IRB committee did not require student assent from children younger than ten. Thus,
students were identified as participants if their parents or guardian signed the parent permission
letter regardless of whether the student choose to or not. In my RSRB application I took a child
advocate stance and argued that the student participants should have a voice in agreeing to
participate in the research study. After numerous verbal and written appeals to the RSRB, I was
permitted to include a student information letter similar to the parent letter. Later instruction from
IRB demanded I remove any mention of voluntary student participation. As their teacher, and as
a researcher, it was my hope that all youth participants would have the ability and right to
participate voluntarily and cease participation if desired, without any impact on their grades or
enrollment in the class. In other words, adult participants had the option to cease participation at
any time, without any consequences but students could only terminate participation if their
parents contacted me either by phone, email, or letter. Despite these reservations, all the students
participated throughout the entire study.
Confidentiality
Multiple steps were taken to ensure student and adult confidentiality. Identifying
references to students on all classroom documents, field notes, and transcripts from audio and
video recordings were removed, and pseudonyms were used for people and places. Alternative
arrangements for participants not wanting to be video recorded were made without minimal
impact on their involvement in the classroom. Additionally, all electronic files, including video
and audio recordings, are kept on an encrypted hard drive or on my private laptop, which is
password protected. All written sources, such as parent/guardian information notes, handwritten
field notes, memos, or written artifacts, are kept in a locked cabinet for security. Data sources
will only be shared with people identified and approved through the RSRB. These include my
advisor, my dissertation committee, and designated doctoral students.
Limitations
Limitations are inherent in any type of research. This section identifies the limitations I
considered as I analyzed the data collected and include: (a) site, (b) conducted in my classroom,
(c) short duration, and (d) potential bias.
The first limitation was the research site. Data collection was limited to one place, a
suburban first-grade classroom. Although the research study contributed to early childhood
theory and the research literature by emphasizing the role of technology in a standards based
first-grade classroom, the findings cannot/may not be generalized to other first-grade literacy
practices.
The site was not only my school but my classroom. The familiarity of the site and the
subjects allowed me an emic view of the phenomenon and an in-depth insider perspective that
could have resulted in potential bias because of the close relationship with the students. As a
researcher, I remained open to see beyond the ordinary occurrences of daily classroom literacy
practices and arrived at many new understandings while gathering rich robust data in familiar
surroundings. This bias limitation was addressed through the careful consideration of the
qualitative aspects of validity and transferability. According to Marshall and Rossman (2011), it
is imperative that dissertation committees review data to ensure “that the findings reflect the
participants and the inquiry itself rather than a fabrication from the researcher’s bias or
prejudices” (p. 201).
Another limitation was the length of the data collection phase. Most ethnographic case
studies are longer in duration and provide an in-depth study of a culture. Data were collected for
only one semester (six months), making it a “mini-ethnographic case study” (Fusch & Ness,
2017, p. 1). The short time frame was necessitated by the limited accessibility to technology in
my classroom, specifically the use of laptops and iPads throughout the school day. However,
because I was able to collect day several times a week, I was able to secure a large corpus of
data, which lead to the depth and richness of the study. The five months of data collected daily
was more than sufficient to provide the detailed records and data required to learn about the daily
literacy practices of children as they used technology.
The study design relied on triangulation to mitigate bias. Data was gathered through a
variety of collection methods, including participant observation, field notes, video-taping, and
one-on-one interviews. Investigator triangulation was supported by fellow doctoral students,
outside readers, and my advisor. These efforts helped mediate potential bias.
Conclusion
Throughout this chapter, I have justified why qualitative research and ethnographic case
study design (Dyson & Genishi, 2005) set forth the research methodology that best answered
the research questions and was consistent with the theoretical foundation described in Chapter
Three. Moreover, this study aligned with Yin’s (2003) conditions that the case study be “focused
on a contemporary phenomenon with some real-life context, that the researcher had little control
of the events, and that the research questions posed questions what and how”
(p. 1).
Charmaz (2006) contents that “neither data or theories are discovered either as given in
the data or the analysis. Rather we are part of the world we study, the data we collect and the
analyses we produce. We construct our grounded theories through our past and present
involvements and interactions with people, perspective, and research practices” (p. 17).
Therefore, my study “offers an interpretation” of children’s classroom life “not an exact picture
of it” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 17).
The qualitative research design based on a classroom case study, where I was a
participant/observer, provided the necessary data to understand the nature of my first graders' use
of digital technologies as they developed traditional and new literacies skills. Using an
ethnographic case study design helped provide insight into the student’s everyday meanings and
daily literacy practices within a natural classroom setting over one semester, supported Dyson
and Genishi’s (2005) construct that what a phenomenon means as it is socially enacted within a
particular case” (p. 10) is critical. This study examined and explored the literacy practices and
events of 22 children in their classroom habitat when given time and space to learn about
reading, writing, and language in ways they chose, and that enabled them to utilize what they
already knew.
The next two chapters address the findings and provide a glimpse into the classroom’s
authentic daily literacy practices. A careful examination of how traditional print-based reading
and writing were augmented with 21st-century literacies and practices that supported
collaboration, creation, and ultimately the sharing of digital communications with audiences
inside and outside the classroom is presented.
Chapter 5: Research Question One Findings
This study aimed to examine and document how young children use digital tools to
engage in authentic literacy practices. In particular, the study focused on documenting the role of
technology in early childhood classrooms, the role of the teacher in setting up learning conditions
where children can learn and how children navigate the online world for their interests and
purposes, and how working together in everyday interactions help advance the goals of the class
community. In the previous chapters, I have addressed the problem statement, reviewed the
literature examining the recent empirical studies on digital literacies in early childhood,
explained the theoretical framework, and justified the methods and the rationale for the research
design. The following two chapters address the findings and provide a glimpse into the C-13’s
authentic daily literacy practices. The chapters demonstrate how traditional print-based reading
and writing were augmented with digital tools that supported collaboration, creation, and
ultimately the sharing of digital communications with audiences inside and beyond the
classroom.
In this chapter, I specifically discuss the children’s everyday literacy practices and how,
as a community of learners, we worked around those bureaucratic requirements of district
expectations, curriculum pressures, and accountability of student scores to integrate technology
in meaningful and authentic ways. I begin by exploring the various literacy practices of C-13
students first identified by the themes that emerged from Chapter 4. Theme one focuses on the
everyday literacy practices that are co-constructed by the teacher and the students. The teacher
initiated the practice, but the students developed their own take on it through interaction with the
group. The technology supported the back and forth between what goes on in school and what
goes on at home. Theme three addressed the everyday practice of conversation and authentic
literacy practices, which created opportunities for students to pursue interests beyond that of the
mandated school activities. These themes were the springboards that helped me begin to make
sense of the data and answer the two research questions that guided this study. Chapter 5 presents
answers to Research Question One: What are the literacy practices of first graders as they use
digital technologies within their everyday classroom community of learners? Chapter 6 will
address Research Question Two: How do first graders use the new literacies and technologies as
they develop as readers and writers?
To answer these research questions, I used ethnographic research methods that included
participant observation, parent and student interviews, student artifacts, classroom observations,
memos, and teacher field notes to capture classroom life. I video recorded students during the
literacy language arts period. In particular, I documented when students actively participated in
everyday school activities and used technology to engage in reading and writing for their own
interests and purposes. The discussion of the findings in Chapters 5 and 6 focus on how
classroom practices used digital technology to create new spaces and learning opportunities, and
how new writing spaces—where students and the teacher used technology to collaborate as
coauthors—supported the development of the students reading and writing between school and
home.
I begin by exploring how classroom community was created and how the expectations
were built followed by a discussion of the difference between the classroom literacy practices
and the literacy practices expected by the district administration. I then explore the technology
practices the students engaged in. The chapter ends with a summary.
Creating the C-13 Space
At the beginning of the C-13 school year discussions were held pertaining to school,
individual, and classroom goals and expectations. Decisions were made and agreed upon
collectively during community building activities and were revisited, as needed, throughout the
year. The C-13 community had the expectation that everyone would participate fully in our daily
literacy activities. The building of expectations is consistent with the work of communities
described by Rogoff (2001). As a community we established the routines for Daily Five-time,
classroom materials, and computer use, which provided opportunity for the children to voice
ideas and have control within their classroom environment. As described by Rogoff (1994),
expectations were built collaboratively rather than merely implemented by me, as the teacher. In
this model, all stakeholders had an obligation to support the class learning. Unlike most other
first-grade classrooms, C-13ers were expected “to take responsibility for their own learning and
the learning of their classmates and teacher” (Larson & Marsh, 2015, p. 24). For example, when
asking for feedback on writing, students were told to first turn to each other for help—Ask three,
then me. That expectation of responsibility was an essential element of the classroom’s practices
(Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003). The expectations for learning were also built by having parents fill
in a survey and set goals with their children. In addition, each child wrote out their personal and
school related goals at the beginning of each marking period. For example, in January, Rebecca’s
goal was to learn all 100 high-frequency words, write a chapter book, and learn how to ice skate.
The development of trust and encouraging students to take risks in a safe classroom
environment, constructed through a collaborative environment, created a space that supported
flexibility in conversations rather than the typical teacher didactic script of implied or specific,
correct answers (Gutierrez, 1993; Nystrand, 1997). For example, a common practice during daily
classroom discourses was to ask open-ended questions where children had the ability to answer
or call on others to elaborate, which created opportunities for the children to respond and
contribute to a shared understanding. The following excerpt illustrates this discourse.
MRM: So, we decided we are going to make a NoodleTool report on hamsters. What do
you think? What do you want people to know about hamsters in your report?
Jay: What they eat? I found a book. Here it says yeah, fruits, vegetables, and hay.
William, what do you have?
William: It's says they eat bread.
MRM: Oh my gosh, I've had hamsters for ten years and I never knew that. Even I learned
something new. Who wants to go next? Yes, I call Nancy.
Nancy: My books says they eat ripe corn, peanuts peas. I call Josh.
Josh: Carrots, sunflower seeds and grass. Alright, I call Rebecca.
Rebecca: How about what treats hamsters eat? My video showed grapes, strawberries,
and apples.
MRM: Is there anything else you'd like mentioned about food? Ok, then what should we
include next?
William: How we take care of hamsters? (April 18, 2015; Video, 117-0363)
Children also had the ability to take on classroom practices modeled by the teacher and fellow
classmates. The students were active members of the classroom community attempting to engage
in digital technologies in meaningful and motivating ways, and my role was that of teacher,
facilitator, guide, and learner.
As supported by Rogoff (1994, 2003), Gutierrez (1993), and Gallas (1994) decisions
were often made collectively, based on class and specific student interests and goals, which
encouraged and provided students with opportunities to take on roles such as expert or teacher as
they gained competence and expertise using digital tools. A regular part of C-13’s classroom
practices were to embed digital tools, whenever possible, throughout our day. As students gained
digital proficiencies, they shared that knowledge at home and with peers.
My child loved that he could read and write and save to his personal thumb drive. He can
download pictures too. He showed his grandparents how to access your website so now
they go and see what you guys posted. Now that he can use the speaker on Google, he
finds out information about everything. It's life changing. (AM Parent interview; June 15,
2015)
C-13’s literacy practices encouraged children to move “fluidly across online and off line
spaces...either within the classroom environment or between classroom and home and
community spaces” (Burnett & Merchant, 2014, p. 67) contributing to the construction of shared
knowledge (Burke & Marsh, 2013; Leander & Sheehy, 2004) and a more dynamic view of
literacy (Kontovourki & Tafa, 2020).
Home and school connections (Chaudron et al., 2018; Kumpulainen & Gillen, 2020) were
made as parents learned of their child’s positive experiences using technology at school; many
parents took the opportunity to support their child by extending and enhancing the learning
experiences at home. "My child loves learning about the planets and class animals. He is able to
access information on his own because you showed him at school. He uses our family computer
to read eBooks, write and open the class webpage" (RS Parent Interview, May 14, 2015). Kenner
et al. (2007) explained that “parental ethnotheories (cultural systems of beliefs within families)
not only shape parents and children’s literacy practices but impact on textural interactions
between children and other family members” (as cited in Marsh, 2014, p. 6). The interactions
identified by Marsh were evident when parents and family members made a concerted effort to
allow their child additional opportunities to explore, create, and build on their digital expertise at
home.
Consistent with the works of Chaudron et al. (2018) and Livingstone et al. (2015)
interview data revealed that most of the C-13 parents felt that technology positively impacted
their child’s future and several parents invested resources into tablets. However, a few parents
did not feel confident in supporting their child's digital activities nor had the means, time, or
access to technology at home.
Classroom Community Expectations
The theme of classroom community expectations emerged from my interest in
understanding how my first-grade students used new technologies as they learned to read and
write in what I considered a traditional standards-based school environment. Unlike my previous
years of practice where I controlled everything that went on in the classroom, during this
research I followed the interest of the students and allowed them to take on responsibility for our
learning. Similar to Vasquez (2014), the student directed activities emerged during informal
conversations. In a memo, I noted,
Most of our project ideas came at lunch time or at bus time chatting while we waited for
dismissal. Ideas and suggestions from my professional development often went flat and
the projects we schemed up at lunch in the cafeteria turned out awesome. (Memo, April
15, 2015)
The ownership of their learning created a community of learners (Rogoff, 2001). In
another memo, I noted how the use of the Smartboard during morning lessons (Figure 5.1) was
consistent with Rogoff’s research (1994, 2001, 2003), which positions children as members of a
community where learning occurs through joint participation through three planes:
apprenticeship, guided participation, and participatory appropriation.
The Smartboard wasn’t a giant worksheet to them. It was a place where we shared
learning together. At first, I modeled, and they participated as they best they could
(apprenticeship). While I continued to embed the new technologies into already existing
literacy practices like morning message and word work (See Figure 5.1) children quickly
became proficient and confident users by just watching and participating daily (guided
participation). Lots of what I did came from kids’ interests and projects that meant
something to them. I can honestly say the projects the kids wanted to try using
technology really made me re-evaluate or change altogether what I had planned. Lessons
sometimes took unexpected directions in response to the contributions and class
interactions (Nystrand, 1997). Most of what we attempted originated from an interest of a
child or several children together. What we did with our daily Smartboard activities
helped us later when we did similar activities on the laptops (participatory appropriation).
(Memo, January 15, 2015)
Figure 5.1
Smartboard Word Hunt During Morning Message
As defined in Chapter 2, authentic learning practices are “coherent, meaningful and
purposeful activities of the culture” that encourage students’ individual interpretations of
thoughts and quality teacher and student interactions in everyday teaching practices” (Brown et
al., 1989, p. 34). The focus is on collaboration and exchange of thoughts and ideas and
knowledge is co-constructed. The authentic use of technology as a part of learning was especially
important to me because many of the students had no access to technology at home beyond their
parents’ cell phones. The C-13 classroom was the only place they could independently engage
with technology while becoming readers and writers. As Glen stated, “My mom has a computer,
but it doesn't have internet. School is the only place I get to go on computer” (Interview, June 8,
2015).
Multiple constructs guided my theoretical stance. Children learn and develop as active
members of an ever-changing community of learners (Cole, 1996; Rogoff, 2003, 1994) and are
active learners who “negotiate their own literacy experience in interactions with others and with
a range of traditional print and digital resources” (Kontovourki & Tafa, 2010, p. 194).
Furthermore, children learn through interaction, play, and exploration (Wohlwend, 2018).
Together, those understandings lead to the creation of a class environment where students
actively engage in authentic literacy practices. In C-13, it was imperative that students
experienced the pursuit of their interests while having experiences with technology. Classroom
literacy is really more about the aptitude and capability of children in C-13 knowing how to use
the technology around them to meet both their personal needs and those of their class members.
Usually this meant working with a friend or more proficient or knowledgeable class member on
a task that you both valued and wanted to work on together. (Memo, March 4, 2015)
This literacy learning stance is consistent with Marsh (2014) and Rogoff (2003). Although
personally interested in technology, I was not technologically adept and had limited knowledge
about programs and apps. The IT department offered professional development, which allowed
me to work with teachers who shared my goal of helping children integrate technology into their
everyday lives and everyday literacy practices. Vygotsky’s (1978) perspective purports that
learning occurs in the presence of others who have a better knowledge of certain historical or
cultural practices. Learning is the process of acquiring knowledge and in an everchanging
technological world, Vygotsky’s more knowledgeable other and ZPD are important constructs for
students as well as their teachers.
As a result of the theoretical stance taken towards teaching and learning, the knowledge
generated class in the class was collaboratively co-constructed (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011;
Larson, 2014; Nystrand, 1997). Both the students and I were working within Rogoff’s (1990)
plane of guided participation, where “learning is a process of changing participation in
community activities” (p. 284). Multiple times, I was able to adjust the curriculum to allow
students to focus on their interests so they could do what they wanted to do. I provided time, and
they provided the desire to use technology in new and different ways. That mutual collaboration
resulted in the children becoming “producers of knowledge” rather than just “reproducers of
knowledge” (Nystrand, 1997, p. 80). The ability of C-13 children to become producers of
knowledge, as described by Nystrand (1997), appeared as an innocent suggestion during a lunch
table conversation.
After several months of rating websites for appropriate games children noticed that many
of the games were a variation on a theme. For example, the math addition games were
intrinsically the same. All games had a basic math problem that when solved you scored.
In basketball it was a shot at the hoop, in hockey a score at the goal. One child proposed
the thought of taking our favorite math game and changing it to a word game. Instead of
regenerating coins our game would regenerate letters and could be used at word work
time. With support from our graduate field student and Google we were able to make the
letters regenerate. The children arranged the letters in a kid friendly way at the bottom of
the Smartboard to accommodate short arms. As a class we named it Spell it. It proved to
be a class favorite and was used daily at word work time. (Memo, April 22, 2015)
During the transcription and analysis of the class activities video recordings it became
apparent that although I initiated the lessons, my role was more often that of facilitator and
learner than expert. The shared role where “both children and adults engage in learning activities
in a collaborative way, with varying but coordinated responsibilities to foster children’s learning”
(Rogoff et al., 2001, p. 7) can be considered a community of learners’ model where all members
of the classroom community are active members and leadership is shared. Although I was the
teacher, I was not the dispenser of knowledge, nor was I operating within the “deep grammar of
schooling,” which Lankshear and Knobel (2003) define as teachers being the “ultimate authority
on matters of knowledge and learning” (p. 30).
Daily Five
Research question one asked, what are the literacy practices of first graders as they use
digital technologies within their everyday classroom community of learners? Data analysis
indicated that the classroom community expectations encouraged class members to use their
personal reading and writing time to explore topics not only to fulfill school requirements but
investigate topics they wanted to explore for their purposes. For most students, this occurred
during Daily Five time.
As part of our daily classroom activities, I implemented a modified Daily Five Program
framework (Boushey & Moser, 2009) to help establish instructional routines with my active
sixyear-olds. Daily Five, although not required by the district, was highly recommended by
colleagues as a structure that allowed children to obtain and gain focus and stamina for working
independently. Instead of worksheets, or busy work, Daily Five allows children sustained periods
of choice time (Wohlwend, 2018) to (a) read to self; (b) work on writing either composing,
drawing or illustrating (writing workshop was whole group lesson at a later time); (c) read with
someone; (d) listen to reading, work/play or explore on computer; or (e) do word work
(spelling).
Students were encouraged to “write in their own voice” to communicate “feelings” or
“recount lived events” (Newkirk, 1989). Data show that students chose to write on a variety of
topics including ones about their family and family events, what was going on in their lives, and
their interests (Atwell, 2015; Calkins, 2013). Table 5.1 illustrates the personal writing topics as
evidenced in artifacts collected May through June during student choice Daily Five time.
Table 5.1
Number of Writing Topics
Writing Topics Number of Pieces Created
Activities & Sports 57
Family 35
Friends 23
Food 22
Video Games 17
Pets & Animals 13
Events 9
Books 8
Computer 8
Futures 7
Math 6
Fiction Stories 4
Nonfiction Text 2
Pop Culture 2
C-13 students cherished the Daily Five work time. The ability to make choices was
especially noteworthy. Anthony remarked,
I like to read Panda Books and I like to read cool books and fun books where you can
learn stuff. Raz Kids helped me read a lot better than I used to. I read a lot of books. I got
to start on Level I and then I went up to J and then I went to level K. There were lots of
cool book. (Interview, June 8, 2015)
Furthermore, he stated “I like Daily Five because I can write about video games” (Anthony,
Interview June 8, 2015). “During Daily Five time I can write about my friends or go on
wwe.com and wrestle” (Nancy, Interview, June 7, 2015). “I like to read animal books and
research on turtles” (Zolai, Interview July 9, 2015). At Daily Five “I love Raz Kids. Raz Kids is
the best. I like that you get points and stuff” (Zachary, Interview, June 7, 2015). Writing during
Daily Five was a popular choice with aspiring writers able because it provided additional time
beyond the regular writing workshop. “I like Daily Five because I can make chapter books, write
about video games or research animals and write about them” (Maston, Interview, June 7, 2015).
Furthermore, as the year progress many of the children opted to write on the laptops. When done
with writing, the students saved their work on either the desktop or on a thumb drive, which was
attached to the lanyard I provided to each student so they could take their writing home.
Daily Five time aligned with Theme 3: The everyday practice of conversations and
authentic literacy practices created opportunities for students to pursue interests beyond that of
the mandated school activities. Many times, the students used technology to create written
products in order to connect what they were doing in school with what they were doing at home.
Learning was connected in meaningful ways to the children’s social and cultural practices
(Lankshear & Knobel, 2004). Additionally, the concepts of literacy practices and literacy events
(Heath, 1983; Street, 1995) was evidenced as students wrote during Daily Five time and that was
essential to understanding the everyday life of C-13 and authentic contexts for literacy learning.
In sum, the community classroom expectation was that we were all equally valued
members of C-13. Students were expected to interact and engage as active members of a
community with the sole purpose of learning together (Gutierrez, 1993; Nystrand, 1997; Rogoff,
1994). Every day children were provided time to either work independently or in small groups to
explore different literacy opportunities and later share their learning. Students were capable and
responsible for working towards the goals they set. Students routinely filled the role of more
knowledgeable other (Rogoff, 1990), responsible for supporting the learning of less able students
as they demonstrated the desired skills. C-13 was designed to provide a rich context for academic
and social learning, and to create opportunities that embedded and integrated digital tools into
everyday literacy activities.
District Designated Literacy Practices
In this section, I discuss how authentic literacy and technology were integrated in my
classroom practice in a district known for its surveillance and monitoring of standards-based
student data. To establish some context, I describe district mandates and expectations and how, as
a community of learners, we worked around those bureaucratic requirements.
Central School District administrators expected staff to “to monitor and control students,
assign tasks to them, and ensure that they have accomplished work” (Tyack & Cuban, 1995, p.
86). Literacy in the district was considered a fixed set of goals that were to be attained (Street,
1995). Specific to literacy, all students were expected to gain a full years’ growth as measured by
reading and writing assessments given throughout the year. For example, first grade students
were expected to know a predetermined set of high frequency words (a minimum of 100),
achieve a minimum reading competency level (minimum competency level of Level I), know
and apply grade-level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding, and take timed reading tests
to assess accuracy and fluency. To ensure that students made the targeted progress, and to
analyze the effectiveness of the teacher (Allington & Pearson, 2011), once a month teachers
present recent data to the principal, vice principal, and the reading teacher. Scores were recorded
onto a spreadsheet. If students did not progress within the increments expected, then the teacher
was expected to initiate a remedial plan to get the student reading at grade level as soon as
possible.
High-frequency Words
Because more than half of the words children come across when they read can be found
on sight word lists (Calkins, 2013), it is important children learn high frequency words in order
to “build their reading and writing processing systems” (Fountas & Pinnell 2007, p. 201) and
“allow a child to get footholds as they move along turning print into meaning” (Calkins, 2001, p.
212). At Union Village School, high-frequency words were assessed monthly by the district’s
reading department. Teachers were required to track and monitor sight word counts of children
with below grade level scores. My less-able students felt the pressure to learn all of the 100
required sight words. Although I made it part of my practice to include some practice with the
high frequency words daily in morning message, I tried not to overly stress mastering the list. It
was my belief that children would learn the words while reading good literature (Calkins, 2013)
and for real purposes (Goodman, 1965). We read together daily, and the children took home a
bag of self-selected books each night as well as access to e-books. By year-end all learned the
required sight words.
Reading Levels
The Central School District identified reading level I as the minimum competency level
for first grade students and used the guided reading gradient as prescribed by Fountas and Pinnell
(2007) to identify and diagnose students in need of reading intervention. The district identified
grade level as Level K, even though Fountas and Pinnell suggest that Level K align midyear in
second grade. In C-13 students were only offered leveled reading materials during guiding
reading instruction. Instead, throughout the year the children had access to an extensive
classroom library of over 6,000 texts. Books were organized by the author or topic. Seasonal
books rotated throughout the year, which meant there were 200–300 new books each month.
Students also had access to the school library and e-books.
Testing
As a Title One school, all first graders were required to take mandated timed reading tests
of graded passages. The students were accustomed to my use of running records to assess their
reading progress and inform instruction, but those assessments were not time constrained. In the
timed fluency-graded reading passages, students were required to read a specific number of
words and passages to be at grade level. First-grade assessments required that students complete
several types of reading passages or face being placed in reading support for the next school year.
The timed reading tests were unfamiliar to the children, and many of the less able students were
nervous and apprehensive. Furthermore, teachers were unable to test their own students. Children
were removed from the classroom and tested in the library by reading teachers from the district.
Dramatic increases in testing (Bassok, 2016) and district mandates of accountability and
standardization (Allington & Pearson, 2011) had reduced reading assessments to fluency testing
that recorded only speed and word accuracy and ignored comprehension. The pressure risked
turning my literacy time into unwanted test prep (Hoffman et al., 2014).
In order to calm my anxious children, I told them that their reading scores were so
incredible that the administration was bringing in district experts to confirm that C-13 children
were so smart and capable. I also informed them that unlike when I assessed them using running
reading records and meaning was of utmost importance, these assessments were different. I made
sure they understood that these tests only showed how fast you could read. Since comprehension
was not going to be assessed after the passages were read, I told them (just this once) to read as
quickly as they could, and if they got to a word they did not know or could not read to just skip
it. I told them that this test did not care if you understood how to use your strategies or followed
punctuation rules; it just tested speed and numbers of words read correctly. I made sure they
understood that if you took time to sound out a word or went back to read the sentence so that it
made sense, you wasted valuable time, and your score would be low. The children actually
gasped at this information. This was against everything I had ever taught them about reading.
Sylvania showed that she understood the purpose of the mandated tests and their high
stakes nature when she said,
When you get to second-grade they have these things you have to read, and tests, and on
the test if you can read it then you say oh I know that one, and then if you don’t know the
word and then you skip it. If you get enough words you can go into third grade, and this
goes on until you go until high school. (Interview, June 7, 2015)
Sylvania’s comments indicate that she felt pressured to know the high-frequency words, to read
quickly, and be accurate or to be removed for reading intervention for the following year.
Additionally, she knew the expectation would be even greater in second grade because there
were additional sections to read, and students were required to read more words in the same
amount of time. The thought of having to pass these yearly tests until high school was a constant
worry for her.
In order to further alleviate the children’s fear of the upcoming timed test, we practiced. I
used several fluency development lessons using echo and choral reading of poetry (Rasinsky &
Padak, 2013) for my less-able children. For children reading at or above grade level, I provided a
paragraph of text at a first-grade reading level with no pictures. One by one I took C-13 students
to my back table, took out a stopwatch, and said “GO!” The children read as fast as they could.
They read with no expression and no pausing at a comma or at the end of a sentence. I informed
my children as long as they read as quickly and accurately as they could, they would do just fine.
My stopwatch was then left on the reading table with samples of leveled reading passages
obtained online if children wanted to practice on their own.
Writing Outcomes
In addition to the required reading outcomes, students had rigorous writing mandates to
meet. First graders were expected to write opinion pieces in which they introduced the topic,
stated an opinion, supplied a reason for the opinion, and provided some sense of closure. Also
required were informative/explanatory pieces in which they were to name a topic, supply facts
about the topic, and again provide a closure to the piece. Finally, students were to be able to write
narratives involving a sequence of events, include some details regarding what happened, use
temporal words to signal event order, and provide a sense of closure. Writing was holistically
scored using a four-point rubric periodically throughout the year.
Additionally, there were also district outcomes that required students use technology
while writing. Outcome 6 stated that students, with guidance and support from adults and in
collaboration with peers, use a variety of digital tools to produce and publish writing. Outcome 8
stated that, with teacher support, students were to gather information from provided sources to
answer a question. These two outcomes provided me with a district-based rationale whenever
peers questioned my efforts at integrating literacy and technology. This was how, as a community
of learners, we worked around those bureaucratic requirements and used the laptops throughout
the day instead of just writing with paper and pencil.
C-13’s Literacy and Technology Practices
In this section I examine further the specific ways literacy practices were integrated with
authentic uses of technology. The technology practices engaged in included a Smartboard,
creating the class webpage hosted by the district, accessing videos on YouTube, creating and
sharing videos, using NoodleTools to write reports, going on virtual field trips, using Skype,
independently using browsers to find information online, assessing and sharing websites, using
laptops independently, using educational websites, and using commercial websites such as
Webkinz TM and Club Penguin. These practices will be reviewed in the following sections.
The Smartboard
The Smartboard lessons were where the integration of technology began within our
classroom learning. At the time of the research, not all classrooms had Smartboards; C-13’s
smartboard had been obtained several years previously by writing a grant. At the school most
teachers rarely allowed children access to the board except for school related protocols. In C-13,
the children wrote and used the board as much as I did. One routine use of the Smartboard was
for the morning message.
Each morning started, as it did in many classrooms, with the practice of the morning
message. What made C-13 unique was that morning messages allowed for active talk and
enthusiastic participation, not just reading what the teacher had written and posted about the
specials children would attend and lunch choices. Instead of glorified digitized worksheets the
C13 morning message encouraged interaction, opportunity to share, and a way to pursue goals
and class interests. The morning message was meaningful reading, not a reading activity
(Edelsky, 1991). Specifically, the morning message was not prewritten by me. In real time I
wrote what would be significant the day in a letter addressed to the students, and as I wrote, the
children read (See Figure 5.1). Everyone participated in the reading. Thus, the purpose of typical
morning messages was to inform the “technical stuff” (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011, p. 7) while
our morning message was different and could be considered “new ethos stuff” because it
provided the opportunity to interact, experience, participate, collaborate, manipulate text, and
communicate with class members who shared similar interests within their everyday practices.
That was a new literacy for C-13.
After the message was written, the class went on a word hunt. High-frequency words,
those the children needed to learn for district assessments, were circled (Figure 5.1). Next, the
children closed their eyes while I erased parts of words, phrases, punctuation, or whatever letters
that built on the phonics skills individuals they were working on (Figure 5.2). This allowed
phonics instruction to occur within a meaningful context while operating within the students’
zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1962, 1978) and to fulfill the everyday phonics
practice recommendations set forth by National Reading Panel (NRP, 2013). Together we
recreated what was missing (consonant blends, digraphs, sight words, punctuation, etc.) from the
text. I selected the first child and then the children took the lead by selecting peers to fill in the
words on the Smartboard while others used dry erase boards. This practice was more meaningful
than working on a single skill phonics worksheet because it addressed and met the varying
phonetic needs and abilities of C-13 students and allowed children to work within their ZPD.
While working on the same text, more capable students worked on prefixes and suffixes, while
less able students worked on medial vowels, beginning, and ending sounds. Most notably this
work was perceived as fun by the children. For example, Anthony said, “I like it [the
Smartboard] a lot because you can play word games on it” (Interview, June 8, 2015), and Jay
said, “All those (Smartboard reading and writing) are happy fun things for me” (Interview, June
8, 2015). Sylvania also said, “I like it a lot. It’s really fun. Everyone gets to write” (June 7,
2015).
Use of the Smartboard also allowed us to save these messages and post them on our class
webpage or them to students who were absent or pulled from the C-13 classroom for speech or
reading support. Additionally, a post on the webpage allowed parents to see the skills we were
working on, and children could use the messages as reading passages and memories of our days.
This sharing and communicating with others to our website would align with the new literacies
and Lankshear and Knobel’s “new ethos” (2011, p. 7).
Figure 5.2
Morning Message
Figure 5.3
Morning Message Saved to Webpage for Grace
Words of the week:
Come were when of there
Dear C-13 _ _iends,
I n_ _d your help wi_ _ some seed _ _oices. When J_ssica com_s in, we will do
some planting. What you w_ _ld like to pl_ _ _? There are lots of s_ _ds to pick _ _om.
For our lesson tod_ _ you will get to plant your _ _n lawn. We will give you two kinds of
_ _ass seed. In a f_ _ days the __ __ass will grow tall and __ __ __n you will have to c_t
your lawn. Aft_ _ you cut the lawn some_ _ing h__ pp_ns but I cannot tell you _ _ at or
it will __ __oil your sur_ _ise. So, look at the seeds and th_ _ _ about what you would
like to _ _ow bes_ _ _s a l_ _n.
Similar to adapting morning message to the Smartboard, modeled writing time changed
from using chart paper to writing on the Smartboard when students suggested that I could type
much faster than I could write. The time spent on mini lessons shortened, which allowed for
additional writing time for students. We also used the Smartboard to create folders where
students made recordings of our science observations and wrote out math word problems. As the
children became more proficient in their reading skills the Smartboard was used for karaoke (a
practice suggested by one of the children) using a laser pointer to point to the words as they sang.
Every Friday was Children’s Choice Time, and students took turns at the Smartboard suggesting
and demonstrating websites. This corresponds to Barton and Hamilton’s (1998) contention that
literacy practices change and evolve as the community goals are integrated into everyday
meaningful interactions and learning. Additional detail regarding the students’ engagement in
websites is discussed later in this chapter.
Class Webpage
For the first few weeks of school, students were interested and participated in daily
literacy practices, using the Smartboard, and doing the school-mandated skill and drill programs.
Everyone was content to stay within the walls of C-13 until the students requested that our Open
House show be accessible to grandparents and family members not able to attend. In response to
the students’ stated desires, I asked the IT department if I could open a school Twitter2. Marsh
(2009) maintains how important it is for teachers to embed meaningful practices from home at
school, and my desire to include Twitter would have been an opportunity to engage, connect and
build on the “out-of-school knowledge and practices” they would bring from home (p. 216).
Despite my arguing for the potential to promote positive communication with parents’ who had
Smartphones, I was denied permission to use Twitter, and I was informed that using my personal
account to include class information was not allowed. Breaking this rule would subject me to
district consequences.
C-13 circumvented the dilemma of no access to social media by creating a class webpage
on the district server and downloading a PowerPoint show to our class page. Sierra, a graduate
2 Twitter at the time of the research, now known as X.
student from a local university, helped us create a “Who am I” section on the webpage. In this
section, each child had their picture and a space to upload writing, pictures, or video (Figure 5.4).
Figure 5.4
Guided by Sierra, each child completed their Who Am I post. Once individual student areas
were established, the more computer-savvy students tutored their classmates on how to put their
own information on the webpage. The class webpage remained active throughout the year as
students regularly added material to it creating a modified virtual “audit trail” of our learning
together (Vasquez, 2014). Whereas Vasquez (2014) primarily used her audit trail to document her
critical literacy curriculum using a public display of artifacts on her classroom wall for her
school community to see, C-13 displayed various types of learning on the class website for our
extended family and community to view. Jay’s mom commented, “Yeah he showed me and my
parents how he searches it (webpage), and gets access to the ...science videos, Raz Kids, and
kids’ websites” (Parent Interview, June 8, 2015).
Who Am I Post for Chri stian
Using YouTube
At the time of data collection, the district had strict rules, firewalls, and numerous procedures
regarding the use of YouTube videos, all of which made accessibility difficult. Marsh (2009)
reported that this phenomenon occurs in many schools. Firewall implementation from districts
and authorities prevents teachers from having the ability to “explore the virtual worlds and other
social networking sites in school” (p. 207). The Central School District’s need for control and
security prevented innovative teachers from using digital tools for learning and social network
sites into their daily literacy practices. Permission was sought to use YouTube for research
purposes through district protocols and procedures, including signatures from the principal,
assistant principal, and IT. After a lengthy period, permission was granted. I considered access a
privilege, and that access made it possible for parents to share videos and for the class to
experience and share life beyond C-13.
Creating and Sharing Videos
The class obsession with sharing YouTube videos made by friends and family began
shortly after Christian’s non-fiction writing piece “How to do an Ollie on the skateboard” was
published. Christian had been preoccupied with skateboards all year and had read every book in
the school library and my personal library to research skateboard moves. He spent a considerable
amount of time and research creating his piece and was excited to share his writing with fellow
classmates. He explained to the class that his interest derived from a book he read from the
library that was written by a student. He said, “That kid gave me the idea like that looks like fun.
I want to try it.” Furthermore, Christian was staying with his teenage cousin who also shared a
passion for skateboarding and recorded his moves on YouTube. The cousin and several of his
friends demonstrated the technique of “Ollie” and Christian practiced until he mastered it well
enough to write his “how to piece.” The day Christian shared his writing, he not only read his
piece, but he also brought in his skateboard and revealed it to the class. The children were
mesmerized. He informed his awe-struck classmates that he could prove his ability to execute
Ollie by watching him demonstrate on his board and on his YouTube video. Naturally, everyone
wanted to see the video.
The YouTube video was presented during lunch time. Anyone who wanted to view
Christian on YouTube came to eat lunch in the classroom. Most of the kids watched in
amazement as they observed Christian, his cousin, and his cousin’s friends doing tricks at the
local skateboard park. The class applauded when the short clip was over. Christian was thrilled
with the response.
The nonfiction skateboard piece he wrote was the turning point for Christian. In his
interview he said,
I feel proud about the writing I do in class; I feel proud to write a book…. to know I’m
the author of it because someday I could probably turn those stories into real books, and
they could be in libraries. I like to write my own things and when they will make me
happy in the future when I look back at my stuff that I did when like I’m grown up or
something. (June 8, 2015)
Christian’s detailed writing journey demonstrated how his identity (Gee, 2000) was affirmed and
transformed in a community of learners (Rogoff, 1994). During Daily Five time, Christian had
the opportunity to pursue his interests through extended time to read and write about
skateboarding (Rogoff et al., 2001). Already acknowledged and identified by classmates as a
prolific writer, Christian’s multifaceted identity broadened to include being a skateboarder and a
YouTube celebrity. Christian was the personification of Gee’s definition of identity—“being
recognized as a certain ‘kind of person,’ in a given context...” (2000, p. 99).
Additionally, the accolades from his peers after watching the YouTube video was a
turning point for the C-13 students. Being able to share videos through YouTube expanded
purposes and audiences beyond the of C-13 and the school. Christian had provided an
opportunity to build on out-of-school knowledge and digital practices, something we had not
done previously. Unlike research that depicts rich out-of-school digital practices (Gee, 2004;
Kress, 2003; Lankshear & Knobel, 2011; Marsh, 2005), only 45% of C-13 students had internet
access at home although every household did have smartphone accessibility. As previously noted,
Christian’s ability to collaborate, and network with fellow skateboard enthusiasts all over the
world, was the first time anyone in our class had been involved in a “participatory culture” that
shared digital video from and with communities outside of C13 (Jenkins et al., 2006). Christian’s
out-of-school digital practices are particularly noteworthy because the types of skills modeled are
essential for navigating the digital age (Jenkins et al., 2006).
Following Christian’s demonstration, everyone in the classroom became interested in
using YouTube. Throughout the semester students shared dance recitals, a karate yellow belt
assessment, and one child’s outdoor Christmas decorations, which were set to music. Jackson
was shown walking in a fundraiser, and three boys showed videos of their cars during the Boy
Scouts Pinewood Derby. Parents sent in YouTube links, which became a lunchtime digital show
and tell. Instead of bringing in an artifact, students sent videos of themselves doing something or
sharing something. This sharing even extended beyond the classroom to the whole school when
two students showed a video of their new siblings on the TV announcements. These activities
demonstrated learning was extended beyond our class and school by working online and offline,
which is illustrative of Leander and Sheehy’s (2004) concept of learning moving across time and
space. These practices illustrated how literacy learning occurred across school and home and
connected the “local” to the “global” as we shared outside our school community with family
members out of state and across the world (Luke, 2003).
NoodleTools
NoodleTools is an online, subscription-based platform designed to streamline report
writing. Students were introduced to NoodleTools following the mandated and standardized
nonfiction writing project. Rather than using a prescribed graphic organizer and writing and
illustrating by hand, NoodleTools allowed students to write what was learned onto electronic
note cards, organize those cards into an outline, and track references. Instead of being content
consumers, students were able to use a variety of tools and draw from multiple sources to create
and to collaboratively contribute new non-fiction knowledge. “We searched online and in books
to see what we could find about hamsters. We all learned new stuff about hamsters even Mrs.
Maier” (Nancy Interview, June 7, 2015). This practice was representative of what Jenkins (2006)
considers content production, because growing skills with technology were used to disseminate
what was learned to others. The students continued to use NoodleTools to write reports on topics
of interest, thus eliminating tedious recopying from graphic organizers.
Virtual Field Trips
When the year-end field trip was unexpectedly cancelled, the students asked if there was
another way to go somewhere even though the class had to stay at the school. The students knew
about virtual field trips because they had participated in one to the San Diego Zoo earlier in the
year that was organized by the library teacher and our IT support person. At that time students
were involved in researching animals and they were able to submit questions on topics where
they had not been able locate answers from the available reading materials. C-13 was especially
interested in pandas, and watched the “Panda Cam,” which they found to be enlightening and
took their understanding of pandas to a new level.
The end-of-the-year field trip was an online tour of the Georgia Aquarium, the largest aquarium
in the United States, where different types of sharks, beluga whales, and various other ocean
creatures were viewed. The field trip served as the finale of the required non-fiction writing
project we finished in May. The virtual trip provided a new type of opportunity to engage with
the world outside our classroom and experiment with new media technology. Students prepared
their questions in advance, and after the tour, had ample time to interview experts in real-time.
The ability to interact with experts deepened their understanding of the sea creatures that the
children had researched earlier in the year. For example, Finn wondered what it was like to touch
a beluga whale while Julia inquired about what the trainers fed the clown and puffer fish (Video,
June 18, 2015). The highly participatory, authentic learning opportunities in the real-world
application piqued student interests, increased student motivation and allowed students to make
personal connections to new learning. Lankshear and Knobel (2011) argue that it is this type of
social learning enables deep learning and mastery of concepts as well as tools and skills.
Integrating technology into C-13’s curriculum expanded learning opportunities for
engagement and shared learning experiences. The virtual field trip expanded the learning space
beyond C-13 into the community and the world, thus expanding learning opportunities to
communicate across time and space (Leander, 2004).
Skype
C-13’s first Skype session was to the Spanish teacher in our sister school when we needed
immediate translation support. Being able to communicate was a significant experience for our
entire class, but was especially notable for Sean, who only had his father’s smartphone
technology access at home. In my memos, I noted how he jumped from his seat and ran to the
smartboard screen yelling, “Miss G., I can see you talking right on the computer!” His sentiment
was shared by a majority of C-13 students who were in awe (some were actually speechless)
when they could see and talk in real time, on a large screen, for the first time.
Skype allowed access into other classrooms. C-13 joined up with a class from a nearby
school who were playing fun and fast-moving math games. As a result, C-13 children had several
memorable “math meeting of the minds” when games were shared in real time. Those online
meetings were initial steps towards sharing resources and what Jenkins et al. (2006) describes as
collaborating and connecting to others with similar interests.
Later in the semester, the children were missing Sierra, our university graduate student,
and Skype was used to connect with her. Emails and phone calls were appreciated, but nothing
compared to being able to communicate through Skype. The children were ecstatic to be able to
talk about class news and show Sierra all the projects they had accomplished since she had left.
Sylvania said, “It was AWESOME, like she was here with us again.” Up until Skype was used,
the students did not seem to think about the world much beyond their school or family. Once they
saw more of the world, their interests broadened. Leander (2004) states that “classroom
interactions, involving literacy practices reading, interpretation, writing, image production and
talk continually produce social space” (p. 117). In this way, our interactions with Skype
expanded the learning space beyond C-13 into the community and into the world thus expanding
learning opportunities to communicate across time and space.
After learning how to Skype in C-13, students took that new knowledge home, where it
was used to stay connected to family and friends. During parental interviews, two parents
mentioned that their children were instrumental in teaching them about Skype and other digital
literacies (Livingstone et al., 2013). “My child showed my parents how to Skype so now we can
talk and see each other” (VM Interview, June 15, 2015). “She showed my parents how to Skype.
Now we can visit face to face more often” (KZ Interview, June 15, 2015). The children’s newly
gained knowledge and technology skills also influenced and impacted other family members
(including aunts, uncles, and grandparents) as their online practices were co-constructed across
generations (Kenner et al., 2007). One student was able to see a parent stationed in Iraq, while
other students talked with out-of-town grandparents and other family members. As Jackson
reported, “I like Skype. I now use Skype at home to contact my family out of state” (Interview,
June 8, 2015). Therefore, Skype was a valued practice taken up by students and later used to
communicate with family, friends, and greater community beyond the classroom. Skype enabled
a new context for learning that embedded social interaction between students, family, and
knowledgeable others.
Getting Online Independently
As the semester progressed, children were able to use techniques modeled at school in
their homes. During interviews, parents spoke about the things their children were now able to do
on their own. These included activities such as using WebkinsTM, TumbleBooks, BookFlix,
finding favorite songs on an iPad, using browsers and conducting searches, going to the class
website, and accessing school sanctioned tools such as Raz Kids.
In a June memo I noted,
Parents commented in their interviews how proficient and smart they felt their kids were.
Kids knew multiple ways how to access class information from a phone, and other media
applications (Kress, 2003) something many parents didn’t know. They could look at kids
using YouTube in other classrooms and countries. They learned the power of Facetime
and Skype and were able to see and speak to people they knew and loved when they were
separated. (June 5, 2015)
Toward the end of the semester one mother articulated “how using technology in school has
changed my child’s life.” She then went on to express how “he could access BookFlix and Raz
Kids” and how having the ability to take home easy-to-read books at night turned her son into a
reader. Up until that point her child had hated reading and was reading well below grade level.
To foster creative and critical thinking students in C-13 did not have sites bookmarked on
the classroom computers. The students learned how to do searches and access sites on their own
and in collaboration with each other. A subtle approach to fostering the 4 C’s of 21st-century
literacies—critical thinking, collaboration, communication, and creativity. This decision enabled
them to find and access websites beyond the classroom computers when they only had a
smartphone or a borrowed iPad or tablet. They learned that once they were on the Google
homepage, they could access the district’s website. Once in the district’s website they could
move to the class webpage, where they retrieved videos of what we were doing, view science
experiments, share the PowerPoints we made for the open house, open individual “Who am I”
folders, look at previous morning messages, access library book sites, and Raz Kids.
Assessing and Sharing Favorite Websites
To expand the students’ exposure to a variety of websites different sites that were relevant
and interesting were explored each week. However, the students engaged with just a select
handful of websites. They were, however, quick to share their favorite sites (especially on
“Children’s Choice Friday”) with other teachers and students, which lead to the creation of a
rating system that was presented at a literacy night in the spring. The website rating sheet was
updated throughout the semester, and was used in the afterschool program, taped to the laptop
and iPad cart, and display in a frame in the library (See Appendix T).
Laptop Use
Having been introduced to these practices during the first half of the year, the children
were comfortable and confident using the Smartboard and class computers independently when
the research commenced. During the second semester students began to request additional time
and that more computers be available during the literacy block. Unfortunately, at that time the
iPad carts were primarily loaned out to second graders and the only computers available were the
five assigned to the class and my personal computer that I relinquished to the students. However,
the students were relentless in their pursuit to obtain more class computers.
Building on their confidence and desire to pursue the use of more technology in the
classroom, students took it upon themselves to advocate for more. When our favorite technician,
Kenny, was repairing the Smartboard, the children approached him asking “You know where we
could get more computers for our room?” He responded to their query by stating that there were
new laptops and iPads in the high school, and he thought he could get an old cart sent over to the
primary school. While not new, he was able to make old equipment operational. Despite some
technological challenges the students persevered. Frequently the laptops froze, which lead to
disappointment and aggravation. Christian said, “The laptops were so slow to boot up”
(Interview, June 8, 2015) and Rebecca noted that “If kids forget to power them off right there is
no battery left. It’s awful!” (Interview, June 8, 2015). Anthony said, “It’s so frustrating having to
log in and wait for laptops, but it’s worth it” (Interview, June 8, 2015).
To use the laptops, the children had to turn them on, type in the code “P@ssw0rd”, and
then the school code “Un13student;” not an easy task for a six-year-old. The letters were case
sensitive, and if three errors were made the laptops locked you out. But this did not deter the
students. Those who were computer savvy assisted others, which speaks to Vygotsky’s (1978)
more knowledgeable others and Rogoff’s (1994) community of learners and learning by
observing and pitching in (LOPI) approach (Rogoff, 2014). Within LOPI, helpfulness is
voluntary, and the child’s motivation originates from their interest to contribute, help, and belong
as valued members of the classroom community. For example, Sylvania said, “I help Mrs. Maier
and my friends turn the laptops on and login, so they are already for everyone to use them”
(Interview, June 7, 2015). Nancy said, “I’m good with technology cuz I can...sometimes kids in
the class have problems with the laptops and I can usually fix those problems and help them get
on” (Interview, June 7, 2015). These are also the team working and problem-solving
requirements that Jenkins et al. (2006) claims are significant for people to possess in order to
acquire twenty-first century competencies.
Moreover, the students, on their own, developed strategies for dealing with unreliable
computers. When something did not function properly, they obtained a brightly colored Post-it
note, wrote what the issue was, and placed it on the cover of the laptop. The most common
problems included “It freezes, it won't save on my thumb drive, battery won't hold charge, won't
let me print” (Memo, March 27, 2015). That initiative and taking responsibility to ensure the
laptops were operational helped with our goal of class learning and reflect Facet 4 in Rogoff’s
(2014) LOPI, where “the goal of learning is transforming participation in order to contribute and
belong in the community. This includes learning responsibility along with information and skills”
(p. 8).
Once operational, the laptops were used for the remainder of the school year, and in the
spring, the district updated the cable lines. The improved Wi-Fi made the login times quicker,
and Christian noted, “This place [school] has like a big giant connection of Wi-Fi so that’s why
we get like a giant good signal, cause this place has mad Wi-Fi and it could, I guess it could turn
the slowest computer in the world into the fastest computer in the world” (Interview, June 8,
2015).
Children had access to laptop technology all day or until the batteries died. Sean noted,
“We get to do lots of stuff on computers and we can go on the laptops, bring them to our seats
whenever we want” (Interview, June 8, 2015). In an interview, Finn explained how to use the
“Big W” (Word) and how to create a folder and save writing at home or at school to bring to a
thumb drive (Interview, June 7, 2015), and Josh mentioned that now that he would use Word by
himself because his mother allows him to use her work computer at home (June 7, 2015).
Other children articulated that since they had been using laptops at school, parents who
had limited technology at home (cell phones only) were purchasing or borrowing inexpensive
tablets from family members (mostly grandparents) to use at home. Asher said,
I used technology to write at home. I showed my cousin how to write a story on his
tablet. You can look at the list 100 [class list of cool programs to try and games to play]
and try different programs and you could download stuff and go and try different.coms.
You can download movies to Netflix too (Interview, June 7, 2015).
Jackson added, “I’m writing a lot of interesting things about what is going on in my life at home
and at school, but mostly I use the computer at home to talk to my Grandparents and send emails
to my family” (Interview, June 7, 2015). Thus, for C-13ers digital technology aligned with
Chaudron et al.’s (2018) research that addressed the ways kids use technology—entertainment,
information and learning creation, and communication.
Educational Sites
As indicated in student interviews (June 7 and 8th, 2015). BookFlix, abcya, and Raz Kids
were popular programs among C-13 students. Students also had access to a plethora of apps from
the school library webpage. Several children (Finn and Maston) with laptop accessibility also
wrote at home, saved the text to a thumb drive, and often continued pieces at school. Students
who had access to laptops at home, or those who had parents willing to part with their cell
phones, were permitted to access the district website to take advantage of the same applications
we used in school. During interviews, one parent noted how access to the class website
safeguarded their children’s privacy and exposure to online risks. “My parents would only allow
my child access if one of them sat with them. Now, with your website my parents feel safe to let
him use the computer independently” (MM Interview, June 7, 2015). Children had a long list of
websites to use that supported their digital learning and provided opportunities to learn in fun and
meaningful ways (Chaudron et al., 2018). Additionally, Burnett and Merchant’s (2011) and
Chaudron et al.’s (2018) research document how children’s everyday classroom familiarities with
logging into district sites helps them acquire competence, experience, confidence, and learn
safety procedures critical for when they use technology outside the classroom.
Webkinz TM, Club Penguin, and Minecraft
Children with computer access at home, particularly those with older siblings or cousins,
constantly shared their experiences with the virtual worlds of Webkinz TM, Club Penguin, and
Minecraft. Christian talked about how he used Club Penguin to meet up with kids from school
and new kids (Interview, June 8, 2015), whereas Kyle and extended family members shared their
cool Minecraft builds on YouTube (Interview, June 8, 2015). Several girls arranged times to meet
online to share igloo decorating techniques, thus enhancing and maintaining offline relationships
at school.
These experiences are similar to those discussed by Gee (2003), Burke and Marsh (2011,
2012) and Marsh (2011, 2012) that maintain virtual playgrounds offer an opportunity make
acquaintances worldwide extend an opportunity to engage in identity exploration thorough their
avatars and provide a chance for participation in virtual world and show “how children’s
increasing participation in virtual worlds facilitates learning about, collaboration in and
development of digital literacy skills” (Miller, 2014, p. 8).
In response to children who did not have access at home or lacked a capacity to pay for a
subscription expressed interest in Webkinz TM and wanted an opportunity to play the games, two
animals were purchased for our classroom. On Children’s Choice Friday, the Webkinz TM experts
showed all interested parties (including me) how to log in to play. After this student-lead lesson,
the class animals were left on top of the desktop computers in the classroom. Anyone could
borrow the animals to use at Daily Five time, at after school care, or to take them home, if they
wanted additional time.
Students’ interest in Minecraft grew exponentially and traversed online and offline
(Klastrup, 2008), especially when children shared their creations by walking their laptops to
other children’s tables, inviting others to see and ask for support in what they were building
while they were creating online, while chatting about building designs seen on YouTube during
lunch and recess, by reading Minecraft Construction Handbook (Needler & Southham, 2015) and
creating ‘how to’ books about Minecraft buildings.
Our class is obsessed with Minecraft. After initial castle buildings we read sections of the
Minecraft Construction book and watched YouTube Minecraft videos during lunch to
help each other resolve mining problems. During Children’s Choice Friday the Minecraft
experts demonstrated how to mine Ancient Debris to obtain netherite (the most powerful
material that’s resistant to fire or lava) and then rotated around the classroom with their
laptops sharing their expertise for those who needed assistance. Children not interested in
mining shared their elaborate builds. (Memo, June 12, 2015)
From a digital literacy perspective, the experience of using Minecraft allowed the
distribution of knowledge found online and in C-13 to enable children to fill in the missing gaps
in their understandings and seek and evaluate knowledge from others (Lankshear & Knobel,
2011). Both Marsh and Burke (2011, 2012) and Deuzuanni (2020) indicated that virtual play has
pedagogical potential as it allows for exploration and problem-solving and can encourage
collaborative learning through play and promote digital literacy.
Chapter Summary
The purpose of this study was to examine and document how first graders children were
engaged in authentic literacy practices, demonstrate how everyday interactions helped advance
the goals of the class community, and how the members of C-13 worked together as a
community to learn how to navigate the online world for their own interests and purposes.
Research question one focused on the literacy practices of first graders as they used digital
technologies within their everyday classroom community of learners.
This chapter focused on how classroom practices using digital technology afforded
opportunities across space and time and provided a way to understand the new writing spaces in
which students and teacher, as co-authors, collaborated using the technology that supported what
happens between both school and home. In the C-13 class community, this was evidenced as
children used the Smartboard to make learning meaningful and enjoyable, wrote to extend
writing opportunities by using laptops during Daily Five time, went on virtual field trips, used
Skype to stay connected to family and friends, used YouTube to share important events in their
lives, assessed and shared favorite websites, and played in the world of Webkinz TM and Club
Penguin with class members. In this chapter I described what the literacy and technology
practices were in C-13 and made connections between the data and extant scholarship in literacy
and the use of technology. In Chapter 6, I describe how they used literacy and technology for
meaningful purposes.
Chapter 6: Research Question Two Findings
This chapter discusses the findings that emerged in response to the second research
question: How do first graders use the new literacies and technologies as they develop as readers
and writers? Overall, the data analysis showed that technology for the six-year-old members of
the C-13 community was more than a form of entertainment (such as watching TV or YouTube
videos); it was a tool students used to extend and enrich the daily literacy learning within the
classroom. Students took what they learned by observing and participating in daily literacy
lessons and experimented at home and at school. The data discussed in this chapter shows how
students used technology at school (mostly laptops) and at home (mostly parents smartphones,
computers, laptops, and tablets when available) to accomplish their personal goals. Technology
was an integral part of everyday classroom activities, a practice established on the first day of
school and not something added later on. Data indicated that as the year progressed, children
used technology to suit their needs and demanded additional access both at home and at school.
Analysis indicated that the answer to the research question was that everyday literacy
practices were co-constructed by the teacher and the students. While I initiated the practice and
set up the classroom space, the flexible, open, shared interactions throughout the day allowed the
students to develop their own take on whatever literacy practice we were engaging in. Students’
interests, experiences, and the desire to create or try something new or different often altered
lessons and produced unanticipated outcomes. For example, when the district cancelled our end
of the year field trip, the students’ disappointment and interest led to us taking a virtual field trip.
This event will be discussed in more detail later.
In the following sections, I describe how C-13 students were fearless technology
explorers who used conversation and their everyday literacy practices for a variety of meaningful
purposes both at school and at home. I begin by addressing the four themes that emerged from
Chapter 4 and address research question two. These four themes are related in that the students’
willingness to explore was developed through classroom conversations and a culture of
collaboration where interactions were valued, and decisions were based on individual interests
and purposes.
1. The co-construction of everyday literacy practices was generally initiated by the
teacher and taken on by the students as they read, wrote, listened, and interacted
within their classroom community.
2. Student’s definitions of reading, writing, and technology used are limited to
standards based and what they do in their lessons, such as guided reading, writing
workshop and the use of specific technology such as interactive whiteboards.
3. The everyday practice of conversation and authentic literacy practices created
opportunities for students to pursue interests beyond that of the mandated school
activities.
4. The students were fearless technology explorers who took what they observed,
experimented with it, and then expanded on it to achieve their self-chosen goals. I
then describe the tensions between the student's standards-based definitions of
reading, writing and technology and their authentic classroom practices. The
chapter ends with a summary.
Tensions between Students’ Definition of Reading, Writing, and Technology and Their
Practices
In this section, I describe the student definitions of reading, writing, and technology; how
they saw themselves as readers and writers; and how they perceived technology was being used
within the classroom. I end with an exploration of how they actually used technology for reading
and writing at home and at school.
Analysis of the student interviews and field notes of candid lunchtime conversations
revealed that the students’ definitions of reading, writing, and technology were standards-based
and limited by what they do in their lessons, such as guided reading, writing workshop, and the
use of specific technology such as interactive whiteboards. For example, in his interview Jackson
stated, “Yeah, I’m a good reader. I’m the highest person, well me and Jay are the highest people
in the class, the highest readers reading at Level O” (Interview, June 5, 2015). Nancy also
commented, “I’m a good reader ‘cause I’m reading at a high-level N almost to O” (Interview,
June 7, 2015). Despite their articulated definitions of reading and writing that reflected an
autonomous view of literacy, most students acknowledged reading and writing as daily enjoyable
class practices. Additionally, the students indicated that they did not fully understand what
technology was. Their definition of technology was either unformed and confused or associated
with teacher activities. The student definitions were inconsistent with their everyday literacy
practices and their willingness to explore technological affordances as evidenced by the
following quotes. In her interview Rebecca stated, “I’m not sure what it is. Is it like is when the
power goes off and nothing works?” Anthony was equally confused when he said, “I think we
should have less technology because if we had too much then I think all the electricity would go
out.” Sean conveyed, “Everything is like technology. Technology uses light. If we didn’t have
technology, then we couldn’t do a lot of things like turn on the TV or anything” (Interview, June
8, 2015). “Mrs. Maier uses technology. She does attendance and that’s it” (Josh, Interview, June
7, 2015). This finding was unexpected in that the C-13 community included a wide range of
reading, writing, and technology practices that went beyond the mandated state and district
requirements.
Student Definitions of Writing
As noted by Street (1995), the C-13 children’s definition of writing was understood and
defined as a standards-based set of skills. Writing was seen as using paper and pencil and
following what was modeled during daily writing workshop time (Atwell, 2014; Calkins, 2013).
“We write about firefighters and sharks. In second grade we’re going to write on the computers,
but we don’t write on them” (Sylvania, Interview, June 7, 2015). What constituted writing was
defined by what was mandated by the district, such as the spring genre study required by all first
graders. When asked about the writing the class did, Nancy said,
In writing we do not write on the computer. We write about firefighters, and sharks. I
like what we’re doing right now is about sharks. We write about them…and this is a test.
Like we did firefighters, and we did ants so far, we did bees and we did bears.
(Interview, June 7, 2015).
For Josh, writing was “We do what she tells us to write. It’s too hard for me.” (Interview, June 7,
2015).
What students had worked hard on also informed their definition of writing and what
constituted good writing. For example, Rebecca said good writing was “leaving spaces between
words” (Interview, June 8, 2015), and Julia said, “Good writing is using good handwriting”
(Interview, June 8, 2015). For Zachary, “A good writer adds details to words and pictures and
uses lower case and capital letters” (Interview, June 7, 2015). These were all elements of writing
that the students had worked hard on mastering. Nancy went beyond mechanics in her definition
of good writing when she said, “Good writers write good beginnings, endings and use long
words” (Interview, June 7, 2015). Based on their definition of good writing, most of the students
considered themselves to be competent or “good writers.” For example, Josh said, “I’m a great
writer because I write more words than draw pictures” (Interview, June 7, 2015), and Zachary
said, “I’m a good writer ‘cause I got good handwriting and I can write in cursive and I’m
creative” (Interview, June 7, 2015). Furthermore, students thought it could only be considered
writing if it was graded, scored, and judged by the number on a rubric. Jackson and Zola
summed up their definition of a good writer when they said. “Good writers get a 3 or 4. I’m
smart, I got a 4 on writing” (Jackson, Interview, June 7, 2015) and “We have to write a lot in our
class. On our last writing I did good. I got a 3” (Zola, Interview, July 5, 2015).
Conversely, the use of laptops for dialogue journals, writing as a choice time during Daily
Five, or the Smartboard writing done together was considered part of the class’ daily practices
and was not considered writing. When William and Nancy were asked specifically about the
things they wrote about that were not mandated they responded by saying, “That’s not writing,
that’s the stuff we do every day.” The students’ interpretation of what counted as writing and
what did not can be understood through the Wohlwend’s (2011) argument that “Literacy practice
- ...are learned through participation in families, schools, and communities during early
childhood, gradually becoming engrained and absorbed as familiar embodied and automatic
patterns of daily life” (p. 13). In the student’s eyes, writing done for personal pleasure and
enjoyment was not writing because it was just what they did as part of their everyday valued
practices shared among members in C-13.
However, when asked if they liked writing, the students indicated they did because of the
autonomy they had in selecting their topics. For example, Nancy said, “You can make up your
own stories and no one can tell you what to write” (Interview, June 7, 2015), and Christian said,
“I just make up stories, I write comic books, I just write fiction stories about characters I make
up, I like to write what I do at math time and science and I do writing about SpongeBob and
Mario” (Interview, June 8, 2015). Similarly, Victor said, “I like to write about wrestlers like
Gold Dust which is Randy Orton” (Interview, June 8, 2015), and Josh said, “I like to write about
Ninja Turtles, dinosaurs, dragons, and karate” (Interview, June 7, 2015). This love of writing
about televisions shows and popular culture icons corroborates decades of writing research from
Dyson (2003), which acknowledges, respects, and celebrates the cultural values and knowledge
of what children bring from home to school. Thus, the pleasure experienced when they integrated
a wide variety of topics from popular culture into their writing (Dyson, 2003) conflicted with
their more formal understanding of writing as informed by school-based practices and
expectations.
The tension emanating from that conflict was evident in their overall feelings toward
writing as reflected in their reaction to mandated writing. The required genre writing was
tolerated but was neither valued nor appreciated like the choice-time writing done during the
regular writing workshop. After days of participating in the required first-grade nonfiction genre
writing exercises, the students pled, “When are we going to start writing again, Mrs. Maier?”
(Memo, March 9, 2015). The tension between what the school required and what they did every
day as well as how the students perceived these two different types of writing was revealed when
Jason expressed his love of writing and listed all the topics he wrote about and then later stated,
Jason, “I don’t like test writing sometimes because it’s hard for me and it takes way too long.”
(Interview, June 5, 2015). In sum, the student perceptions of what constituted writing was
informed by the traditional autonomous definitions of literacy (Street, 1995) put forth by the
state and district. In comparison, attitudes toward authentic writing practices were informed by
the classroom practices that allowed them to engage in authentic writing for self-determined
reasons (Atwell, 2015; Calkins, 2013; Dyson, 2003; Routman, 2003).
Student Definitions of Reading
The children in C-13 had the freedom to choose and read anything they desired except
during guided reading time when their lesson was based upon their instructional reading level as
assessed through the use of running reading records. Despite having autonomy in choosing
reading material, the interview data revealed that the students had a narrow definition of reading,
which was similar to the phenomena found in writing. Students defined good readers based on
test scores and district accountability levels and were highly competitive in using that data when
identifying as readers. The students also defined reading by the different strategies they used as
well as their participation in the reading culture of C-13.
Reading as a Competition
The Fountas and Pinnell (2007) text gradient identifies Level I as successful first grade
reading, yet the school district identified it as the minimum competency level for first grade
students. At Union Village School, grade level was defined as Fountas and Pinnell’s Level K.
Fountas and Pinnell (2001) state that children should never be categorized as a specific level
reader because “their background knowledge varies according of their experiences” (p. 225). Yet,
for the C-13 students, good readers were defined through a reference to a quantifiable
Fountas and Pinnell skill level. Rebecca said, “I know how to read level I books” (Interview,
June 8, 2015), and Anthony said, “I started on I and went up to J, then K. After Level I there were
cool books” (Interview, June 8, 2015). Likewise, Nancy said, “Good readers need to be reading
at high levels. I am reading at N almost to O” (Interview, June 7, 2015), and Zachary added, “I
am a good reader. I am reading high levels like O” (Interview, June 7, 2015). Rebecca and Julia,
both of whom received additional support, also based their identity as good readers on the level
books they were reading with their pull-out reading teacher. Anthony stated, “I’m a good reader
because this program has levels, and it helps me. Raz Kids helped me read a lot. I’m much better
than I used to be” (Interview, June 8, 2015). Jackson said, “Yeah, I’m the highest level. I’m the
highest person, well me and Jay we are highest people in the class, the highest readers reading at
Level O. I’m a good reader because I learned to read when I was really little”
(Interview, June 5, 2015).
The leveling of books contributed to a competition to be considered a good reader.
Students were quick to compare themselves with other classmates. Additionally, Raz-Kids
(LAZEL, Inc., 2009), a comprehension leveled online reading resource with 29 different Fountas
and Pinnell reading levels, fueled that competition. With Raz-Kids the children read, and then
took a corresponding e-quiz. Once ten books were read and tested for a satisfactory or better
comprehension, students progressed to the next level. Zachary said,
I’m a good reader because I read a lot and try my best and stuff and it’s mostly like I
thought first I was the highest (in the Raz Kids Program), but I wasn’t, and I’m on level
N in my group and I want to be on level O. I don’t know when I will get there.
(Interview, June 7, 2015)
Zachary also noted the competitive nature of reading when talking about Raz Kids. He said,
I love Raz Kids. Raz Kids is the best. Right now, I have 68 and Nancy is in second place.
That is all I like. Like you get the most points and stuff. If you read and take quizzes you
get lots of points. (Interview, June 7, 2015)
His comment indicates that reading was not his goal, getting points was. It was found that at
times Zachary did not read the passages, instead he took multiple choice tests to acquire points to
win. In their research of deep learning in digital media meaning Gee and Esteban-Guitart (2019)
identified a trend they called “self-defeating optimization” wherein people try to optimize a
short-term desire and attempt to benefit from it. In the case of Zachary, the benefit was achieving
the most points without doing the reading.
When analysis of the interview data revealed how competitive the students were, I
expressed my disappointment, astonishment, and shock. In a memo I wrote,
I have never been a teacher who provided incentives for reading or writing. My tenants of
learning are all about intrinsic motivation and learning cooperatively and together, so I am
devastated to read that a majority of my class believes that good reading is all about Fountas and
Pinnell Levels, mastering sight word lists, and competing with each other to acquire Raz Kids
points. Where is this coming from? This does not sound like the literacy practices of my children
who love to Buddy read and choose books that fulfill their interests. It sounded like a reading
teacher or the administration speaking. (June 25, 2015) The student responses and my reaction
capture the tension between the school’s and community’s conceptualization of what reading is
and my own stance. Student’s identity as a reader was defined by assigned reading levels and test
scores, which are not authentic literacy practices and have little to do with what children can do
when given time and materials that connect to their interests and experiences. This is an
important construct for future research to examine as the district’s standardized testing and the
subsequent designated scoring negatively impacted some students’ perceptions of who they were
as a reader.
Reading as Strategies
Good readers were also identified as being able use the strategies taught during guided
reading lessons. Approximately 40% of the students came into first grade below grade level in
reading skills, and their interviews reflected the strategies or the processes that they felt helped
them become a good reader. For example, Maston’s word attack processes grew throughout the
year. He began the year looking at the pictures for clues and then progressed to using a phonics
approach—he would get his mouth ready to start to say the first sound of the word and stretch
out the rest of the sounds slowly. Later in the year he developed a more mature strategy where he
thought about the meaning of the story. “I’m a good reader because I sound out the words and
when I don’t know one word, I just skip it, think about the story and then go back to it to figure it
out” (Maston, Interview, June 7, 2015). Maston’s practice confirms Routman’s (2003) contention
using pictures, rereading when text does not make sense, and thinking about what is happening in
the story are strategies teachers should integrate into everyday teaching across all subjects.
Other students associated good reading as the number of sight words recognized. Sean
said, “I’m a good reader ‘cause I know a lot of words” (Interview, June 8, 2015), and for Julia,
“I’m a good reader because I know all the words” (Interview, June 8, 2015). Conversely,
William, a less confident reader stated, “I’m not a good reader because I still need help reading a
lot of words because they are really long” (Interview, June 5, 2015) whereas Josh said, “I’m not
really a good reader because I get some words and letters mixed up like b/d/p” (Interview, June
7, 2015). Each student’s identity as reader was defined in different ways, based on standardized
not authentic practices.
Reading is Community
Other classroom practices also helped students see themselves as good readers. For
example, big books would be read by the whole class during shared reading time, and then
children would write their name on a sticky note and post it inside big book covers after they
read it themselves. This allowed other children to see who had read the book and join the “C-13
reading club.” That practice led William to say, “Good readers have their names written in the
fronts of lots of Big Books” (Interview, June 5, 2015). Regardless of their reading level or what
they struggled with, children in C-13 articulated how they much they liked to read both at school
and at home. As Sylvania said, “Yeah, I like to read and it makes you smart” (Interview, June 7,
2015). The amount they read also informed their identity as readers. For example, Kyle said, “I
am a good reader ‘cause I can read almost anything” (Interview, June 8, 2015), and Victor said,
“I’m a good reader because I read at home and my mom teached me” (Interview, June 7, 2015).
Julia considered herself to be a good reader because, “I read to my parents a lot, like every day. I
like to Buddy read at school and read to my little sister. I read on the computer too. I like to look
up cool stuff” (Interview, June 8, 2015). The data indicate that although the students perceived
reading through the lens of school-based practices, the culture of the classroom and the
classroom community-built students’ confidence in themselves as readers and allowed them to
share a love of reading with their families.
Student Definitions of Technology
In this research, I worked from an understanding of the term technology to include but be
limited to access to and use of digital resources such as computers, iPads, Smartboards, as well
as various digital platforms such as webpages, Skype, and email. Even though those digital tools
were used throughout the school year, student responses indicated they were unsure what
technology was. Some thought of technology as different devices that used electricity around the
home, others associated technology with the different devices used by teachers, or a more limited
concept such as iPads. Their understandings of technology were limited to what the adults in
their lives called technology. This is consistent with research that demonstrates children learn
about technology by observing older family members and parents (Chaudron, 2018; Marsh,
2013). Because most of their homes had limited resources, children were not exposed to a great
deal of discussion about digital technology and thus had acquired limited skills.
An example of how the students were unsure of what technology is clear in Julia’s
response to an interview question about technology use. She said, “I play games and sing songs
on the computer my daddy got me. I share with my sister. We always turn it down. We got this
plaything and you can sing and record and can do all different things with colors” (Interview,
June 8, 2015), but when asked what her favorite thing about technology was, she said, “I don’t
like the brush that they use for your teeth. I don’t like that” (Interview, June 8, 2015). Several
other students also were confused. William said, “I don’t really know about technology”
(Interview, June 5, 2015), and Sean said, “Cause everything is like technology, technology uses
the light, if we didn’t have technology then we couldn’t do a lot of things, we can turn on the TV
or anything (Interview, June 8, 2015).
Other children associated technology as the Smartboard or other tools used strictly by the
teacher. Christian said, “Mrs. Maier uses technology to go on the district website and sign in
kids” [for attendance] (Interview, June 8, 2015), and Rob said, “Well, Mrs. Maier uses
technology on her big computer in the classroom, and the Smartboard” (Interview, June 7, 2015).
Sylvania responded to questions about technology by stating, “Mrs. Maier uses that recorder
thing over there (video recorder) and she uses the Smartboard and that’s all the technology she
does” (Interview, June 7, 2015). Only two children referred to the iPads, laptops, handheld video
recorders, or any other technology used within the classroom. Rob identified specific tools,
“Well, there’s computers, and there’s phones, and there’s laptops and all kinds of technology
things here” (Interview, June 7, 2015). Olivia’s understanding differed from her classmates in
that she made the connection between technology and the ability to go on virtual field trips and
Skype with others. “I think it’s (technology) really good that they use technology ‘cause if we
didn’t have any then we wouldn’t and we couldn’t talk to people that are far away [Skype and
virtual field trip]” (Interview, June 7, 2015). The fact that only two children out of 22 expressed
an understanding of technology as being connected to digital resources they used was unexpected
because they used a variety of digital resources daily.
Technology as iPads
Students associated iPads with technology, which they had limited access to. During the
research period the iPads were used primarily with second graders, and when the C-13s got to
use them, they saw them as devices associated with games or drawing capacities only. For
example, when asked about using iPads, Glen said, “One time at the library I got to draw or play
games” (Interview, June 5, 2015). Furthermore, iPads were used for short periods, and the
children could neither print nor save what they had composed to thumb drives, thus usage was
limited to specific games and activities.
The lack of access to iPads was not an issue once the children learned to use the laptops
more efficiently. Children in C-13 discovered that although it took time to boot classroom
laptops, once logged in they had more choice and accessibility than their other first-grade friends.
As they learned to share websites, information, and game ideas from resources like “1001 Best
Websites for Kid’s,” abcya, pbskids.org, kids.nationalgeographic.com, and funbrain.com, they
never complained about not having iPads nor did they request to use the iPad cart. Even when
given the option to use the iPads, most C-13 students preferred the classroom laptops.
When we use the laptops in our classroom, we can do just about whatever we want. All
the C-13 kids made a list of all the cool places we can go to. In the library when we use
the iPads, we can only do certain things that the library teacher lets us. (Victor, Interview,
June 7, 2015)
Although access and opportunity to use the most up to date technology in the school was
restricted, I was able to use the laptops to design a space (Sheehy & Leander, 2004) that provided
opportunities to use challenging and relevant digital resources within the classroom.
Students’ Use of Technology for Writing
Flewitt et al.’s (2014) research found that when implementing new technologies, it was
critical to “weave technology into the fabric of teachers’ existing classroom practice” or risk the
technology being used ineffectively, or worse, be used as a tool to “deliver repetitive curriculum
content albeit with multimedia appeal” (p. 303). To avoid that risk, digital technologies were
slowly added and embedded into C-13s existing daily practices. Those technologies included the
interactive whiteboard (Smartboard), a student research platform (NoodleTools), the online
invitation platforms (Evite), word cloud tools (Wordle), virtual field trips (Skype), and an online
platform that connected fiction and nonfiction books (BookFlix by Scholastic). Although I
introduced these tools to the students, they quickly took control and used the tools for their
selfidentified purposes.
Smartboard Use
The Smartboard was more than just a giant whiteboard. Although we used the Smartboard
for typical mundane tasks like attendance, lunch count, and required school protocols, it was also
used for our morning message, which maximized opportunities to read about the meaningful and
worthwhile events planned for the day. We found it a useful tool for enhancing science and math
(Teck, 2013) and for a wide variation of classroom practices that facilitated an increased
participation and active learning (Berson et al., 2014). The Smartboard was used to access
NoodleTools to create nonfiction reports, to set up Evite to create invitations, to create word
clouds using Wordle, and to login into BookFlix to access thousands of fiction and informational
texts and take virtual field trips using Skype. The incorporation of collaboration, and our
willingness to rely on our distributed classroom knowledge about using technology, contributed
to new and purposeful ways to achieve Lankshear and Knobel’s (2011) concept of deep learning
and contributed to a construction of shared class knowledge (Burke & Marsh, 2013).
Laptop Use
Once given instruction on the Smartboard, children were provided laptops where they
determined what and where they wanted to write or read. That allowed the students to devote a
significant amount of their 100 minutes of Daily Five literacy time to authentic reading and
writing of their choice. Frequently they produced stories on the laptops, read e-books, or tried out
website resources. While writing, students had the opportunity and freedom to be a designer of
texts (Lankshear & Knobel, 2004) and made decisions of subject choice. Once produced, texts
were shared on their “Who am I” page with friends or family, saved to thumb drives for future
sharing, or copied and exchanged within the classroom, thus extending the literacy learning
across our class community.
Writing at Home
Students’ use of technology for writing went beyond the classroom. During interviews,
parents noted an increased interest and confidence in their child’s ability to use and talk about the
technology they used in school. Ten of the 22 parents reported their children used the technology
they had available at home to write. For example, one parent said, “He’s capable…writes lists
and writes notes and reminders to family members” (SC, Interview, July 8, 2015), and another
parent added,
My son uses a memo app on my phone as his personal writing space. Since we have no
computers at home. He writes and then sends the memo either to you or to someone who
saves the writing to a thumb drive so he can work on it at other times. Not having a
laptop at home doesn’t seem to stop him using technology whatsoever. (GN, Interview,
May 20, 2015)
Another parent stated that “Maston claims he needs to use my work laptop evenings because he
doesn’t have the time to devote to his eight-page chapter book he’s been working on since you
started reading those Magic Tree House books” (NG, Interview, May 21, 2015).
Parents also noticed that building proficiency with technology shifted their child’s
attitude toward literacy practices and writing in particular. Finn’s parent said,
Finn, who has never been a reader, or writer has suddenly developed a passion to write on
my husband’s laptop and save on the thumb drive you gave him. He can open Word,
write, and save either to a folder with his name on it on the desktop, or to a thumb drive.
He did this all on his own. It must be your influence. No one here has ever shown him. I
kid him about wearing that lanyard with the thumb drive on the end is like part of a
school uniform for him. (Interview, June 1, 2015)
Shala’s mother said that Shala
...loves to write all kinds of stories, cards, gifts. Everything she does is a story. The girls
(her sisters) write things out together. They do menus, thank you cards, birthday cards.
Most kids ask for a tablet, not mine, she wants a phone just like yours so she can access
what she wants at home. Once she can get into Google, she can get into whatever she
wants. (Interview, July 5, 2015)
Similarly, Zachary’s parent said,
Zachary is really interested in using technology and showing me what the class is doing
each day. In order for me to be able to use my phone at night I got him a tablet which he
uses nonstop. He is able to access everything on his own because you showed him at
school. My friend’s kids use their tablet to play, but Zachary uses his more to read, write
and open the class webpage. (Interview, May 14, 2015)
The parent’s comments provide insight that demonstrate how the classroom practices that
integrated literacy and technology were carried into the home. Research from Chaudron et al.,
(2018) echo these findings, confirming that children often use their parent's phones, but only
under “certain circumstances” (p. 66), and that children increase their digital activities and skills
at home when first encouraged and motivated at school.
Student Use of Technology for Reading
Whereas the student interviews revealed a traditional perspective on reading, the parent
interviews noted that at home the children did a significant amount of reading using the
technology at hand. SC stated, “Last year he learned to read, but this year he learned to love
reading. He is engrossed and would rather read than play often” and that “He’s read five of the
Diary of a Wimpy Kid books in the last 20 days. He also like to read books online” (SC,
Interview, July 8, 2015). Parents also indicated that their children were reading using e-readers
such as Kindles. DB said,
The ability to access thousands of books in a few clicks is amazing. My child can
independently use my phone to get online, get into the school site and open up thousands
of books on the Book Flix site. She is never without a book. (Interview, May 19, 2015)
Another parent said,
I purchased a tablet for my child and thought all he would do was play video games. I
was pleasantly surprised when I see he uses it primarily for reading and writing. Yes, he
has a few favorite games, but for the most part he is more interested in getting into the
class website and listening to class videos, reading all the books available. (SG,
Interview, May 8, 2015)
For some students the competitive nature of reading programs such as Raz Kids s motivated their
home online reading.
My kid likes to use the site where you read books and then take a quiz and get points. She
does it all on her own. Her reading level has really improved. There are at least 20 or 30 books
on each level, and she likes that she can read them all without needing me to help her any of the
words. I have to admit I like that too! (RC, Interview, May 22, 2015) Parents affirmed the
findings of Kucirkova (2020) and provided evidence that young children now use digital books at
home as part of their daily reading and that positive engagement with books enriches their
motivation to learn using a variety of digital books and reading apps.
Additionally, Kucirkova’s research suggests that the flexibility of using a digital format changes
the nature of reading and allows children to interact with the book, thus increasing the child’s
involvement and ability to enhance the reading experience and promote a lifelong love of
reading.
Using Search Engines to Access Texts of Interest
In addition to reading e-books or books online, the students used search engines not just
for information, but to satisfy their personal interests. That aligns with Chaudron et al.’s (2018)
research that children use technology daily at home to pursue their interests. The parents
expressed being surprised by their children’s ability to seek out and find topics that interested
them online. “I’m shocked to see my child take my phone be able to get online and get into
whatever it is that she is wants. She’s decided she doesn’t need a computer, just a Smartphone”
(GN, Interview, June 15, 2015). Another parent added,
For a child who couldn’t read anywhere near level and needed reading support all year,
she is now a pro at web searches and reads anything she can get her hands on. She is
totally into pop culture, loves and reads about Justin Bieber and uses Google, Ask Jeeves,
Surf Monkey, and Wikipedia to get her hands on the information she is interested in. (DJ,
Interview, July 5, 2015)
Furthermore, a third parent stated,
She likes to visit websites of the authors you have read like Robert Munsch, Jan Brett, I
SPY, and Magic School Bus. Her reading and writing abilities increased more than I
could ever do with her. In school with her peers, watching and learning from them and
you. She looks on your website all the time, looking for the pictures and videos your
class post, stories you’ve all written and the podcast you made. She loves bringing
school home to me and my wife too. (DS, Interview, July 7, 2015)
Children were able to gain community and global knowledge of everyday experiences as they
searched for a variety of purposes across home and school, bringing together virtual and physical
worlds (Danby et al., 2018).
Once the children were shown how to use search engines, they took and used that
knowledge to find things they were interested in. They did not have to rely on the adults in their
lives to bookmark where to find information as they took ownership and shared that new
knowledge with their peers. These practices are evidence of Ekberg et al.’s (2016) and Chaudron
et al.’s (2018) findings that identified and confirmed children’s use of search engines as going
beyond that of school purposes to “feed their interests” (p. 33). Just as the students took home
what they learned in the classroom about using technology for writing, they also took their new
reading and technology practices home.
Tension Between Student Perceptions and Classroom Literacy Practices
Although laptops and the classroom computers were used consistently, only a few
students mentioned using technology to write during their interviews. Nancy stated, “We don’t
write on the computers just yet. We just use the Smartboard” (Interview, June 7, 2015), and
Victor said, “Well, I never used technology to write” (Interview, June 7, 2015).
However, artifacts collected during the study revealed that technology was used daily for
writing. For example, Nancy, a prolific six-year-old writer, routinely used the laptop to respond
in her dialogue journal and composed creative stories during Daily Five choice time. In June,
Nancy independently wrote a fiction piece on a laptop during Daily Five time (Figure 6.1).
Nancy did not consider that writing because it did not fit her interpretation. To Nancy writing
was the prescribed official school non-fiction genre writing done during the spring writing
workshop and graded on a rubric. However, her fiction piece (Figure 6.1) was authentic writing
as it demonstrated an understanding of audience (her friends) and purpose (to scare her friends at
the upcoming Girls Scout camp out). For Nancy, it was just something she did.
Like Nancy, Maston’s interpretation of writing did not include authentic writing. Maston
offered, “I never did writing on the computer” (Interview, June 7, 2015) even though throughout
the year he produced daily writing on MS Word, used the laptop to respond to his daily dialogue
journal, and wrote chapter books at home on his mother’s work laptop. Zachary also wrote for
his own interests and pleasure but did not consider that writing. William affirmed Maston’s and
many other C-13 members assertions when he said, “Writing, you don’t write on no computers,
but like up on the Smartboard we do write. We do math and science up there too.” He added that
“We write on the Smartboard, but that’s not writing” (Interview, June 5, 2015). The data clearly
documented that the students perceived writing as standards-based material to be tested and
scored.
Figure 6.1
Independent Writing Sample by Nancy
For the first part of the year, C-13 children’s official writing was a modeled writing
workshop approach similar to that of Atwell (2015) and Calkins (2013) where student choose
their own topics and composed stories with real audiences and purposes. When the district goal
directives occurred, our writing workshop shifted to a test-driven mandate. The official class
writing became nonfiction, based on knowledge located in text, and copied into a graphic
organizer. Even though they had been writing, the children’s understanding of the term writing
was premised on that mandated writing workshop time; a standards-based set of skills (Street,
1995). The engaging, relevant, self-motivated writing the children had done with partners or
individually, and where they used technology during Daily Five, was no longer considered
writing. Writing was seen as requiring the use of paper and pencil and was shaped by what was
mandated by the district.
In my memos, I captured the disappointment I felt while transcribing those interviews. In one
memo, I wrote,
How can student after student account not mention using technology to write? You’ve got
to be kidding! They write every day and have produced hundreds of artifacts. Students
use the laptops to write the responses to their dialogue journals, they write almost every
free moment they have…before school, while waiting for busses, during
Daily Five time. Why aren’t they saying that in their interviews? (Memo, June 25, 2015)
Another potential reason for why the students answered as they did may have been the way the
interview question was phrased. Even though it became apparent that their answers did not
address the intended question I could not change the wording because only the interview
questions approved by IRB were permitted.
Summary
Each day the children in C-13 engaged in 100 minutes of English language arts time.
Twenty minutes for guided reading time with small group instruction, and the remaining 80
minutes was a modified Daily Five time where they had the opportunity to access e-books via
their laptops, write or draw in journals, or write using laptops Despite the amount of time
devoted to self-directed reading and writing supported by the use of digital technology, student
interviews revealed definitions of reading, writing, and technology that were informed by the
autonomous, school-based discourse of teacher-led instruction.
Although they had limited standard-based definitions of reading, writing, and technology,
most of the children perceived themselves as good readers and writers and indicated they enjoyed
reading and writing at school as well as at home. A review of the student responses suggested
that children may have been confused by what was meant by the term technology. This finding
was unexpected as the amount of technology children in C-13 experienced went far beyond what
the grade level, district, or state required.
Community and Conversation Creates Space for Authentic Literacy Practices
Although the student’s definitions of reading, writing, technology use, and described what
counts as writing differently than I, the data indicated that the everyday practice of conversation
and authentic literacy practices created opportunities for them to pursue interests beyond that of
the mandated school activities. In this section, I describe how two events driven by student
interest, initiated by classroom conversation, and sustained by the classroom and school
community incorporated authentic reading and writing practices supported by technology use.
Mother’s Day
One example of the everyday and authentic literacy practices that made up the
community of learners in C-13 was the planning and implementation of our Mother’s Day event.
Lunchtime conversations served many purposes, and one was my way of inquiring about how
things were going at home, something I never seemed to be able to find enough time to talk
about during the regular school time. Vasquez (2014) noted that subjects, concerns, issues, and
topics from her children often originated in informal schoolyard conversations. Topics varied
depending upon the child, who sat at the table, and who wanted to add to the conversation that
day. Issues ranged from losing teeth to getting new pets, fighting with siblings, and birthday
parties. One day in mid-March the conversation was about the holidays that were approaching—
St Patrick’s Day, and Easter, and then one child lamented that Mother’s Day would be next.
Mother’s Day was especially important the students because many lived with a single parent who
was generally their mother.
It was at this table that a conversation arose about “what should we do for our moms for
Mother’s Day?” One boy bemoaned the fact that Mother’s Day was coming, and he did not have
the resources to purchase a gift. Others at the table suggested cards, and he agreed that was a
great suggestion, but he wanted something really special for his mother. He wanted to take her
out for a meal so she wouldn’t have to cook, and he wanted her to have flowers too. The boys
loved the idea but said that would be impossible. Lunch was over and everyone returned to the
classroom, but the boys had planted a seed for a Mother’s Day Event.
The next morning, the lunch conversation scenario was recapped at our class meeting and
students were asked if they would be interested in doing something special for Mother’s Day.
We created a brainstorming list (Figure 6.2) where no idea was ruled out until everyone had their
ideas written down.
Figure 6.2
Mother’s Day Brainstorming List
Suggestions such as trips to Florida, fur coats, new cars, and new houses were quickly
eliminated, but flowers and making a meal were possible. We baked every week, so making
something to eat was a reasonable idea, and plants and seeds were part of our first-grade science,
so flowers might work. It was agreed that flowers and a treat could be sent home, but that left out
the desire to have a special meal where the mother did not cook. One child described a “Muffins
for Mom” day that her brother’s preschool class did as a possible solution.
The students thought that was a great idea, but Max (who initiated the conversation) kept
pushing for an entire meal. In response, I asked, “So if you were going to make a meal for your
Mom here at school, what meal would it be?” Parents often joined our class for lunch as a special
surprise so I assumed the students would say lunch, but instead he said breakfast. More than half
of the class got free or reduced meals and ate breakfast in the classroom, so I agreed that could
work. That discussion led to the creation of a new easel-pad brainstorming sheet listing what
ideas for the Mother’s Day breakfast.
When the discussion reconvened the following morning, the children could not contain
their excitement, and planning started before the morning announcements (Figure 6.3) After a
lengthy planning session, the menu was agreed upon: an egg-based casserole, turkey sausages,
homemade muffins, juice, fresh brewed coffee, fresh fruit salad, and chocolate. Gifts would
include cards, chocolate kisses, flowers in a painted pot, and a picture. The planning was nearly
finished when Max exclaimed, “My mom can’t come. She works!” Many others also added that
their mother would not be able to come either. I suggested a “save the day note” be sent to the
mothers, and that with enough notice working mothers might be able to arrange to arrive later for
work for that day.
The next step was to obtain permission from the school administrators. Several
representatives from the table where the idea originated went to the office to ask the principal.
Several minutes later the boys returned to C-13 with the principal, and the class explained
exactly what they wanted to do. The principal loved the plan and gave permission.
Figure 6.3
Mother’s Day Menu Brainstorm List
To obtain the help we needed, the class divided the writing tasks. One group wrote a note
to the library teacher and asked if we could use her room before school for a Mother’s Day
breakfast. Another group wrote a note to Miss Lisa in the cafeteria to ask if she would cook the
egg casserole in the cafeteria oven. Yet another group wrote to Mr. Dan, the custodian, for
someone to unlock the doors early, and to arrange for extra garbage containers in the library.
These were all authentic writing purposes, and the students were fully engaged in those
collaborative activities.
The literacy practices associated with the Mother’s Day preparations can be examined
using Colvert’s (2015) four process model of ludic literacies (design, production, dissemination,
and reception), and Green’s (1988) three dimensional elements of literacy along with Marsh’s
(2020) adaptation and modification. The skills inherent in Green’s model include “operational”
or the skills to read and write, “cultural” meaning understanding texts in the environment they
are experienced, and “critical” or the need to engage in the text to understand power and voice.
Marsh’s model of literacies informs an understanding of digital literacy that outlines the skills
and understandings used and developed in the production of text and artifacts as well as
dissemination in the micro, meso, and macro contexts of society (See Appendix U).
What is consistent, in the three models (Colvert, 2015; Green, 1988; Marsh, 2020) is that
the rhetors (the children wishing to communicate a message) were involved in the development
of an idea and the construction of it into a physical or digital form. Notably, children utilized the
domain elements of design in the cultural dimension (Marsh, 2017) when they brought classroom
and writing experiences together for a specific purpose such as the persuasive writing used to
obtain permission from the principal, library teacher, and cafeteria staff.
New lessons were created to support and develop new literacies, which included group
lessons about invitations. As part of this authentic practice the children wrote invitations (Figure
6.4) and made sure to incorporate who, what, where, when, and to include an RSVP note. The
students then noted that invitations always had some type of design element, which then became
a controversial topic. A suggestion was made that the outside should have a handmade picture
with invitation information on the inside. That idea was immediately rejected by the students,
and as a group they decided they wanted to have an official Hallmark-like cover. Although they
wanted it personal, they wanted the design to be the same for everyone.
Figure 6.4
Mother’s Day Invitation with RSVP Post-it.
Note. Black sticky note blocks the name of the school.
By this time in the semester, using technology was a daily event. The students established
some criteria for the invitation cover. Everyone had to have a part and it needed to look
professional but individualized, the covers had to be in color, more specifically, their mother’s
favorite color. After some thought, I decided to introduce the students Wordle, a platform for
creating word clouds. The next morning, I left a blank word document on the Smartboard with
the directions to type in words that best described their mother and were told not to worry if
someone else typed in the same words. The students appeared excited by this activity. They
worked independently, with partners, and in small groups. Some children added many words,
while others added just a few. During writing time later that day, they watched as I copied the
words and pasted them into a blank Wordle, said “1, 2, 3 abracadabra,” and hit the create button.
The kids were excited as they watched their words turn into a colorful Wordle (Figure 6.5). At
this stage of event planning, the children employed Marsh’s (2020) production in the operational
dimension. Students were able to use a variety of tools, personal writing, the Smartboard, and the
Wordle to create an invitation that met their criteria.
Figure 6.5
Mother’s Day Wordle
Once we had the word cloud, I demonstrated how they could change the fonts and colors
to match their mom’s individual preference (Figure 6.5). Each child was in charge of picking the
color and font and sending it to the printer in the copy room. At first, they needed a bit of
direction, but after some coaching, they were able to work independently. Those who had trouble
asked a friend for support. As they were waiting for the bus at the end of the day, I ran to the
copier and brought back the finished covers. Everyone loved the finished product (Figure 6.6,
invitation cover). We stapled the handwritten invitation inside and they left for home. This
segment demonstrates how the production cultural dimension and critical dimensions of
production (Marsh, 2020) were applied as children critically crafted the invitation including
colors and fonts of the Wordle to shape the text in a unique way specific to their own mother.
Children were particular and critical in production and handwriting the inside of the invitation
ensuring it was an artifact just right for their mother.
Figure 6.6
Revised Mother’s Day Wordle
Furthermore, the work highlights product dissemination on the operational level and cultural
dimension (Marsh, 2020), as the children used a variety of tools to create invitations that were
unique and specific to their liking and specifications.
The mothers told me they were impressed with the professional quality of the invitation
and the beautiful handwriting inside. The invitations had a sticky note for the RSVP attached. By
the following morning, we had many “yes” responses, and Max volunteered to record the
responses by placing a copy of an attendance sheet on a clipboard and making notations. All 22
moms and a few grandmothers were able to attend the event.
During the Mother’s Day breakfast, the children took orders from the menu, filled, and
delivered orders, served their guests, cleaned up, and even entertained them after breakfast.
(Figure 8). The only thing they could not do was operate the Keurig coffee machines. During
lunch we reviewed the pictures taken during the event and the children expressed how happy
they were knowing they had done something unique and special. Several mothers mentioned it
was the first time they had been taken out to celebrate Mother’s Day. The evolution of Green’s
(1988) theory of digital literacy and Colvert (2015) and Marsh’s (2020) expansion of it as digital
literacy practices informed the understandings, skills, and practices that were employed while the
children designed, produced, interpreted, and disseminated a variety of texts and artifacts for the
Mother’s Day breakfast (Table 6.1). The preparation for the event and the actual event
encouraged a sense of belonging and the participation of the mothers in our class community.
Father’s Day
The success of the Mother’s Day event lead to a “What should we do for our Dad’s for
Father’s Day?” discussion. Unfortunately, Father’s Day occurred the Sunday of the last week of
school, and the Friday before was field day, a school-wide event. When I shared this information
with the students, the children protested that it was not fair to have a special event for mothers
and nothing for fathers. Troilo (2019) noted that educators often fail to recognize fathers and
consider them uninvolved, especially if they don’t share residency with their children. Providing
an opportunity for fathers to be recognized and involved with their children was the impetus for
the fathers to have an event of their own.
Table 6.1
Literacy Practices: Mothers and Father’s Day
Operational Cultural Dimension Critical Dimension
Dimension
Design
Created and updated lists
about event (MD/FD)
Evite invitation decisions
and creation (FD)
Contacted school personnel
for permission in writing
(MD/FD)
Examining evite invitation
format (FD)
Updating parent contact
information (FD)
Identified and provided suitable breakfast
options for all participants (MD)
Created unique personal invitations (MD)
Chose best technology: Smartboard welcome,
picture taking opportunity for mother and
child, background music (MD)
Veracity and persistence in insisting Dads
have unique computer game event (FD)
Considered donut options for participants
(FD)
Created Evite invitations (FD)
Production
Used a variety of tools
(MD/FD):
chart paper
pencil/paper
Smartboard
Wordle
Created Evite (FD)
Crafted invitations selecting
words unique to each mother
Printed in a variety of fonts
and colors specific to each
mom
Crafted evite invitations
(FD)
Created and printed Wordle
specific for each dad. Given
as a gift (FD)
Chose Smartboard background music
(MD/FD)
Adjusted Wordle to suit mom/dad (MD/FD)
Worked independently to create and print
Wordle (FD)
Interpretation/
Reception
Students brought their
understanding/experience
with invitations to
creative process (MD/FD)
Used previous event
experience (MD) to make
and update plans (FD)
Evite invitation ensured
immediate delivery (FD)
Students reviewed artifacts
in pairs (MD)
Reviewed Mother’s Day
artifacts and revised for dads
(FD)
Adjusted Wordle to suit mother’s color
preferences
Reflected on and made alterations to
invitations (MD)
Evaluated games choices to include partner
games only (FD)
Dissemination
Invitation used multiple
forms of media:
Paper/pencil words
Wordle
Email
Send hardcopy invitations
(MD)
Invitations delivered
electronically (FD)
Invitations hand delivered
(MD)
Invitations sent by students
using the fathers email
addresses (FD)
Planned out most effective method for RSVP
and implemented hard copy yes/no responses
(MD)
Recorded RSVP responses (MD/FD)
Sent invitations via email (FD)
Checked website to make sure invitation was
delivered (FD)
Note: MD = Mother’s Day; FD = Father’s Day
The children asked for brainstorming time to discuss possibilities. Their experiences with
the Mother’s Day planning proved beneficial as the children were more focused, and their ideas
were appropriate, thoughtful, and for the most part, achievable for a Father’s Day celebration. All
ideas were recorded on chart paper and discussed as a class. (Figure 6.7). Evidence of
Marsh’s (2017) elements of design in the cultural dimension (Marsh, 2017) was visible as the
children brought their classroom and writing experiences to use for specific purposes, such as
obtaining permission from the principal, library teacher, and custodian. Additionally, they
reflected on previous designs and made changes as needed, which meant that design was part of
the critical dimension.
After much discussion, the class decided they did not want to repeat the Mother’s Day
event with a formal sit-down breakfast. Instead, “Donuts for Dads” became the plan as it fulfilled
their criteria of being fun and welcoming to the fathers but also required less staff. The event was
planned for before school, donuts were ordered from the donut shop at the corner, and little setup
was required. This time the children did not want to be servers; they wanted to participate.
Figure 6.7
Brainstorming for Father’s Day Event
Students used Marsh’s (2017) interpretation in the operational dimension and
interpretation in the cultural dimension as they related to their prior understanding of the
Mother’s Day experience, participated with classmates, and adjusted their plans. They wanted to
sit and eat with their fathers and play computer games on the iPads.
The invitations became a pressing problem as many of the children did not live with their
fathers, so sending a note home was problematic. Troilo (2019) maintains that fathers frequently
only find out about school events at the last minute or never at all, which highlights the urgent
need to establish communication promptly. Contact information gathered at the beginning of the
school year provided the fathers’ contact information. Instead of sending emails, the class
thought an Evite was a better way to forward information regarding the event.
Although I had received many Evites in my personal life, I had never created one. As a
class, we went to the Evite site and worked through the setup instructions. Everyone participated
in deciding on the invitation format and created the invitation’s wording. The invitation was
created quickly during the mini-lesson section of our writing workshop time. In this phase, the
children employed Marsh’s (2017) design in the critical dimension and dissemination in the
operational dimension as they specifically chose a new tool (Evites) to create an invitation that
could be disseminated digitally.
Additionally, the Evite invitation combined traditional school literacy and new literacies.
Instead of a handwritten invitation, technology allowed us to send our invitations digitally,
allowing us to connect and communicate with the fathers in a “new” and exciting way
(Lankshear & Knobel, 2011). Children were in charge of making sure contact information was
correct and selecting donut flavors to include on the Evite. Children who were not comfortable
typing had support from their peers or me. After the Evites were sent out, the students checked
the site several times throughout the day to confirm responses and kept track of replies on a class
roster.
As a class, a grocery list of juices, coffee pods, creamers, paper products, and other
supplies was created. Each child created their own donut order. Everyone wanted to create a
laminated Wordle as a gift, from words that portrayed fathers and in colors specific to the
individual. No teacher assistance was needed except for laminating their creations, which were
framed and given to the fathers in handmade cards. Marsh’s (2017) production in the operational
dimension was applied as children used various tools to independently produce a Wordle.
Seldom did we experience 100% participation at a school event, but every child had a
male representative at Donuts for Dad. The fathers and grandfathers loved the donuts, coffee, and
juice selections, but most of all, they enjoyed the special one-on-one time playing computer
games with their children and furthermore, allowing a one-hour window before the school made
it accessible for working fathers. As with the mothers, many fathers remarked they had never
been to a school Father’s Day event before.
These two events provide a glimpse into the community of C-13 and demonstrate how
students used literacy skills and digital tools for authentic purposes. Children were active learners
taking responsibility and leadership in designing and fulfilling goal-orientated events. Their
collaborative planning allowed them to share and build on their understandings and bring to the
group shared interests. Writing for various audiences and purposes, such as getting needed
permissions to use the school’s facilities, invitations, and creating lists of materials and jobs to be
accomplished was used. A variety of new and different skills and understandings were identified
as children designed texts and created artifacts (Kress, 2003, 2010; Lankshear and Knobel, 2011,
2013; Marsh, 2017) for their parents. As a cohort, they engaged around a standard set of
interests, goals, and activities. Through the planning and delivery of these events, Gee’s construct
of identity informed through discourse was observed as they displayed through their words,
actions, values, and beliefs membership in the C-13 class community.
Summary
The Mother’s Day Breakfast and Donuts for Dad occurred toward the end of the year.
They allowed students to use the skills they had learned throughout the year to engage in
authentic literacy practices and to use technology for meaningful purposes. Both events required
the students to read and write to accomplish their goals. Collectively they used technology, such
as Wordle and Evite, to accomplish things they could not have easily done without technology.
All of these activities occurred within a classroom community that valued the students’ input,
connected them to their social and cultural contexts and emphasized the practices related to
belonging and participation.
Students as Fearless Technology Explorers
In this section, I examine how the students were fearless technology explorers who took
what they observed and used and expanded on it to achieve self-selected goals. The keen interest
and fascination C-13 students had with technology and their desire to use technology first
appeared at an August meet and greet session before school commenced. When the children
entered the classroom and checked out their surroundings, they gravitated to the computers,
turned them on, and asked if I could help them find something to “play.”
In response to their interest as well as my interest in integrating technology in relevant,
meaningful ways, I attempted to incorporate technology to meet the needs, demands, and
interests of my young learners from their first day of school. I made sure the classroom
computers were freely available to the students, and before many of them could even read, they
were clicked away trying to access programs and applications. In a memo written in October, I
noted,
Kids were never fearful of messing up (unless it was to save something they took lots of
time creating). They were click-happy. They clicked away and if they could not figure
something out, they went to a friend or 2 or 3 before they asked me as a final recourse.
They were confident explorers, unlike their teacher.
As noted by Anthony, access made the students feel independent. “We go online in the morning
and can do whatever we choose. I go to wwwe.com for my favorite wrestlers. I think there are 36
play games so far [located on our class lists of fun things to try or play]” (Interview, June 8,
2015). Nancy said, “You need to go online. I use Internet Explorer or Google to find out or look
up stuff I want to know. Like you can look up animals and get a description. There are different
ways to do it. I can show you” (Interview, June 7, 2015).
The confidence the students had using technology was the opposite to how I felt. I had
limited experience with technology, and the children quickly learned my limitations to solving
computer-related issues. Because of my lack of confidence in using technology, the students
quickly took over planning how to use technology to accomplish their goals. In one memo I
noted,
My only teacher-as-expert role was that I could read when they were accessing Google,
could open YouTube, and could suggest websites about student interests from our
favorite resource, “1001 Best Websites for Kids,” and download websites and apps they
heard others talk about. “Children’s Choice Friday” took on a whole new meaning when
we added technology to the equation. Kids started early in the week planning exactly
what they were going to do. And they did much of their planning during lunch time.
Because I ate with my class each day, I was privileged to hear their thinking and assist
them learning about subject they were interested and wanted to explore. (April 14, 2015)
Because the students saw me as less than technologically savvy, when problems arose, they
either asked more knowledgeable classmates for assistance, collaborated with the teacher across
the hallway, or contacted the district information technology department by dialing 2222.
We became “frequent callers” to the information technology (IT) help center, where most
times, technicians could troubleshoot and resolve problems by accessing our computers remotely.
Students were quick to learn the technical language when they needed to convey to “IT Support”
the problem being experienced. At first, when the children called for technical support, they
could not articulate the problem prompting the technician to ask for the teacher. Over time, the
students learned how to problem solve by taking up the specialized language through their work
with a more skilled partner (Rogoff, 1990, 2003). For example, “You know the thing” quickly
turned into “when we click the mouse on the icon, it opens, but then freezes when we write or
want to save” (Memo, March 27, 2015). Students learned that technology was connected in
meaningful ways to class practices and was essential to our communication with families and the
community. From our constant service calls, the students learned the names of the technicians,
who were the most competent, child friendly individuals. The C-13ers created relationships with
the technicians that focused on our shared interests in keeping the dated laptops operational.
Learning from skilled partners such as people outside our class community, the technicians, and
the IT teacher, provided all class members with a broader community that supported, challenged,
and guided them as we attempted to use technology in our everyday classroom practices (Rogoff,
1990). Moreover, Kenny’s expertise as the IT specialist provided a unique professional
relationship wherein the children were apprenticed into the world of technology and learned to
troubleshoot and repair laptops by watching and questioning him over an extended time (Lave &
Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). With Kenny’s guidance, the children’s ability to troubleshoot
laptops and computers increased.
The willingness to use a trial-and-error approach with technology helped the students
develop a variety of tools and practices that were meaningful to them. They acquired a “fitness
for purpose choosing the best website or app for their purpose” (Kress, 2010, p. 156). They were
also able to build relationships with other knowledgeable adults within the school to achieve their
goals. Their identities as readers and writers grew alongside their identities as being
technologically adept as they engaged in a variety of technology-rich literacy practices (Gee,
2007).
The Co-construction of Everyday Literacy Practices
Although most of the students had definitions of reading and writing that tended to reflect
the autonomous model of literacy, the classroom community that allowed for conversation and
for the collaborative development of projects, combined with the students’ willingness to take on
the challenge of technology use lead to a learning environment where the students and the
teacher co-constructed everyday literacy practices. As the teacher, I initiated some literacy
practices, but through interaction with the group, the students developed their take on the
practice. This section includes descriptions of how the students and teacher used
technologysupported literacy practices to build literacy skills within a community of learners.
C-13 Webpage Takeover
Throughout the district, teachers were supplied with a page hosted on their school’s
website, and they were used to varying degrees. Before my start at the school, the C-13 webpage
had never been created. That pattern of no use changed when the students created a PowerPoint
presentation and a “Who Am I?” writing piece for the school’s open house. The students and
their parents requested the Who Am I information be uploaded onto the webpage because they
wanted the information shared with grandparents and friends who could not attend the open
house. These findings align with Vasquez's (2022) findings on the importance of including
technology and media literacies with the interests, passions, and inquiry questions of children
and their families in mind.
As a class, we viewed the other kindergarten and special area teacher websites. The
students quickly identified what they deemed important and what they wanted on their website.
The students examined the nuances and traits of other school websites, discovered what they
wanted, and then demanded that for their website. For example, the children decided each
person’s school picture and personal artifacts such as pictures, writing, and videos would be a
part of the C-13 webpage. That section was called “Who am I?” and it was modeled on the
liftthe-flap books found in the classroom. When a viewer clicked on a child’s picture, that child’s
curated materials appeared, which included a variety of modes such as prints, images, artwork,
and videos that represented a multimodal text where they controlled the content. (Kress, 2003).
Additionally, the children had access to all classroom technology, which provided them with
multiple avenues to change the content as they pleased. That website gave the children the ability
to retrieve and share access to their creations with a digital audience that was not previously
available. As time progressed and skills were developed, the children shared the videos they
created using the child friendly handheld Kodak Zi8 and were able to configure their
representation into more than one mode. For example, children would write about how spinners
worked and then demonstrate with a video (Figure 6.8).
Figure 6.8
Once the website was fully established, the children were encouraged to share their writing under
their picture. Depending on their level of independence, they could type their own piece, or they
could work with the teacher, parent volunteer, or Sierra. Although the website was listed as Mrs.
Maier’s Class, it was unique from other teachers’ webpages in that there were no pictures, notes,
or introductions contributed by me. The children created and updated the website for class
members and their families; from that very first week the students were empowered to oversee
the website. The C-13 students’ determination to control the website for their purposes
exemplifies Gee’s (1991) notion of empowerment in which members of a non-dominant group
(students) take access and control and “come to power” through personal influence developed
around the existing power structure (teacher/school). All of the decision-making procedures and
policies for what was placed in the student’s curated area were the students’ personal decision.
The children’s power to control and manipulate this space promoted a powerful literacy where
students learned how to use their writing so it could be accessed and shared in new and exciting
ways.
Spinner Demonstration Screenshot
Website Creation for Open House
Shortly after creating the “Who am I?” pages, the students decided we needed a busy day
“show” for the open house, which was the first of many events that happened in our everyday
classroom life that was the impetus for unforeseen literacy projects. The inspiration for the
project began during dismissal one day in mid-September when the secretary burst into the
classroom with a flyer that needed to be sent home that day. The flyer was the open house
announcement. As I was helping children add flyers to their book bags, a discussion ensued
about what our class might do for Open House. One student suggested a show. When I further
questioned the student about what type of show they wanted, they said a show on the cafeteria
stage. The PTA had secured the cafeteria space, so the cafeteria was not a viable option. Another
student proposed we make a show and display it on the TV or Smartboard. The class erupted in
applause. A literacy project was conceived and initiated by the children. This experience
demonstrates that C-13 had started to develop into a community of learners (Rogoff, 1994) as a
result of focusing on the interests of the children and the provision of new learning opportunities.
Vasquez (2022) calls attention to the importance of using children's everyday classroom
experiences in the classroom as a springboard for meaningful literacy practices.
We started by brainstorming everything we did within a day and who was to take
responsibility for writing up that task. We began using easel paper to create lists of what to
include, such as important details like what we were talking about during the writing workshop.
This activity took several hours. Eventually, we decided to include everything that happened
during an ordinary day and all special area classes (music, library, PE, and art).
Once the plan was formulated, the children decided who would be included in the
pictures, and I secured a digital camera from the library and took most of the pictures. The
children took turns being an administrative assistant and used a class list to check off each time
someone was in a picture. They wanted to ensure that everyone had equal opportunity to be
present in the show. Pictures were saved to the desktop of the class computer attached to the
Smartboard. Marsh’s (2017) design in all three dimensions—operational, cultural, and critical—
were applied as children designed the busy day show and used a variety of tools and modes to
create a digital show for audiences both in and out of our class community.
We also wanted the school to know what we did in our classroom every day, so each child
chose a picture to write about and was given a hard copy of the picture to attach to a large oak tag
fish to be displayed in the hallway. Children wrote their version of what was happening in the
photo on the fish cut out and wrote in their best handwriting. We titled our display “A Busy Day
in School.” Those who could type independently entered what they had handwritten onto a
PowerPoint slide, and Sierra worked one-on-one with children who needed more support. Once
completed, we viewed the show. We had created a display for the hallway with printed pictures,
our handwriting, and a digital show we could share with our families. In this way, traditional
literacy practices and new literacies complemented one another, and each served authentic
purposes for connecting with our community. Although delighted with their
PowerPoint production, the students were not content. We acquired the assistance of the IT lead
teacher, who modeled how to incorporate music and some of the video clips we created with a
hand-held recording device into the PowerPoint. Instead of just a traditional open house hallway
display technology allowed us to use a variety of tools, and modes to communicate with our
school community in “new” and exciting ways. (Kress, 2003; Lankshear & Knobel, 2011). This
activity was meaningful to the students, and one student reported, “We put videos on our
website, and All About Us, with pictures that you pick, and our writing is under it, and our jokes.
It was so fun to write what you want” (Interview, June 8, 2015).
Once completed, the show was uploaded to our class webpage so it could be viewed by
people unable to attend Open House. Children were learning how to create meaning using the
new technologies and how to share this with others. For those who did attend Open House, the
children invited family members to sit on the classroom couch and watch the “show” on either
Smartboard or a large screen. Marsh’s (2017) interpretation in two dimensions, operational and
cultural, were applied as children used an assortment of modes, text, and media to create a digital
show where all children participated and had autonomy and power over content. Parents were
thrilled with our first attempt to integrate technology into our everyday classroom practice.
Furthermore, we were one of the few classrooms with 100% parent participation at Open House.
We also received several compliments from grandparents who could access the PowerPoint show
and the “Who am I?” pages through our webpage.
Expanded Use of Webpage
Throughout the year, the web page expanded as the children requested that more of our
classroom life be posted to share outside the walls of C-13. For example, science experiments
were video recorded on a hand-held device operated by students and then uploaded to the class
website. In the videos, students briefly explained the materials they used and showed the results.
The work of the children demonstrated Marsh’s (2017) design in all three dimensions—
operational, cultural, and critical—as they incorporated an assortment of science tools and
materials to create and demonstrate their science knowledge and ability to connect to a variety of
audiences to showcase their learning (Table 6.2).
The website became a vital part of the class’s literacy practices that combined traditional
and new literacies. Including our reading, writing, videos, and classroom activities on the
webpage allowed the class to do something different than just connect with home through a
newsletter, which historically was the standard practice. The website’s purpose could be
considered a “new literacy” in that there were opportunities to communicate to a larger audience
and share classroom literacy events with parents, grandparents, and friends, thus constituting a
“new” way for the children to communicate (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011).
Table 6.2
Literacy Practices: Website Development
Operational Dimension
Cultural Dimension
Critical Dimension
Design
Co-constructed website
and decided how class
website would be used
electronically
Updated student pictures
for individual use Read,
reread and summarized
school website
information located to
create C-13 website
Contacted IT school
personnel to incorporate
music and video
Included all participants’
suggestions
Created digital pictures,
photos, and videos to
incorporate individual
class information
Evaluated which
technology would work
best for website
cameras, video,
Smartboard or laptop
Production
Used a variety of tools
to record information of
daily classroom events:
Digital/ Handheld
Cameras
Chart paper
Pencil/paper
Dry erase boards
Smartboard and
laptops
Students typed in group
and individual names
Crafted headings using a
variety of fonts and colors
specific for each class
event
Adjusted arrangement of
photos and text to suit
individuals specificities
Selected pictures and
videos to incorporate into
website and class
presentation
Interpretation
(continues)
Accessed a variety of
sources to gain
information (other
school websites)
Worked in pairs and
whole group to ensure all
voices were heard
Reflected on group piece
making changes to
include theirs and others’
opinions
Reread to ensure the
information was
accurate
Dissemination
Used website to create
open house show and
access to individual
student pages
Assembled photos in
specific order for contexts
(school and home)
Class website
disseminate for group
and individual use
During informal interviews at the end of the year, two parents noted that “their children
visited the website often and shared what they had on their personal section as well as videos and
podcasts the class posted at the bottom of the website” (JD & SD, July 5, 2015). Zachary stated,
“I look up all the things we do” (Interview, June 7, 2015). As the teacher, allowing parents
access to what we were doing in C-13 helped create a bond that I had not experienced in over 35
years of teaching.
The student’s use of technology for building community culminated at the end of the year
when they developed podcasts to be enjoyed during summer break. The daily delivery of class
jokes was part of our daily C-13 culture and started when I created a lift-the-flap big book of
Halloween jokes. The book became extremely popular when they read with a partner. Students
practiced asking jokes (and delivering the answers) to adults, especially special area teachers. As
that practice grew, a large basket of joke books was added to the class library, so jokes were
seldom repeated. The students got so good at telling jokes they developed a schoolwide
reputation, which led to them being asked to deliver a joke every morning for the live TV school
announcements. Until then, the second graders had always had total control over announcements.
Students loved their jokes, so it was no surprise when on one of the last days of school,
some of the boys asked if they could record and upload jokes to our class website so that they
could always laugh. The boys requested that only voices, not videos, be recorded. A podcast
format was suggested by Shala, whose older sister listened to podcasts. As a class, they decided
they wanted everyone to deliver a different joke. The children selected their jokes, practiced, and
signed their names to the Smartboard when they were ready to record their jokes. No outside
help was available, so C-13 members created the podcast on their own. Vasquez's (2022) research
on kids doing weekly podcasts aligned with my findings that the children’s curiosity regarding
podcasts led to creating one that met their specific interests.
YouTube was searched for technical assistance during lunch, and hundreds of videos on
creating podcasts were discovered. However, the one titled “How to Create a Podcast for
Dummies” resonated with the students and their hesitant teacher. Davidson et al. (2014, 2016,
2017) corroborate how together teachers and children make meaning by watching video clips on
YouTube and creating shared understandings in everyday contexts.
In less than a lunch period, the class learned what had to be done. I was neither the
ultimate authority nor the knowledge holder (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003), which became
apparent throughout the creation of the podcast. I acknowledged early in the process that the
children knew more than I did, and we needed to work together to be successful and then quickly
transitioned into Vygotsky’s (1978) more knowledge other. Audacity (an audio recording
program) was downloaded to the best laptop, and an external microphone was added so that
moving from person to person was easy. Our learning was co-instructed through group
participation in our routine everyday classroom practices (Rogoff, 1994), where I served as the
facilitator and shared the lead with my class (Rogoff, 2001). In line with Rogoff's (1994)
community of learners model the podcast creation demonstrated how learning was coconstructed,
leadership and expertise was shared, and how the curriculum focused on the interests of the
children. The following excerpts illustrate some of the excitement and pleasure the children took
at creating the podcast.
Jackson: “Hang on, hang on...I’ve not seen this one before. You ready? Why is a fly
swatter like a baseball bat?
Josh: Because you hit it
Jackson: You are close...They both hit flies. Ok Josh you call the next person.
Josh: Ok Finn go, but you’ve got to read loud so we can hear you
Finn: Why didn’t the crab share his toys with his little brother?
Asher: Because he had claws.
Finn: Nope, I call Maston.
Maston: Because he never wanted to play with is little brother.
Finn: No Anybody else?
Maier: Please give us the answer... Why didn’t the crab share his toys with his little
brother?
Finn: Because he was shellfish. Get it? Instead of selfish?
The podcast was uploaded to the webpage, and over the summer, I received several emails from
parents and grandparents thanking me for the great jokes. One parent, DJ, said his daughter
“enjoyed the jokes and listened to them all summer long” (Interview, July 5, 2015).
Students Took Over Home/teacher Communication. At the beginning of the school
year, all parents were given my cell phone number and encouraged to contact me outside of the
regular school hours if and when they had questions or concerns. Parents texted when they were
confused about homework assignments or wanted to share information. Although parents could
have left a voicemail on the school phone, most used my personal cell number. Those efforts
were consistent with Vasquez’s (2014) suggestion that “maintaining ongoing dialogue and
communication was a critical component” (p. 31) of home-to-school relations.
Early in the year, the children learned how to grab their parent’s phone and text me a
message or emojis, and I did not discourage them from doing so. After one of the students shared
a video of himself doing skateboard tricks, other children also wanted to share quick videos. That
ability to connect and share digitally across our diverse communities is the skill Jenkins (2006)
identified as necessary for children to acquire so they can navigate in the digital age. Through my
cell phone, I observed soccer scores, homeruns, church singing solos, first dives off the board,
sledding, and the first time riding a bike with no training wheels. The practice of sharing videos
via text expanded to computers and emails. Jackson sent a picture of his new fish and pictures of
his family participating in a funding raising walk. Even grandparents joined in and sent videos or
pictures of family events. Sharing those special private everyday moments made me feel like part
of an extended family rather than just a teacher. That ability to share a glimpse into the lives of
students and their family literacies made me fully appreciate the rich cultural repertoires
(Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003) my students brought to our C-13 community. It expanded the
traditional ways we typically build community at school and created a new sharing space for C-
13. The practice of sharing pictures and videos also extended into the classroom. Lunch in the
classroom served as a time to share videos from home, such as YouTube videos of the Pinewood
Derby cars they had created with their parents (Jenkins, 2006). It was clear from their stories that
the children’s desire to communicate, collaborate, interact, exchange, and share their interests
online with me was a significant first step to becoming part of what Jenkins (2006) calls a
participatory culture. It allowed for the everyday events children participated in to be shared in
new, creative, and exciting ways of the world around them. Additionally, this addresses
Lankshear and Knobel’s “new ethos stuff” (2007, p. 9), which allows for the use of literacies as
part of students’ everyday literacies.
Whereas the classroom webpage connected what was going on in school with home, the
sharing of videos, whether through texting, email, or jointly watching on YouTube during lunch,
served to connect what the children were doing at home with school. This two-way
communication using technology built a community that went beyond the walls of C-13.
Students as Researchers. After the school-wide grade-level writing assessments, the
building administrators noted that all first-grade classes had low scores in nonfiction writing and
mandated that all teachers focus for one month on the nonfiction genre using one model. That
model involved reading a short nonfiction book, complete a graphic organizer with multiple
iterations, and write a standardized report. At first, the students followed the prescribed plan, but
after a while, they protested and inquired when we would start writing again. Glen was the most
vocal in protesting. He said, “I like to write about sharks and hummingbirds and the firefighters,
but I don’t like this [prescribed nonfiction] writing because it’s too hard and too long” (Interview,
June 8, 2015). Josh expressed his frustration about following specific rules for nonfiction writing
and, when asked about the nonfiction writing project, said, “Actually, I don’t like nothing about
it. All you do is just write words and copy” (Interview, June 7, 2015). As a teacher committed to
authentic writing practices, I felt their pain. A modified writing plan, more suited to their needs,
was initiated. The mandated writing focused producing a finished product, rather than a Rogoff’s
(1994) community of learners’ model, where instruction focuses on the process and the teacher
guides the children while supporting their attempts. In a community of learners, students can take
learning risks and work at a level that is challenging but within their reach with support.
A colleague from the National Writing Project introduced me to a program called
NoodleTools that she used with high school students. Once installed, the children and I worked
through the process of learning NoodleTools together and wrote a nonfiction report. Wherever
we used technology, it was a group effort where everyone contributed as best they could, which
was evidenced by our struggle to use NoodleTools for research study on hamsters. The following
excerpt from a video clip, evidenced how group knowledge and expertise was negotiated, as per
Rogoff (2001), to achieve our goal of creating a class collaboration list with children’s group
names, research questions, and information sources.
Maier: OK, ...I think it’s public view we should select.
Student: Shouldn’t it be sharing project?
Maier: Hmmm...Yep, we’re going to share project.
Maier: So now we need to add and remove students. Can you each take turns and type
your names in? (After several names are typed in). Hmm, why can’t we get more names
added?
Student: You may need to slide this down over her. Want me to try?
Maier: Sure, go for it. But now we can’t view the new names.
Student: Try placing your cursor over here? Let me try.
Maier: Ok, good save. There we go! Oh, no now we have several children’s name twice.
(After several more names added)
Student: I think if go back to project I think you can go down and make changes. Want
me to try?
Maier: Good thinking! Let’s remove all double names then.
Student: Hit save project before you do the next part.
Maier: Yep, you are right. Now what do hamsters eat...that’s our first subtopic, where
does it say to save?
Student: Maybe you drag it over to this spot?
Maier: Ok, give it a try. Yep, that’s it. Now we can add our next one. Alright new note
card, right? Okay, so we have to put a note card, continue? Yes, we want to continue.
Student: Mrs. Maier, we need something else, like what do they (hamsters) eat.
Student: We need how they move.
Student: Save it before you type more questions, or it may… Student:
Wait, I got one more maybe two. Can they go over here?
Student: Wait, let’s do another one. Like how they do hamster tricks.
Maier: Alright let’s see what we’ve got in our notecards. Ok let’s save it. Now for the
next part, move over to this area. Now is the research part. This is where you and a
partner are going to look through the materials to see if you can find your answers.
Student: Can we Google search and Ask Jeeves for lists of food hamsters eat?
Student: I found a book Mrs. Maier. I can show everybody where I found this answer. As
this excerpt shows, the students took control of the technology by offering advice and at times,
saying, “let me try.” Leadership was shared through our joint efforts in learning to use
NoodleTools, and learning was co-constructed, social, and mediated through responsive and
collaborative discourse (Gutierrez, 1993), which was characterized by flexible occurrences of
student-student topic expansion and teacher-student questions where there were no known
answers. The project was made possible through the use of new digital technology (NoodleTools)
and new classroom practices (Lankshear & Knobel, 2010) that incorporated collaboration and
information sharing.
In my memo, I noted,
My class knew which kids understood technology, and it wasn’t always the ‘smart kids.’
Often, expertise in technology had nothing to do with academic ability. Finn, who was
painfully shy and found reading challenging, was one our best troubleshooters. He was
confident when it came to anything dealing with Smartboards, tutoring others, or saving
items to flash drives. He also was our ‘go-to person’ when it came to issues working
through NoodleTools. (June 10, 2015)
After completing the mandated genre project, the class picked their own topic, and I
gathered appropriate literature, websites, and e-books. As a class, we wrote a research question
and then divided the class into interest groups to locate and report on findings. The children
worked in pairs and small groups. Findings were recorded onto notecards created on
NoodleTools. Once the note cards were produced, NoodleTools was used to arrange them in the
agreed upon order. With a few clicks, the program created a neat report complete with references.
The students appeared to enjoy the process, and as Victor noted, “This [NoodleTools] is really
fun, and I like to do it!” (June 7, 2015). As students selected a research topic (hamsters) and used
a variety of tools, such as books, websites, and search engines, they effectively employed all
three domain elements of design in the operational, cultural, and critical dimensions as identified
by Marsh (2017) (Table 6.3). Students choose NoodleTools to record and disseminate the
finished report.
Furthermore, working interpretation in the operational and cultural dimensions (Marsh,
2017) was noted as children worked in pairs and small groups and carefully selected specific
modes, media, text, and web-based materials to answer the different types of questions they
posed. Prior knowledge and class experiences with our pet hamsters allowed analysis and
interpretation at a higher level than gathering basic facts.
Like all the other first-grade classes, my students were held accountable for the writing
assessment prescribed. They could fill out the graphic organizer successfully, and they created a
written piece that fulfilled the standards-based writing assessment. The difference I saw between
what the students in C-13 were able to accomplish compared to the other first-grade classes was
that nonfiction writing did not end once the mandated nonfiction project was over. My students
continued to write nonfiction reports throughout the rest of the year with their peers because they
loved learning about animals and liked having a professional-looking report when they were
finished. As Maston said, “You get to learn new writing” (Interview, June 7, 2015).
Table 6.3
Literacy Practices: NoodleTools
Operational Dimension
Cultural Dimension
Critical Dimension
Design
Determined topics and
materials to be used
(digital and books)
Updated research sites
available
Read, reread and
summarized information
located in books and
online
Contacted high school
personnel for site
permission and license
Included all participants’
research suggestions
Created note cards to
incorporate the data
Chose appropriate
technology to collect
research on Smartboard
and laptops
Production
Used a variety of tools
to obtain and record
information: chart paper
pencil/paper dry erase
boards
Smartboard and laptops
Students typed in group
names and information
Crafted and printed
headings in a variety of
fonts and colors specific
for each notecard
Adjusted notecards to
suit individual order
preferences
Chose videos to
incorporate into Noodle
presentation
Interpretation
Accessed a variety of
sources to gain
information
Able to relate to
previous research reports
Reread to ensure the
information is accurate
Worked in pairs and
whole group depending
upon interests
Reflected on team’s
piece making changes to
reflect others’ opinions
Dissemination
Used note cards within
NoodleTools to create
report and disseminate to
webpage or individual
student pages
Assembled notecards in
specific order for report
for diverse contexts
(school and home)
Checked site for ways to
disseminate for group
and individual use
In sum, the teacher and the students co-constructed the everyday literacy and technology
practices of C-13. Even though I introduced the students to the literacy activity and the
technology, they quickly took ownership of both. That ownership was evident in how they
managed the C-13 webpage, created the end-of-the-year podcast, used their parents’ cell phones
and email accounts to communicate with me, and used NoodleTools to make nonfiction writing a
task that interested and was meaningful to them.
Children learned as they participated in a community where group knowledge and
expertise was expected and celebrated. Evidence is seen through the collaboration fostered with
NoodleTools and the creation of podcasts. As the children became more confident and competent
with technology, their desire to communicate, collaborate, interact, exchange, and share
increased. The class website provided authentic opportunities to communicate with a large
audience, share classroom literacy events, and make connections to home. Literacy events,
designed with the interests of children in mind, were shared with family members.
Summary of Findings
In this section, I have provided a summary of the findings and revisited the research
questions that guided this ethnographic case study, which examined how first-grade children
used technology in meaningful and authentic ways within their everyday school literacy
practices. I discussed in detail how young children used digital tools to engage in authentic
literacy practices, the role of technology played in this classroom, and how I, as the teacher, set
up learning conditions where children learned to navigate the online world for their interests and
purposes. In addition, I demonstrated how working together in everyday interactions, helped
advance the goals of the class community.
The findings discussed in this chapter and in the previous chapter focused on how
classroom practices using digital technology afforded opportunities across space and time and
provided a way to understand the new writing spaces in which students and the teacher as
coauthors collaborated using the technology that supported what happens between both school,
home and globally. Chapter 5 addressed research question one, and Chapter 6 addressed research
question two.
Research question one asked, what are the literacy practices of first graders as they use
digital technologies within their everyday classroom community of learners? Analysis indicated
that the classroom community expectations encouraged class members to extend writing
opportunities and use their personal reading time during Daily Five to explore topics not only to
fulfill school requirements but investigate topics they wanted to explore for their purposes.
Students wrote using laptops and in paper journals about their family and family events, what
was going on in their lives, and popular culture. Writing was their way of actively connecting
with other class members, family members, and friends.
Data also revealed that classroom practices using digital technology provided ways for
the students and teacher to collaborate, which supported connections between school, home, and
the world at large. Those connections were evidenced as children used the Smartboard to make
learning meaningful and enjoyable, participated in virtual field trips, used Skype to stay
connected to family and friends, and assessed and shared favorite websites with class members
and the school community.
These findings also show how the C-13 class created a community where the
expectations were that of equal partners learning together. Learning expectations within the
community were demonstrated through lessons where students interacted, engaged, helped, and
shared expertise as they participated in their daily literacy events and where children took on
classroom practices modeled by the teacher and fellow classmates. In sum, the classroom
environment allowed flexibility, which ultimately created new learning opportunities for both the
teacher and students.
The findings showed that the students were active members of a community that engaged
in digital technologies in meaningful and motivating ways. Decisions were often made
collectively based on specific student interests and goals. Digital tools were seamlessly and
routinely embedded in the everyday classroom practices. As students gained digital proficiencies,
they shared their knowledge at school, at home, and with peers. Many parents took the
opportunity to support their child’s technology use at school by extending the learning
experiences so that children could explore, create, and build on their digital expertise at home.
Research question two asked, how do first graders use the new literacies and technologies
as they develop as readers and writers? Data analysis showed that technology was a tool used to
extend and enrich daily literacy learning within the classroom and to communicate with broader
audiences for specific purposes. Students took what they learned and experimented with it at
home and school. Specifically, they used technology at school and at home to accomplish their
personal goals.
Furthermore, everyday literacy practices were co-constructed by the teacher and the
students. Students’ interests, experiences, and desire to create or try something new or different
often altered lessons and produced unanticipated outcomes. Overall, four related themes emerged
that showed that the students’ willingness to explore was developed through classroom
conversations and a culture of collaboration where interactions were equally valued, and
decisions were based on an individual’s interests, purposes, and goals.
These themes included:
1. The co-construction of everyday literacy practices was generally initiated by the
teacher and taken on by the students as they read, wrote, listened, and interacted
within their classroom community.
2. Student’s definitions of reading, writing, and technology used are limited to standards
based and what they do in their lessons, such as guided reading, writing workshop
and the use of specific technology such as interactive whiteboards.
3. The everyday practice of conversation and authentic literacy practices created
opportunities for students to pursue interests beyond that of the mandated school
activities.
4. The students were fearless technology explorers who took what they observed,
experimented with it, and then expanded on it to achieve their self-chosen goals.
The four themes illustrate the dynamic learning community created in C-13, where
students could use technology to collaborate and extend their learning in new and innovative
ways, which ultimately enriched the daily literacy learning within the classroom and extended to
home. In the final chapter, I provide conclusions and implications for future research and
classroom practice and specifically address the implications for elementary classroom teachers
and their practices. I will also discuss the implications for education policy and make
recommendations for parents.
Chapter 7: Conclusions and Implications
This ethnographic case study aimed to understand how first graders used digital
technology in their daily literacy practices. It examined what children did at the nexus of
traditional print-based reading, writing, 21st-century literacies, and digital tools practices that
supported collaboration, creation, and sharing of digital communications with audiences within
and beyond the classroom. Central to this study was how digital technology afforded
opportunities across time and space and provided a way to understand new writing spaces in a
standards-based classroom where teachers and students collaborated using technology that
supported what happened in and between school and home. Also, the study provided insight into
how children’s digital practices at school influenced communication between school to home and
home to school.
In particular, the study focused on documenting the role of technology in early childhood
classrooms, the role of the teacher in setting up learning conditions where children navigate the
online world for their interests and purposes, and how working together in everyday interactions
helps advance the goals of the class community and influenced children’s everyday lives. This
study of 22 energetic first graders evidenced how, working as a class community of learners, we
could work around the bureaucratic requirements of district expectations, curriculum pressures,
and accountability of student scores to integrate technology in meaningful and authentic ways.
In the remainder of this chapter, I review the key and unexpected findings, discuss their
significance, make connections, and address the gaps in the established digital literacy literature
and theory, and draw conclusions framed by the research questions. (1) What are the literacy
practices of first graders as they use technology within their everyday classroom community of
learners? (2) How do first graders use technologies as they develop as readers and writers with a
new literacies paradigm? This chapter concludes with an epilogue, recommendations specific to
the stakeholders at Union Village Elementary School, and my final observations.
Summary of Key Findings
Research Question One
Chapter 5 addressed research question one and examined the everyday literacy practices
that were co-constructed by C-13 and how, as a community of learners, we integrated technology
in meaningful and authentic ways to pursue interests and expand learning opportunities beyond
those mandated school activities. Technology was integrated into the everyday literacy practices
through:
•going on virtual field trips,
•using Skype,
•using a Smartboard,
•creating the class webpage hosted by the district,
•accessing, creating, and sharing videos on YouTube,
•using NoodleTools to write reports,
•independently using browsers to find information online,
•accessing and sharing websites,
•using laptops and iPads independently,
•using educational and commercial websites such as Webkinz TM, Club Penguin,
and Minecraft.
Integrating technology into C-13 everyday curriculum expanded learning opportunities
for engagement and shared learning experiences. Although virtual field trips are commonplace
now, at the time, the virtual field trip provided a new type of opportunity for C-13 students to
engage the world outside our classroom and experiment with new media literature. After the
virtual tour, I arranged for students to interview experts from the aquarium in real time. Besides
deepening students’ understanding of sea creatures, the ability to interact expanded our learning
space beyond C-13 into the world. Those expanded learning opportunities allowed the students to
communicate across time and space (Leander, 2004). Additionally. Lankshear and Knobel (2011)
would argue that this highly participatory authentic learning experience to real-world application
enabled deep learning and helped them make connections to new learning.
The children in C-13 were unaware of using technology for communication until they
experienced it in the classroom. Skype allowed us to communicate across time and space
(Leander, 2004) and was another way for our learning to expand beyond the C-13 learning space
and into the community and world. Being able to communicate in real time was a significant
experience for most C-13’s who had little or no technological access at home. Additionally, our
“math meeting of the mind” with another school was the first step towards sharing resources and
what Jenkins et al. (2006) describe as collaborating and connecting to others with similar
interests.
Skype was a new context for learning that enabled social interaction between students,
family, and knowledgeable others. Parent interviews mentioned that their children were
instrumental in teaching them about Skype and other digital literacies, such as Evites, supporting
Livingstone et al.’s (2013) findings. The children’s technological skills influenced and impacted
other family members (including aunts, uncles, and grandparents) as online practices were
coconstructed across generations (Kenner et al., 2007).
Smartboard morning message lessons were where the integration of technology and
community building first began in C-13. Morning Message, although not new to educational
practice, was unique and authentic in that it allowed and encouraged interaction, the opportunity
to share, and a way to pursue goals and class interests while fostering active talk and
participation. The knowledge generated in the class was collaboratively co-constructed
(Lankshear & Knobel, 2011; Larson, 2014; Nystrand, 1997).
C-13’s use of Smartboard during the morning message was consistent with Rogoff’s
research (1994, 2001, 2003), which positioned children as members of a community where
learning occurs through joint participation in three planes—apprenticeship, guided participation,
and participatory appropriation. Also, literacy practices on the Smartboard incorporated
meaningful phonics lessons operating within students’ zone of proximal development (Vygotsky,
1962, 1978), allowing the practice to address the varying phonetic needs of C-13 students. Most
morning messages were saved and posted to the class webpage. The sharing and communicating
with others on our website aligned with the new literacies and Lankshear and Knobel’s “new
ethos” (2011, p. 7) concept. Integrating the new literacies into the morning message highlights
how the traditional and elements of new ethos can be supported and expanded into
standardsbased practice and contribute to improving literacy practice. Furthermore, the use of the
Smartboard contributed to new and purposeful ways to achieve Lankshear and Knoble’s (2011)
concept of “deep learning” and the construction of shared class knowledge (Burke & Marsh,
2013).
The everyday authentic literacy practices created opportunities for students to pursue
interests beyond that of mandated school activities. Data analysis illustrated that the community
classroom expectations encouraged class members to use personal reading and writing time
during Daily Five to explore topics not only to fulfill school requirements but also to investigate
topics they wanted to explore for their own purpose. During the Daily Five time, children had
100 minutes of English Language Arts time, twenty minutes for guided reading small group
instruction, and the remaining 80 minutes to read or access e-books on laptops, work on writing
or exploring on the computer, and then share their learning. Writing was especially popular
during Daily Five time for aspiring writers as it provided additional time outside the regular
writing workshop. The data showed that students chose to write on a variety of topics, including
family events and personal interests (Atwell, 2015; Calkins, 2013). Writing was C-13’s way to
connect to family, friends, and classmates. As the year progressed, most children opted to write
using laptops and saved their work to a thumb drive, which was attached to the lanyards provided
to each student so they could take their writing home. Hundreds of written artifacts and interview
statements indicated that the student’s love of writing corroborated decades of research from
Dyson (2003), which acknowledges, respects, and celebrates the cultural values and knowledge
the children bring from home to school.
As indicated in the C-13 interviews, students had access to a large number of apps,
games, and websites usage during Daily Five time. On Children Choice Friday’s and on School
Literacy Nights the C-13 students demonstrated and taught others how to use those resources and
rated them by a rubric of their own creation. This practice supported their digital learning and
provided opportunities for us to share with classmates and the entire school in fun and
meaningful ways.
Noteworthy was how students’ interests grew exponentially and traversed online and
offline (Klastrup, 2008) once Minecraft was shared on Children’s Choice Friday. Interestingly,
children shared their Minecraft constructions by taking their laptops to ask classmates for support
while they were building online. Marsh and Burke (2011, 2012) and Deuzuanni (2020)
acknowledge that virtual play has pedagogical potential as it allows for exploration, problem-
solving, and encourages collaborative learning. Additionally, this study’s findings align with
Chaudron et al.’s (2018) research that addressed the ways children use technology for
entertainment, information and learning, creation, and communication. Learning was connected
in meaningful ways to the children’s social and cultural practices (Lankshear & Knobel, 2004).
Moreover, this study underscores the importance of allowing children ownership of their learning
by allowing time to learn from each other. Coiro (2015) reminds teachers that “helping students
learn to satisfy their own curiosity gradually empowers them to tackle complex problems they
will face in our rapidly changing digital world” (p. 192).
Research Question Two
Chapter 6 addressed research question two and discussed how students used technology
at school (mostly laptops) and at home (primarily parents’ Smartphones, computers, work
laptops, and tablets when available) to accomplish their personal goals. Technology was an
integral part of our everyday activities, and as the year progressed, students demanded additional
access both at school and at home. C-13 students loved using technology and were fearless
explorers who took what they observed, experimented with it, and then expanded on it to achieve
their self-selected goals. Technology for C-13 members was more than a form of entertainment;
it was a tool students used to extend and enrich their daily literacy practices.
This study acknowledged how children increased their digital reading practices at home
when first motivated and encouraged at school. Parent interviews affirmed the findings of
Kucirkova (2020) that digital books are an intrinsic part of children’s daily reading and that using
Scholastic’s Book Flix at school motivated their child to use a variety of digital books and
reading apps at home independently. All parents noted that digital books increased the reading
experience and promoted a love of reading.
In addition to reading e-books, parents acknowledged how their children used search
engines not just for information but to satisfy personal interests. Once children learned how to
use search engines either by accessing a laptop, iPad, or Smartphone they no longer needed
adults to bookmark where to find information; they independently took ownership of their
learning. These practices align with Chaudron et al.’s (2018) research that daily children use
technology at home to pursue their interests and Danby et al.’s (2018) findings that children gain
community and global knowledge when they search for a variety of purposes across home and
school, bringing together virtual and physical worlds.
The study’s findings also revealed that students were active members of an ever-changing
community of learners (Cole, 1996; Rogoff, 2003) that engaged in digital technologies in
meaningful and motivating ways within their everyday school literacy practices. They
“negotiated their own literacy experiences with others and with a range of traditional print and
digital resources” (Kontovourki & Tafa, 2010, p. 194). In C-13, decisions were often made
collectively based on student interests and goals. NoodleTools, an online, subscription-based
platform to streamline report writing, was employed after students were exasperated when using
a traditional graphic organizer that required laborious and tedious recopying.
Group knowledge and expertise was negotiated, (Rogoff, 2001) and leadership shared
through our joint efforts as C-13 members worked together creating a non-fiction research
writing project using NoodleTools. Students placed information on NoodleTools electronic
notecards, organized them into an outline, and later compiled them into a report. Instead of being
content consumers, students used a variety of tools from multiple sources to create and
collaboratively contribute to new non-fiction knowledge (Jenkins, 2006). This research
demonstrates how children effectively employed all three domains of design in the operational,
cultural, and critical dimensions as identified by Marsh (2017, 2020) and how the teacher and
students co-constructed the everyday literacy and technology practices of C-13. In addition, it
demonstrated how I introduced the activity, and the children quickly took ownership and made
the report meaningful to them.
Other findings evidenced where and how students took over communication and
expanded traditional methods to build community and used new literacies at school to
collaborate on creating a class webpage and downloading a PowerPoint. Sharing from school to
home first began when parents and extended family viewed the open-house PowerPoint show
created by C-13 students. Marsh’s (2017, 2020) interpretation in two dimensions, operational and
cultural, were applied as children used an assortment of modes, text, and media to create a digital
show where all children participated and had autonomy and power over content.
Sharing opportunities continued as C-13 children maintained their own section of the
class webpage. In a section called “Who Am I?” they uploaded their written stories, pictures, and
videos. Students had the opportunity and freedom to be a “designer of texts” (Lankshear &
Knobel, 2004) and make their own decisions on subject choice. The class webpage provided a
virtual “audit trail” of our learning together (Vasquez, 2014, 2022) and gave the children the
ability to retrieve and share creations with a digital audience not available before.
This study showed how over time children learned to use technology in more creative
ways such as creating science videos and taking digital pictures using the handheld Kodak Zi8.
The child friendly Zi8 empowered the children to create and update the website for their own
purposes. The ability to control their own “Who am I” content created a powerful space where
their writing could be accessed in new and exciting ways. The work these children did
demonstrate Marsh’s (2017, 2020) design in all three dimensions—operational, cultural and
critical—as they showcased their learning. The website became a vital part of C-13’s literacy
practices in that it combined traditional and new literacies and was more meaningful to families
than the traditional weekly newsletter. Their webpages could be considered a “new” literacy in
that there were opportunities for C-13 children to communicate and share with a larger audience,
such as grandparents, constituting a “new” way for us to communicate (Lankshear & Knobel,
2011).
After the administration approved the use of YouTube for research purposes, access made
it possible for parents to share videos and for the class to experience life beyond C-13.
Christian’s nonfiction writing piece “How to do an Ollie” accompanied by his YouTube video
was a C-13 sensation and a turning point for him and for our class. Christian was a YouTube
celebrity. Being able to share videos through YouTube expanded purposes and audiences beyond
C-13 and the school. His ability to collaborate and network with fellow skateboard enthusiasts all
over the world was the first time anyone in our class had been involved in a “participatory
culture” that shared beyond C-13 (Jenkins et al., 2006). The video and the practice of sharing
videos and pictures from home extended beyond our classroom to the whole school when
classroom pictures were shared on the school’s TV announcements. This illustrates how learning
extended beyond our class and school by working online and offline, which speaks to Leander
and Sheehy’s (2004) concepts of moving across time and space. This sharing represents how
literacy practices occurred from school to home and connected the “local” to the “global” as we
shared out of school with family members out of state and across the world. (Luke, 2003. The
two-way communication built strong community bonds (Rogoff, 1994) that went beyond the
walls of Union Village Elementary School.
Mother’s Day and Father’s Day were two events that provided a glimpse into the
community of C-13’s everyday practices of conversations (Vasquez, 2022). They demonstrated
how students used literacy skills and digital tools for authentic purposes that went beyond the
mandated school activities. Children were active learners, taking responsibility and leadership in
designing and fulfilling the goals of the community (Rogoff, 1994). The children’s collaborative
planning required authentic reading and writing and the use of technology. The evolution of
Green’s (1988) theory of digital literacy and Colvert (2015) and Marsh’s (2020) expansion of it
as digital literacy practices informed the understandings, skills, and practices that were employed
while the children designed, produced, interpreted, and disseminated a variety of texts and
artifacts for the Mother’s and Father’s Day events.
The findings illustrate how Marsh’s (2017) elements of design in the cultural dimension
were visible as the children used their writing expertise for specific purposes, such as obtaining
permission from the principal, library teacher, and custodian. New lessons were created to
support and develop new literacies, which included traditional lessons about invitations for
Mother’s Day and digital invitations (Evites), allowing us to connect and communicate in new
and exciting ways for Father’s Day (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011). Both events required children
to read and write and use technology to achieve their goals. They happened within a community
that valued students’ input and emphasized the practices of belonging and participating.
Unexpected Findings
Contrary to the existing literature on digital literacy that depicts rich out-of-school digital
practices that begin at a young age, and children learning about ICT from parents and older
siblings’ guidance and modeling (Chaudron et al, 2018; Gee, 2004; Kress, 2003; Kumpulainen &
Gillen, 2020; Lankshear & Knobel, 2011, Marsh, 2015, 2020) only 45% of C-13 children had
internet access. Most often, a family’s only online access was with a parent’s Smartphone.
Therefore, the children’s use of digital technology varied depending upon the limited availability
of home resources. Children with computer access at home and those who were computer savvy
assisted other classmates, which speaks to Vygotsky’s (1978) knowledgeable others and Rogoff’s
community of learners and learning by observing (1994) and pitching in (LOPI) approach
(2014).
Surprisingly, during the interviews, many parents communicated that their children taught
them about new online places and spaces and that the children knew more about the Internet than
they realized. Children shared information about how to Skype, send Evites, participate in virtual
field trips, as well as how to access eBooks, podcasts, and the class website using their parent’s
Smartphone. Additionally, parents and grandparents concerned about online risks trusted and
relied on the school website and class page for safe, educational apps and website games for their
children to use. As the year progressed, many families purchased tablets or laptops as children
insisted on using their parents’ work devices and Smartphones to complete the creative stories
they started writing in C-13.
Over time, the C-13 students’ ability, and desire to use technology in new and different
ways grew, and they attempted to become “producers of knowledge” rather than just
“reproducers of knowledge” (Nystrand, 1997, p. 80). This ability was demonstrated when
children proposed taking our favorite math game and changing it into a word game by
regenerating letters to create words for word work and creating a class joke podcast. Spell-It was
a favorite resource used daily throughout the year, and the joke podcast received excellent
reviews from parents and grandparents.
Another unanticipated finding of using digital technology was the positive student
identities formed within our class community (Gee, 2000). For example, a child who rarely
spoke and was perceived as a non-vocal observer transformed into the class troubleshooter and
primary telephone spokesperson to IT. He became a C-13 techno-expert as he assisted
classmates. Several other students who demonstrated an aptitude for troubleshooting or assisting
when technical glitches arose were elevated to expert helper status and were sought out by their
classmates for their expertise. ICT positively influenced how other children viewed them and
how they viewed themselves.
Other unanticipated findings included:
•C-13 children preferred using our dated repurposed laptops over the new iPads
because they had a choice of apps and websites on the laptops, and they could save
writing to thumb drives to work on at home or during the day. Children equated
iPads to games and laptops to more mature writing and the ability to search for
information.
•IT apprenticed the children to fix minor technology glitches and troubleshoot when
the teacher was working in reading groups. Students used passwords and accessed
websites and games independently. No sites were bookmarked by the teacher.
•The only required genre writing that was scored by the rubric was considered
writing. Children did not consider the journal or creative writing they did for their
interests and purposes during Daily Five-time “real writing.” Daily writing using
digital media became an everyday practice and was taken for granted.
•District reading and writing testing affected how children perceive their identities as
readers and writers.
•The students sharing in Children’s Choice Fridays contributed greatly to the website
and app selections in standards-based first grades.
Limitations and Bias
The limitations inherent to this study include data collection limited to one suburban
firstgrade classroom, research conducted for only a period of one semester within one school
year, and the potential for bias as I was the teacher and the researcher. The study focused on one
firstgrade classroom with a small number of participants where the emphasis was on the role of
technology in a standards-based classroom. While the research study contributes to the corpus of
early childhood literature, the findings are neither transferable nor generalizable to other first
grade contexts. Additionally, while this was not a gender study, what the boys had suggested
influenced and dominated many findings. The composition of the C-13 classroom was
significantly slanted towards one gender. The year started with 16 boys and 6 girls, and due to the
school’s transient population, it changed to 18 boys and 4 girls by the end of the study.
A partial semester of analyzed data does not provide enough evidence to warrant a classic
ethnography and provide a detailed study of culture (Yin, 2017). Fusch et al.’s (2017) “mini-
ethnography” design for five months was considered sufficient to “seek to establish the meaning
of the phenomenon from the view of the participants to identify shared meaning, culture and
behavior” (p. 1). I worked to alleviate this time limitation by focusing on depth. Data were
collected several times each week, which secured a large corpus of classroom data and artifacts
that added depth and richness to understanding the daily literacy practices of the students.
The familiarity of the site provided an intimate knowledge of the students and the parents
and provided an emic view of the literacy and institutional practices of Union Village School. As
the principal researcher and instructor, my close relationship with the C-13 community could
have resulted in bias. These bias limitations were mitigated by building validity, transferability,
and investigator triangulation (Stake, 2005) into my methods before I collected data.
Additionally, as I analyzed and interpreted data, I utilized additional perspectives with the
support of my university colleagues, including my advisor, fellow doctoral students, and outside
readers. In order to minimize the risk of student interviews being “tainted by research
subjectivity” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 80) I engaged a graduate university student who had worked in
our class community throughout the year to execute student interviews and thus reduced
researcher bias in that data collection.
Need for Future Research
Based on the limitations of this study and the lack of research studies that demonstrate
how teachers use 21st-century literacies in a standards-based first grade classroom, a need for
additional research remains. In particular, qualitative studies are needed in schools in the area of
digital resources and app design. Standards-based schools continue to privilege traditional
literacy skills (Burnett & Merchant, 2015; Marsh, 2020) and mandate children use skill and drill
software applications that focus on student testing and raising standardized test scores. In the
future, research needs to address the authentic use of technology that incorporates apps, and
which promote creativity and have the capacity to address the social, collaborative, and
communicative needs of students. Furthermore, as digital technology continues to develop,
research will need to address current needs, and the benefits that teachers gain through using 3D
printers, augmented reality apps, and AI in their practice, expanding opportunities for themselves
and their students.
Finally, this study’s findings align with those from Chaudron et al. (2018), Marsh et al.
(2020), Vasquez (2022) and others who advocate for further research on children’s literacy
practices at home and how schools can work with families to communicate more purposely using
digital devices and social platforms such as webpages, email, Twitter, Zoom, Facetime, SeeSaw,
and Skype.
Implications for Practice
This study’s findings about the authentic daily literacy practices of C-13’s classroom life
present numerous teaching and learning implications for classroom teachers and documents how
the 21st-century literacies can inform literacy instruction beyond traditional print-based reading
and support collaboration, creation, and sharing digital communication with audiences beyond
the classroom. It provides evidence that despite standard-based accountability and curriculum
mandates, teachers can be innovative and implement digital literacy practices that influence
children’s everyday lives and ultimately change school policy. It expands the research that
explores how children engage with digital technologies, especially interactive whiteboards,
laptops, and iPads, and offers a framework for conceptualizing the operational, cultural, and
critical dimensions of literacy, moving literacy beyond a focus on basic skills to considering
literacy as a social practice.
This dissertation’s findings about the social connections from school-to-home and the
sharing that occurred with families and grandparents outside our school community builds on the
research from Chaudron et al. (2018), Kumpulainen and Gillen (2020), and Marsh (2020) and
demonstrated how literacy learning extended beyond our classroom and school to family
members out of state and across the world. This study makes an original contribution to the field
in the area of young children's critical digital literacy practices. It demonstrates how teachers can
support children in the early years to reflect critically on modes of dissemination when using
multimodal and multimedia resources. Additionally, the study outlined how innovative pedagogy
can ensure that children develop across all dimensions (operational, cultural, and critical) and
how young children are capable of engaging in meaningful reflection on the modes of
dissemination when using multimodal and multimedia resources in relation to Green’s
conceptual framework and Colvert’s and Marsh’s interpretation of it.
Epilogue and Recommendations for Stakeholders at Union Village Elementary School
This section details how the dissertation findings were shared with the administration at
Union Village School and how my recommendations were incorporated and implemented into
the school culture and education policy. The section ends with specific recommendations for
Union Village School and its stakeholders.
When the findings of my research study were shared with the administration and the IT
support team they responded favorably and immediately to many of the recommendations. First
and most importantly, teachers were allowed and encouraged to establish class Twitter accounts.
The incorporation of Twitter provided the opportunity for positive communication between
school and home as well as latitude to connect and build on meaningful home practices, as
identified by Marsh (2009) and Vasquez (2022). Additionally, Twitter accessibility allowed for
what Aubrey and Dahl (2014) saw as an “opportunity for home and school to work together to
promote the development of new literacies with young children” and the ability to “welcome
stronger and more collaborative relationships with information sharing that parents see is missed
in many cases” (p. 25) at school, which is essential in the digital age.
Additionally, the administration agreed to eliminate written procedures and protocols for
access to YouTube, YouTube Teacher, and YouTube Kids thus allowing easy access and multiple
learning opportunities for teachers and students. These changes allowed teachers to integrate
digital tools for learning and social network sites into their daily literacy practices.
They provided what Jenkins (2006) described as ways to collaborate and connect to others with
similar interests. Students were then empowered to use technology to collaborate and extend
their learning beyond our local district schools and to investigate topics they wanted to explore
for their own learning and purposes using district iPads, Chromebooks, and laptops.
Furthermore, the administration agreed to streamline all sign-out procedures and to
distribute all iPads, Chromebooks, and laptop carts to each building wing instead of being housed
in the library. Therefore, regardless of grade level, all students would have proximity and
equitable access to digital technologies. Funds to secure new software were placed on the
building’s high-priority list, and the IT support team agreed to support teachers in securing
additional funds through grant writing.
Students had daily opportunities to explore beyond mandated skill and drill directives to
improve their digital literacy skills and use technology in advanced and creative ways. Chaudron
et al. (2018) suggested that young children learn most effectively “by observing and mirroring”
competent adults and older siblings and only alter and “diversify their digital activities and skills
if stimulated by the school” (p. 3). Children benefit from the scaffolding of their teachers as they
integrate current meaningful technology into their daily lessons. To accomplish that modeling,
teachers need continuous, regularly scheduled in-service. However, teachers have demanding
schedules outside of school and have little time to participate in professional development
outside of regular school hours. Existing district professional developments are inadequate to
address the new technology protocols, and I recommended incorporating short, purposeful,
authentic in-service opportunities into regular staff and weekly team meetings. For example, IT
could demonstrate how to open a ChatGPT account, and teachers could follow along, establish
classroom accounts, and uncover the potential of generative Al tools. Team leaders could put
forth ideas for future workshops based on teacher needs, with demonstrations done routinely
throughout the school year. In addition, teachers might consider undertaking action research or
creating a school or grade-level learning community (Graham, 2019) or teacher study groups
where like-minded teachers would meet, share ideas, and common goals for implementing
lessons and supporting each other’s learning. They could also consider joining a National Writing
Project summer institute for ongoing in-service.
Recommendations for Teachers
In standards-based schools, content that is tested is taught. Even though the Common
Core recommends incorporating technology into practice because technology is not mandated, it
is considered an add-on. A framework for digital competencies needs to be incorporated into
state and school standards. Until specific directives come from the state, schools must be
proactive and integrate technology into daily lessons. Wen and Walters (2022) suggest teachers
support and share writing instruction lessons and digital innovations with fellow teachers.
Potential sources for innovative lessons include organizations sites like the National Writing
Project (NWP) and the National Council of the Teachers of English (NCTE), which have
resources (such as podcasts, blogs, and digital spaces) and knowledgeable members where
teachers can seek assistance for writing and reading lessons that align with the standards and use
digital tools to support and make positive changes in schools. These lessons could be shared
through the SMART Notebook® or Google Doc Classroom technology available on every
district SMARTBoard. If teachers incorporated digital technology into everyday classroom
lessons and curriculum opportunities the children would be afforded more opportunities to
collaborate in authentic learning opportunities, facilitating their engagement within their
community and worldwide.
Keeping teachers current in technology integration within curriculum areas is essential to
best prepare children for the challenges of participating in the digital world and learning to read
and write with new technologies. Since November 2022, free Al tools like ChatGPT have
become available to help educators reimagine their classroom instruction in many ways. The
Walton Family Foundation’s Nationwide Impact Survey (March 1, 2023) of 1,000 teachers and
1,000 students ages 12-17 reported that “Within two months of its introduction, a 51% majority
of teachers reported using ChatGPT while only 33% of students.” This innovative tool may be
transformative in that it can revolutionize how teachers teach and students learn. We need to
support teachers and instruct our student teachers to move past the restrictions of standards or
mandates to take fuller advantage of the affordances of new technologies, particularly AI.
Besides the potential for making teachers' work easier, ChatGPT can assist in generating
reading passages across a variety of reading levels, create quizzes, and help differentiate lessons.
Furthermore, ChatGPT can generate quick notes to parents, summarize books and articles,
provide innovative activities after read-aloud, and write lesson plans to fit the Common Core
standards. AI can help children with support and assistance when a teacher is not available.
Additionally, with the influx of immigrants to our district, ChatGPT can provide English
language assistance and translation for non-English speakers. Leveraging AI tools like ChatGPT
enhances the teacher’s job by allowing them to focus directly on working with children and less
on lesson prep.
In this era of scripted packaged lessons and a culture of accountability, teachers are
pressured to mandate skill and drill software applications that focus on student testing and raising
standardized test scores. Children need to spend more time using technology to read and write for
their interests and purposes, not just skill and drill applications. Wren and Walters (2022) suggest
integrating the support of Speech-To-Text (STT), which empowers students to create text without
replicating writing with paper and pencil and presents them with new opportunities to share ideas
and participate in the digital world. Additionally, children can use an AI tool called Dragon®
Dictation that converts spoken words into written text. Teachers need to provide children with
access to various digital devices and create opportunities for students to be active participants in
a 21st-century global economy. Additionally, teachers should be encouraged to reimagine how to
teach by using ICT and AI to enhance their daily literacy practices by embedding new
technologies into everyday activities, such as existing reading workshops and student learning
throughout their daily curriculum lessons.
Finally, teachers must create more authentic partnerships with parents seeking
information about children’s access, and use of technology at home and communicating
technology suggestions for their children’s prioritizing interests (Chaudron et al., 2018; Erstad et
al., 2020), which could be accomplished in weekly newsletters, family literacy nights, Twitter
accounts, recommendations on the school library webpage, or additions to a class webpage. The
ongoing communication from parents highlighting young children’s interests and ICT usage
would allow teachers to capitalize and enhance motivation and expand educational opportunities
for children, focusing on topics important in their students’ lives and futures.
Recommendations for Policy Stakeholders
According to the State Office of Educational Technology (2022) “To fully participate in
today’s rapidly changing economy and society, all individuals need access to digital tools,
devices, and skills training (p. 1). Although there is progress toward digital equity many
communities still experience “existing disparities in availability, affordability, and adoption of
broadband and technology tools for learning” (p. 1) due to the way the state distributes it
resources and allocates funds. In order to ensure all children can benefit from technology, school
districts and state and local leaders need to work together to create a shared vision and provide
equitable funding resources that address the digital divide. This includes advocating for state and
local leaders to work together to leverage collective resources and to prioritize in investing funds
for the estimated 15–16 million K-12 learners who do not have sufficient access to reliable,
highspeed broadband and/or technology tools for learning (Ali et al., 2021). Providing access to
affordable broadband or making Wi-Fi accessible in public areas can enable opportunities for
families to participate fully in the digital economy, expanding not only education for children but
career advancement opportunities for adults (Mossberger et al., 2022).
Additionally, to further ensure digital opportunities for all learners the State Office of
Educational Technology (2022) encourages school leaders to partner with businesses nonprofits,
philanthropies, colleges and edtech companies to enable and extend access to
technologyempowered learning experiences for all students. For example, partnering with
companies such as L3Harris to bridge learning with next generation, real time uses and
engagement with digital tools, math, and science, and the University of Rochester’s (UR)
commitment to continuing AI education with teachers.
Finally, school leaders, in partnership with school and community-based organizations
and institutions such as libraries, provide on-demand technical support hotlines and help desks
that include in-person resources, which is essential for learners and families to support. The
ImagineYOU digital learning space in the Rochester Public library provides daily access to
mentorship, sessions, and tools to explore and experiment—a space for youth to stretch their
imaginations and develop their literacy skills.
Recommendations for Parents and Caregivers
The parent interview findings of this study are in line with Kumpulainen and Gillen
(2020) and Chaudron et al.’s (2018) research that indicated that many parents felt they lacked the
information and skills necessary to support their children’s digital learning opportunities beyond
playing video games and watching YouTube videos. To ensure children are not just passive
consumers but use technology creatively, parents need to give children opportunities to explore
and design, using various digital devices and be given access to high-quality apps and websites.
Guiding a child’s choice for more creative apps can encourage art and drawing skills (Jewitt &
Crescenzi, 2015), digital book creations (Flewitt et al., 2015; Oakley et al., 2018), and using
digital cameras and videos (Rowe & Miller, 2020) will offer multiple opportunities for children
to support student learning. Additionally, parents should be proactive and ask for information,
advice, and guidance (Kumpulainen & Gillen, 2020), and be given recommendations on apps
and resources suitable for families.
The overall consensus from the literature corpus indicates that parents had concerns about
online safety risks (Chaudron, 2018; Kumpulainen & Gillen, 2020) as evidenced in the parent
interviews. This study recommends that schools provide parents with information to protect their
children from online risks with safety settings, passwords, and content filters (Kumpulainen &
Gillen, 2020). Parents should be proactive and establish home rules about what online sites (if
any) children can use independently and the procedures to follow when pop-ups and
advertisements entice youngsters to purchase apps and merchandise. Parents and grandparents
concerned about online activities trusted and relied on the school website and class page for safe
and educational apps and website games for their children to use.
In sum, it can be concluded that parents and caregivers play a vital role in influencing the
amount of exposure to technology. They provide assistance in choosing appropriate apps and
websites and allowing access to Facetime, Skype, or Zoom to communicate with family while
keeping their children safe online.
Significance
Burnett and Merchant (2015) state that only a few studies document how teachers use
21st-century literacies to address direct daily literacy instruction. This research study is valuable
because it attempted to disrupt the dominant standards-based Common Core literacy discourse
mandated in most public schools by allowing students to take ownership of their learning using
technology to meet their own needs and purposes at home and school.
This study contributes to theory by illustrating the importance of collaborative learning
and celebrates the rich and authentic learning experiences students bring from home. It offers a
framework that moves beyond an emphasis on basic skills, conceptualizing the operational,
cultural, and critical dimensions missing in scripted curriculums, which only consider literacy as
a linear process.
Additionally, this study allowed for an in-depth view of literacy events and informed
teaching, curriculum, and education policy at Union Village Elementary School. It reinforced
what students in C-13 were doing with technology and how culturally meaningful it was to them
and their families. It provided substantial evidence demonstrating how a standards-based
curriculum constrained children’s ability to become global citizens. It also illustrated how
schools continue to perpetuate only skill-and-drill applications on school devices. Furthermore,
the study demonstrated that schools do not always provide equitable access to devices and
illustrated how Union Village School resolved that issue. The specific documentation of the data
and detailed procedures used throughout the study allow other educators to generalize the
findings to their situations.
This study addressed several gaps in the literature on early childhood literacy. The first
was to document how teachers in standard-based schools use the 21st-century literacies and
digital tools for learning to address literacy instruction in early childhood classrooms. The second
was to understand how young children engage with the new literacies as they learn to read and
write. Additionally, the study informed practice and suggested ways to help educators transform
ineffective literacy practices so that children succeed in the digital age.
The study was unique in that it validated and exemplified ways teachers can use ICT
within a Common Core standards environment to enhance their daily literacy practices and
student learning using high-quality apps and websites that were child-tested and approved. It
demonstrated how children’s digital practices at school influenced communication between
school and. home and home-to-school. It also explained how children used technology to meet
their needs and purposes and assisted each other with technological glitches and troubleshooting.
Finally, as a teacher of 22 active six-year-olds, it helped me understand my students’ everyday
meanings and daily literacy practices within their natural classroom setting. This work validates
the use of technology across curriculum areas and subjects, even within a standards-based
school.
Final Thoughts
As I complete this dissertation, I return to my opening and reflect upon how a chance
classroom encounter with two arguing six-year-olds led me to reconsider my daily literacy
practices and how I might integrate technology in meaningful and authentic ways into our
everyday school practices. Harrison and Max roused my thinking on digital literacies, which
forced me to consider ways to extend and enrich daily literacy practices to best prepare C-13
students for learning to write with the new technologies while facing the challenges of
standardsbased curriculum and district mandates.
As an educator who appreciates the affordances of digital technology but is not adept at
using them, the semester resulted in a co-construction of shared class knowledge for everyone.
The everyday practice of conversation and authentic literacy practices created opportunities for
children to take on leadership roles and responsibility in designing and fulfilling goal-orientated
events that went beyond mandated skill and drill directives and extended into their homes and
communities.
Digital technology has unrealized untapped potential waiting to enhance and transform
student’s literacy development, helping them navigate, participate, and communicate with each
other in this ever-changing digital world. I challenge and encourage teachers to search for what is
alive, essential, authentic, and meaningful in their students’ lives and support them in discovering
their interests and passions while using the new technologies in the classroom.
