Writing to Learn

Armbruster, McCarthey and Cummins (2005) in a chapter from Learning to Write, Writing to Learn: Theory and Research in Practice review literature on how writing across the curriculum is perceived by teachers and used in local classrooms. In their work they found few studies to support the claim that writing across the curriculum makes an impact on student learning, but did find smaller studies that show support for continuing the practice since teachers perceive it as having a positive impact. Teachers cited reasons of thinking time, creating positions and helping students master content. All these are certainly important attributes of what we hope students will do through learning.

As a teacher I agree that writing across the curriculum has real benefits. But as a researcher i am wondering how teachers can prove this to transform ideas into beneficial practice for students.

So, I am trying to then wrap my brain around how to compare this article with the research brief that Silvernail and Gritter (2007) prepared about Maine's MLTI laptop program in Maine. This brief looked at MEA test data (our state assessment) to see if there was any difference in scores once laptops had been implemented state wide in the 1:1 model. Silvernail and Gritter found that "overall performance on the 8th grade MEA has not changed appreciably since the inception of the laptop program." (p.4). However they did find that scores on the writing portion of the MEA's have increased significantly since the laptops have been in place. This finding held true despite how the students took the MEA (with computer or without) and was further supported by data that students who used the laptops in more aspects of the writing process in school performed better than those students who were not using them for the writing process.

So, on the one hand I am excited to see that there is some data to support the investment in these laptops, but on the other hand I am wondering why the anecdotal and perceived impact of writing and using technology is not more well documented. Is it because of what we are using as metrics? Is it because people have not studied this topic? Is it because it is tool early to tell?

Writing and technology are becoming an intertwined process for those of us that live digitally. I am curious why there was little research to be found about writing across the curriculum, and why the laptop research shows gains in just the writing test, not across the curriculum? Certainly in the Armbruster et al chapter teachers acknowledged that one of the benefits of writing across the curriculum was that writing improved with content knowledge, so perhaps this is why we are first seeing the rise in writing scores with the MEA's. Will evidence be found later that shows growth in all areas of the MEA's? Or, is it that the MEA's may not measure what we are interested in?

Reasons to Blog

Just reread a great post by Wes Fryer on Google's Infinite Thinking Machine Blog - Blogging Can Make You Smarter. I have to agree with him that the process of blogging about new media and new literacies has really forced me to think about each reading I am doing and try and connect it back to my big ideas about how to we use these new tools to make education work better for all students. As so many authors have pointed out, I do not believe it is the technology alone - rather it is the pedagogy of engaging students in individualized learning with the use of new tools. It is just that the new web 2.0 tools make it so much easier to do this.

Instant Messaging

Similar to my last post A. O'Connor in her article Instant Messaging Friend or Foe of Student Writing? (2005) suggests that the either/or approach to formal writing or informal communication does little to help students navigate the worlds they live and learn in. Instead perhaps there is opportunity to teach the role of audience in writing and engage students in more learning through this conversation.

She has a great analogy in her piece - about how we dress - we dress differently to do yardwork than we do to go out on a Saturday night. Somehow we learned this difference, and teachers today may need to engage with helping students learn this difference as we all confront the world of multiliteracies.

Repetoire of Writing Practices

In a recent article We Learn What We Do: Developing a Repertoire of Writing Practices in an Instant Messaging World (November 2008) G. Jacobs researched the social practice of IM and engaged in a case study of one young student to learn how the formal writing process of writing and online chatting interacted and impacted each other. She argues that CMC (Computer mediated communication) " is not poor writing but is a response to social needs as mediated by technological constraints" (p.204). At one point in the case study she presents she is talking with the subject of the case who maintains that IM is not writing, "it's talking". I found this distinction fascinating since it makes sense given the slang, interruptions and nature of the communication, but because it was put down with a keyboard - I considered it writing.

Similar to my post on identity I think the key here to better understanding these tools socially and educationally is to begin by talking with those students and people who use them, to better understand the perceptions at play. Jacobs argues" Good writing then, is writing that meets the purpose of the author and fulfills the requirements of the audience as defined by the social and cultural expectations of the community in which the writing is used" (p. 205). In these conversations about perceptions it would also be appropriate to discuss the role of audience with students such that they can be explicitly taught when and why certain forms of communication are appropriate in certain contexts. Instead of just simply correcting or dismissing these conventions Jacobs suggests engaging students in conversation and allow the student to develop a meta-awareness of the context and audience issues.

In addition to engaging in conversation Jacobs also suggests, and I agree that teachers must try new forms of media to better understand the medium before dismissing it as having no place in school. Perhaps students today have the potential to develop more forms of writing than in the past, and we as teachers can help this process.

International Reading Association Standards for ELA

In thinking about the teaching and learning involved in writing I am wondering at times how to separate the skill/knowledge of writing from the larger collection of skills that fall under the umbrella of English Language Arts. Looking at the IRA website they have established these 12 standards for ELA this may be a helpful place for me to think about how the smaller skills interact with the larger set of skills.

There is also a special interest group within IRA Technology in Literacy Education with some great ideas and resources. The Resources look like a good start, but I wonder about how teachers use and implement these - a list of hotlinks is such a common place to start, and maybe works, but it seems like we need to work towards continuing to think about why we use these tools (the TPCK model).

The Research Section also looks like a good place to find more information about how the literary world approaches the ever shifting definition of literacy in the 21st century.

ReadWriteThink

ReadWriteThink

What a great resource for teachers and students interested in literacy instruction ReadWriteThink offers helpful information and lesson plans. I like this overview of the different ways students engage with literacy: Learning Language, Learning About Language, Learning through Language

Learning New Languages

Right now I am engaged in thinking about technology and literacy instruction, while at the same time continuing to perform my regular work. My regular work has recently necessisted that I learn how to use a database more effectively, and use a web creation software more effectively. I love the challenge of new problems and have been happily engaged in problem solving.

As for learning a relational database I had some basic knowledge of using filemaker, and tried to work on my own to learn Access, the software that I have as part of my work. It's been interesting and finally after a few hours of going nowhere, enlisted the help of a willing colleauge. In an hour she was able to walk though and problem solve with me in such a great manner - I could feel the new ways of thinking sinking in, and was ready to continue to play. This manner of learning (try, get help from an expert, play more, and then perform - it's cyclic) is my preference for learning and has reminded me of how I like to learn.

Learning to use Dreamweaver on the other hand I have gone to reading a manual and using online tutorials (with book support) to begin to learn these new skills. However I also have some experts waiting in the wings to help with the learning process here.

Regardless of the application I have been struck in both cases that both feel like I must learn new languages to make things work, and not only do I need to be able to program or output these languages, but I have to train my brain to think about issues in a different manner than I had previously. Although these might not be revolutionary insights, they do make me realize that learning for me needs to have social and practice applications, and needs to allow me to think internally in new ways and express this in new formats.

I wonder then about students in school transacting with new softwares and how much is shapes both their output of content and knowledge, and the internal wiring of thinking. "Hypertext and Hypermedia have signifigantly changed how we can read in digital environments and how we create paths to search for that information" (schmidt & Gurbo, 2008, p. 68). I couldn't agree more and think about this video The Machine is Us/Using Us. It is such a great video that really makes me think about how new mediums create new patterns of thinking in students (in anyone really). However understand the relationship between new media and brain/thinking patterns seems like a challenging problem to say the least. How do we begin to understand this dynamic realtionship between the form and the user and how each impacts the other (okay it feels weird to talk about impact between a human form and a non-human thing, but I do believe it is not just a one way relationship.

Measuring, describing and understand the ways we interact with computers and the shifts we make in thinking and practice is such an exciting topic.

New Technologies and Writing Instruction

As part of my doctoral work and my interest in educational technology I have decided to spend time thinking and reading about how new technologies (and even older technologies) are impacting writing instruction and writing achievement in schools. There is a lot of learn and think about in this field and topic, and so I am beginning with reading as much as i can on the subject.

I have just begun to read Handbook of Technological Pedgogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators. In reading this book I am incredibly excited to see so many great ideas connecting in a framework for understanding these issue.The TPCK Model suggests that teachers use different, overlapping sets of background knowledge to effectively plan for instruction. These areas interact in a complex and shifting manner that is context dependent. The framework is therefor NOT a blueprint for implementation, but rather a way to think about and examine practices.

"One of the most important things to understand about technologies is that particular technologies have specific affordances and constraints. Technologies are neither neutral nor unboased" (AACTE, p.5). Certainly I agree with this statement and just like any pedagogical choice the use of a particular technology needs to be considered in light of the context, student, resource, goal and more.

As a teacher and teacher educator what I am left wondering is how to help teachers build these knowledge bases in a manner which encourages the application of the knowledge, rather than a blueprint fashion. Teaching teachers to be creative seems to be the first step in instilling imagintation, inquiry and innovation in students.