313 combining traditional literacies -century writing … · combining traditional and new...

The Reading Teacher Vol. 65 Issue 5 pp. 313–323 DOI:10.1002/TRTR.01048 © 2012 International Reading Association

313

R T

COMBINING TR ADITIONAL A ND NEW LITER ACIES IN A 21ST-CENT URY W R ITING WOR KSHOP

It’s movie night. Children and adults are packed

into Room 3B, a third-grade classroom on the

second floor of a 1925 vintage, New England

prekindergarten through grade 3 public school.

The guests in this small-town school are not there

to watch a Hollywood production or a childhood

classic, but rather to savor the digital storytelling

accomplishments of Jenn Bogard’s (first author)

17 third graders.

The genesis for the children’s new literacy

practices began 17 years earlier in New London,

New Hampshire, not far from Jenn’s classroom. For a

week in 1994, 10 international educators, soon to be

known as the New London Group, met to discuss the

future of literacy pedagogy, which at that time was

limited to “teaching and learning to read and write

in page-bound, official, standard forms for

the national language” (New London Group, 1996,

p. 61). The New London Group (1996), credited with

coining the term multiliteracies, set out to broaden

our understanding of what it means to be literate by

attending to multiple modes of representation and the

importance of cultural and linguistic diversity.

Learn how to integrate easy-to-use technology into stages of the writing

process in order to enhance how elementary students plan, write, and

create digital stories.

Jennifer M. Bogard ■ Mary C. McMackin

Jennifer M. Bogard is a third-grade teacher at Central Elementary School, South Berwick, Maine, USA, an adjunct professor and doctoral student at Lesley University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA; e-mail [email protected].

Mary C. McMackin is a professor in the Language and Literacy Division of the School of Education at Lesley University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA; e-mail [email protected].

TRTR_1048.indd 313TRTR_1048.indd 313 1/13/2012 2:21:32 PM1/13/2012 2:21:32 PM

COM BI N I NG T R A DI T IONA L A N D N E W LI T E R AC I ES I N A 21ST-C E N T U RY W R I T I NG WOR K SHOP

The Reading Teacher Vol. 65 Issue 5 February 2012R T

314

Today, terms such as multimedia

(Ranker, 2008), new literacies (Coiro,

Knobel, Lankshear, & Leu, 2010;

Mills, 2010), multimodal (Sweeny, 2010;

Vasudevan, Schultz, & Bateman, 2010),

and digital storytelling (Hull & Nelson,

2005) are used to signify practices

for making meaning that transcend

language and include photography, art,

music, video, or audio representations.

Although

there is a paucity

of research

on composing

across

modalities at the

elementary level,

there are several

relevant studies

on which we

base our work.

For example,

Ranker’s (2008)

case study of

two fifth graders

acknowledged

the interactive,

nonlinear movement among media

sources that allowed the boys to

go beyond what they could have

accomplished from any one mode

(source) or medium (vehicle) (Kress,

2005) individually. In addition,

Vasudevan, Schultz, and Bateman

(2010) investigated students’

composing practices and concluded

that multimodal composing had a

profound effect on what they termed

“authorial stances”—how authors take

on literate identities. The fifth graders

in this study learned multimodal skills

that transformed how they defined

themselves and how they positioned

themselves as literate individuals

within a community of learners.

We, like many of our colleagues,

are beginning to explore ways in

which new literacies can augment

traditional literacy practices to

enhance learning. The relevance

of using technology to support

literacy is increasingly evident as our

schools prepare students for careers

and college (National Governors

Association Center and the Council

of Chief State School Officers, 2010).

In this article, we document the

processes we used to explore digital

storytelling, or what Vasudevan,

Schultz, and Bateman (2010) referred

to as “multimodal storytelling,” a

term that more precisely defines

the “wide range of digital and non-

digital composing” (p. 447) found

in our work with the third graders.

Through our exploration, we sought

to understand the blending of time-

honored literacy customs (e.g., graphic

organizers, pen and paper drafts)

with new literacies (e.g., video-editing

software applications).

To inform our instruction, we

documented each stage of the

recursive writing process with flip

cameras, digital cameras, audio

recorders, field notes, student surveys,

and writing samples. All children’s

names in this article are pseudonyms,

and student quotations are verbatim

excerpts from audio or written sources.

The third graders took an active role

in using technology to document

their learning, thus providing

all of us with a means to reflect

metacognitively on our processes and

new understandings. In the remainder

of this article, we describe how the

children immersed themselves in

the writing process to create digital

stories.

Collecting Ideas in a NotebookThe students in 3B began their study

of personal narratives like many

other third graders do, by collecting

“kernels” of ideas in their notebooks,

knowing that some of these kernels

would be “popped” into detailed

stories, whereas others would remain

quick writes. They taped phrases from

magazines, buttons, and birthday

candles onto notebook pages and

wrote about memories that were

sparked by the objects, such as finding

an antique bottle, spotting bald

Pause and Ponder ■ How do your students plan narrative texts?

Are the plans effective in helping them

convert their intended stories into well-

developed and logically organized written

pieces?

■ How might recorded oral rehearsal and

multimodal composing benefit students in

your class?

■ What existing resources (e.g., personnel,

technology, materials) could you draw

upon to plan and implement a digital

storytelling project like the one described

in this article?


wcsstaff

Highlight

wcsstaff

Highlight


www.reading.org R T

315

eagles, and playing with a relative’s

dog. In addition, they brought in

pictures from home and wrote entries

about places they had been and people

in their lives.

While collecting these ideas, the

third graders participated in many

craft lessons about personal narratives

and developed a checklist of authors’

strategies. Their list included zooming

in on meaningful moments, drafting

strong leads, and incorporating

true details through the use of

Thoughtshots and Snapshots (Lane,

1992), which authors use to reveal

what a character is thinking or feeling

and physical details, respectively.

The students listened to, read, and

discussed mentor texts, including

Julie Brinckloe’s Fireflies!, Jonathan

London’s Puddles, and Jane Yolen’s

Owl Moon, all of which allowed them

to hear the language of personal

narratives and discuss how they are

structured.

With notebooks full of ideas and

craft exercises complete, the 9-year-

olds were ready to begin the process

of choosing an idea and writing their

own narratives. They participated in

the following five-step process, while

maintaining a level of flexibility that

allowed them to move recursively

among the steps as needed.

Step 1: PlanningAlthough planning is an important part

of the writing process (Hayes & Flower,

1980), young children typically do not

devote much time to planning (Bereiter

& Scardamalia, 1987). In fact, Cameron

and Moshenko (1996) found the “start-

up time” (i.e., planning time) of 53 sixth

graders to be between 15 seconds and

387 seconds, with the average being

just over two minutes. Similarly, fifth

and sixth graders identified with lear-

ning disabilities spent less than one

minute planning, even though they

were prompted to plan before writing

and encouraged to take as much time

as needed to do so (MacArthur &

Graham, 1987).

Students with learning disabilities

may display these characteristics, but

the traits are not limited to children

with learning disabilities. For example,

early in the school year, Jenn asked

her third graders to respond to this

question: “How do you plan your story

once you have an idea?” The responses

of Frank, Ann, and Lucy illustrate the

planning processes of three capable

writers: Frank wrote, “I right [sic]

whatever comes to mind.” Ann wrote,

“When I have an idey [sic] I write it

down and then soon another idey [sic]

pops in my head.” Lucy answered, “I

think deep down and [write] whatever

comes to me first.”

These children, and many others,

rely on what Troia (2007) referred to as

a “retrieve-and-write text generation

process” (p. 132) or what Bereiter and

Scardamalia (1987) called a “what-

next” strategy. Unlike adults, children

tend to focus on generating content

when they plan, “us[ing] the assignment

itself as a plan—a plan focused largely

on retrieving relevant content from

memory” (McCutchen, 2006, p. 117).

To get students thinking about

the beginnings, middles, and ends of

their stories—in other words, their

macrostructures (Kintsch & van Dijk,

1978)—Jenn had them map out key

points using one of three possible

graphic organizers (see Joshua’s

graphic organizer, Figure 1).

Step 2: Developing Stories Through Recorded Oral RehearsalOnce the story maps were complete,

writer’s workshop began to look and

sound different than it had in the

past. Rather than having students

move from graphic organizers

to written drafts, Jenn had them

produce what we termed recorded oral rehearsal, audio recordings that

allowed the children to verbalize and

elaborate their developing stories.

Myhill and Jones (2009) suggested

that having students engage in oral

rehearsal may reduce the cognitive

load associated with translating ideas

into written texts. When writing,

the central executive of working

memory must simultaneously attend

to generating language, planning

and reviewing ideas, and holding

“multiple representations of the

text in working memory” (Kellogg,

2008, p. 3). Oral rehearsal may

take some of the burden off the

central executive and thereby free

up resources students could use to

enhance the quality of their stories—

in other words, serve as an “external

memory” (Graham & Harris, 2007).

Jenn introduced three technology

tools that were available for recorded

oral rehearsals. First, she reviewed how

to use Photo Booth, Apple software

that lets students take photos using

their computer’s built-in camera and

record short video that can be saved for

future use. The software, included on

all Macs with iSight, Apple’s built-in

webcam, makes it possible for users

“Audio recordings

allowed the children to

verbalize and elaborate

their developing

stories.”


wcsstaff

Highlight



316

to change backdrops and colors. The

recording process is simple: Students

simply click one button and record their

thoughts.

Next, Jenn demonstrated TuneTalk

Stereo, a small recording device that

students plugged into the bottom doc

connector of their two classroom iPod

nanos to convert them into digital

audio recorders (Figure 2). TuneTalk,

which costs about $40.00, contains two

omnidirectional microphones. To record,

students select “Voice Memos” from the

main menu of the iPod and then “Start

recording.”

Finally, Jenn introduced the

Livescribe Pulse Smartpen, a pen

that is slightly larger than a regular

ballpoint pen (Figure 3). The Smartpen

contains a camera and microphone,

which capture everything writers say

and draw. Students activate the pen’s

audio and visual features by tapping

“start”—one of several icons that run

across the bottom of special Smartpen

dot paper. While sketching images

associated with their stories, students

talk through their plots. To replay the

audio recording, students tap on any

part of their written work—in this case,

their sketches—to begin the playback

from that spot in the story. A USB

connector allows users to recharge the

pen and transfer both their written and

audio work to a computer. A 2GB pen

and 150-page dot paper notebook with

perforated pages costs approximately

$120.00.

Because Jenn’s students had used

Photo Booth in second grade and

some had used TuneTalk Stereo to

work on fluency, Jenn focused most

of her instruction on the Livescribe

Smartpen. Using a document camera so

everyone could see, she told the story of

a common experience, a fire drill, and

sketched the main parts of the story.

As a class, everyone discussed other

possible strategies for sketching, such as

symbols and arrows to show the order

of events (see an example of Joshua’s

sketches in Figure 4).

After this demonstration, students

selected the technology tool they

wanted to use to record the oral drafts of

their personal narratives. Most students

selected the Smartpen. Two used iPods;

no one chose Photo Booth. When Jenn

asked the children why they didn’t select

Photo Booth, they all agreed that they

Figure 1 Joshua’s Story Map Graphic Organizer



www.reading.org R T

317

enjoyed using this tool in the past but

wanted to try the new or relatively new

tools.

Talking out a story and hearing it

played back was beneficial for most

students. Joshua, for example, a high-

achieving learner, expressed that

writing was “very, very frustrating.”

Before the opportunity of oral

planning, Joshua typically wrote one

or two sentences during workshop

and spent the rest of the time thinking

or doodling. He felt as if “every word

should be right.” By telling his story

orally before drafting, he was able to

revise with ease and avoid the angst he

had been experiencing when beginning

a piece of writing.

Joshua used an action lead to begin

his story of finding an old perfume

bottle by the riverbank: “I zoomed

down on my bicycle. I zoomed down

the road. I was flying. And suddenly,

I slammed on my breaks and I was

in the park across the street from my

house. I let my bike drop to the ground

and I ran down to the riverbank. And

then I started looking for bottles.” He

continued to talk out his memory with

details as though he were talking with a

friend. Next, he listened to his recording

as he looked at the result of his oral

plan: a flowchart that he had drawn

as he talked out his story (Figure 4).

The flowchart had symbols and quick

sketches to represent the bike, the park,

his cut finger, and the bottle. It also

contained arrows that connected the

events.

After tapping his sketches to replay

his lead, Joshua commented, “This part

is good.” And when he came to the part

in which he explained how he cut his

finger, he said, “This part is no good.

I’m going to listen so I know where

I should pick up from.” He listened

again to the full story, crossing off an

entire section with ease. In his second

recording, he added details about how

he cut his finger on the bottle and how

he found another bottle while rinsing

his finger off. He noted, “I decided I

would try to pull the one [bottle] up

next to it.” He explained that he had

found another bottle in the mud, close

to where he found the first one, and

wanted to pick this one up out of the

mud, too.

Joshua was on a quest to find the

meaningful details of his story. He

continued to listen with a critical ear,

adding, “This part is no good either,” as

he omitted the part about how people

used to throw their trash into the

riverbank, clarifying that he would lose

the focus of the meaningful moment

Figure 2 Joshua’s Sketch Using the Livescribe Smartpen


wcsstaff

Highlight



318

of finding a bottle if he were to go into

detail about where the bottles came

from.

Joshua expressed the power of

telling and revising his story aloud

before physically writing his story as he

reflected, “Usually, if I write something

all down on the paper, I just keep it.

Talking my story out with the pen

helped me because I could take things

out that weren’t important to the story.”

He also explained, “I could hear it being

said and I could know how it sounded.”

When interviewed at the beginning

of the year, William, an emerging reader

and writer, stated, “I draw a lot, so I don’t

usually have time to write.” William

used the Smartpen to plan his story

about the time he and his grandmother

played with her dog, Sandy. He referred

to his story map as he sketched and

talked out the story: “Me and grandma

were throwing a thing...a rope...to her

dog. And sometimes she wouldn’t get it.

And sometimes grandma would have to

get it. And she would throw it to Sandy

and Sandy would miss it, so I would

have to get it. Once, when I was getting

ready to throw it, she bit me on my

best pair of pants. After that, grandma

said, ‘No!’ and then Sandy ran to me.”

William continued to talk his story out

all the way to the end.

After recording, William looked at his

sketches and commented, “Wow! I said

a lot but I didn’t draw very much.” Like

William, many students were surprised

at how sparse their sketches were as

they spoke, indicating an important

shift for some: The focus was on the

words and the meaning of the story,

not on the drawings. For William and

learners like him, the pictures served as

a scaffold for elaborating on the details

of his story, whereas they had previously

used sketching to avoid writing. When

discussing the process of oral planning

with a friend, William reported, “I can

hear what I said, and I can remember

what happened, and I can see if I forgot

something.” Recorded oral rehearsal

allowed William to take “risks that

widened the scope of [his] composing

practices” (Vasudevan et al., 2010, p. 461).

Figure 3 Erika’s Storyboard (Cover Page)

Figure 4 Erika’s Storyboard (Page 1)



www.reading.org R T

319

Step 3: Listening, Critically Thinking, and ConferringWe hadn’t planned for writing partners

to sit together and listen to one another’s

oral telling, but this quickly became

the norm. As Frank, an eager, high-

achieving student, began to sketch his

story, his writing partner, Ann, raced

over and sat beside him, wanting to

see the pen in action. Ann listened

carefully while Frank told a brief account

of getting a new bike for his birthday.

For students like Frank, the process of

hearing his recorded story encouraged

him to slow down and pay careful

attention to his words before jotting

them down on paper. Frank reflected on

this process, “When I heard myself say,

‘And I walked outside,’ it made me think

about how I walked outside. I searched

my brain for the memory and I changed

it to ‘I sprinted outside’ so that I would

show everyone how excited I was.” Oral

planning gave Frank the opportunity to

“play around with the words.”

After Ann listened to Frank’s story,

she asked, “Can I hear the part about

the bike again?” She pressed the pen to

the sketch of the bike and listened. Ann

asked, “What did you do when you saw

your bike?” This sparked a conversation

about adding feelings to this part of

his writing, something Frank hadn’t

considered. Next, it was Frank’s turn

to confer with Ann, an avid writer who

often shied away from peer conferencing

because she generally preferred to keep

her drafts as she envisioned them.

When Frank conferred with Ann, she

was planning a story about rescuing a

stray cat. Frank tapped the Smartpen

to the pictures and listened carefully to

her recording. He said, “Could I hear

this part again?” as he clicked on the

picture of the angel. He heard, “letting

love into Ollie’s life” and responded,

“You might want to say, ‘letting love

into my cat, Ollie’s, life.’” Ann replied,

“True—so they know it’s a cat.” Frank

then suggested that Ann tell her readers

right away that she was writing about a

cat. He reread her lead aloud, adding the

word cat: “Imagine getting the cutest,

most softest, loveable cat in the world and

knowing he’s yours.” Ann responded,

“I’ll probably put kitten.”

Even as the school bell rang, the

partners continued to confer. Research

supports this type of collaboration.

In fact, “collaborative writing” is 1

of 11 elements of effective writing

instruction recommended in Writing Next (Graham & Perin, 2006), a meta-

analysis that showed that collaborative

arrangements have a “strong positive

impact on quality” (p. 16). Ann enjoyed

using technology to share her work,

knowing that she could make multiple

changes by simply rerecording her

evolving thoughts. Ann said, “The pen

helped me hear what the story sounded

like. It told me whether I should add

more or take something out that I

didn’t need.”

Jayden, a student who enjoys writing,

conferred with his partner about the

time he took his dog Tonka out for a

walk. Lucy, his writing partner, listened

to his story through headphones and

suggested that he add strong words:

“tumble, steaming, and dashed.” He wrote

these words on his paper and said them

aloud so he could record them and hear

how they would sound in the context

of his sentences. The next day, Jayden

asked if he could plan with the pen

again and changed the sentence, “It was

a hot day” to “It was so hot, steaming

hot.” Lucy prompted, “Was it muggy?”

and suggested that he add a Snapshot

(Lane, 1992) of what the day was like.

When it came time to draft, he wrote:

“It was so hot, steaming hot. It was like

we were in a bowl of boiling water.” For

Jayden, planning orally and conferring

before drafting offered opportunities for

him to experience ongoing and flexible

revision.

Many writing partners continued

to discuss their stories as they headed

to art class. Some began practicing

oral tellings of their stories at home

and on the playground in anticipation

of recording them. Because we had

one Smartpen in our classroom, some

partnerships met outside of the writer’s

workshop block, taking turns telling

their stories orally and listening to

the recording. This prompted a class

discussion about how writers think

about their stories outside of workshop

time and how writers write throughout

the school day and beyond.

Step 4: Creating StoryboardsThe third graders spent three to four

weeks of daily writer’s workshop

completing the first three steps of this

recursive process and now had written

drafts of their stories, which they

revised and edited. They were eager

to begin their storyboards—simple

graphic organizers that contained three

parts: (1) the narration, (2) sketches,

and (3) the media list. Each part served

a distinct purpose, as noted next (see

“The pen helped me hear what the story

sounded like. It told me whether I should add

more or take something out that I didn’t need.”




320

the beginning of Erika’s storyboard in

Figures 5 and 6).

Narration. The children under-

stood that each storyboard page would

become a frame in their digital stories

and that the text they attached to each

page would be used for the voiceovers.

To demonstrate how a text might be

separated into meaningful sections of

narration, or frames, Jenn referred back

to mentor picture books. Using a think-

aloud, she examined how authors and

illustrators chunk ideas. She also had

Erika read her story aloud and talk

about how she could logically break

apart her text. Erika decided that her

lead might be its own frame and won-

dered if powerful images should stand

alone in a frame.

For instance, Erika wrote, “I was

watching mom as her hair was blowing

as if the wind wanted her to come

with it.” The class agreed that this

part should be supported by its own

picture. After discussing Erika’s story

and studying mentor texts, most of the

students were ready to think of their

writing in reasonable frames, yet there

were some who wanted to separate their

stories sentence by sentence and needed

additional guidance. After careful

consideration, the students photocopied

their drafts, cut them apart, and glued

them onto separate pages of their

storyboards. The original drafts were

kept intact so they could refer back to

them if need be.

Sketch. To help children position their

written texts with images that would

accompany the frames in their digital

stories, Jenn had them draw a sketch

(i.e., placeholders of sorts) on each

page of their storyboards. The sketches

represented the photos or artwork the

children intended to use in their digital

stories.





www.reading.org R T

321

Media List. The media list was a

checklist of possible visuals that would

replace the sketches in the students’

digital stories. The children could

take their own photographs; create

pictures on TuxPaint (a digital drawing

program); draw pictures with a medium

such as watercolor, pastels or pencil;

or find images online. The only online

resource students used for photos was

www.pics4learning.com, a source

that provides copyright permission to

teachers and students.

Students added items to the media

list, too; for instance, some decided

to create art from clay and tissue

paper. Erika used a combination of

resources: TuxPaint, watercolors, and

pastels, whereas Joshua had a family

member take a photo of him as he

came to a sudden stop on his bike

by the riverbank. Planning with the

storyboard required deep thinking

about the content of the writing.

Students made more revisions than

ever before, edited for mechanics,

and conferred with the teacher.

The children were truly invested in

writing carefully crafted stories that

accurately conveyed their personal

experiences.

Step 5: Producing Digital StoriesThe work of recursively planning,

rehearsing, drafting, revising, and

creating storyboards happened during

Jenn’s designated writer’s workshop

time. When the children were ready to

create the digital stories, she allocated

three computer lab periods for them

to learn about and to use iMovie,

an Apple video editing software

application that comes on all Macs.

With iMovie, users can browse for

photos, scanned pictures, or video clips

that are on their computers and drop

them into frames on an iMovie screen.

The images can easily be rearranged

by dragging them from one frame to

another. Those using iMovie can zoom

in on images and add music from

sources such as iTunes or Garageband.

(Similar software, such as PhotoStory,

is available on many PCs [Miller,

2010].)

Once the students understood

iMovie’s features, they returned to

their storyboards and matched their

sketches with actual photos or pictures

they now had on their laptops. They

dropped the images into iMovie and

thoughtfully reflected on the sequencing

of events. Rob, for example, intended to

use his digital story to describe the day

he took his first airplane flying lesson.

He shared, “It was really hard to get

all of my flying pictures in the right

order. I had to keep reading my writing

over again and try to figure out what

happened first and then next. I had to

switch two events around to make it

like it really happened on the day of my

flying lesson.” Moving from a traditional

literacy practice to the iMovie provided

Rob with what Ranker (2008) referred to

as a moment of “textual punctuation” (p.

214), that is, natural stopping points that

provide authors

with opportunities

to reflect on what

they need to do to

achieve their goals.

Having the visuals

clearly aided

some children in

the sequencing,

revision, and

elaboration of

ideas.

Returning

once again to

the narratives on

their storyboards,

the authors

used a podcast

microphone to record and rerecord

their voiceovers until they were

satisfied that their narrations sounded

like real stories. Music and sound

effects were added. In the process of

learning how to use this software,

Jenn also taught her students how to

cite sources, which they included as

scrolling credits at the end of each

digital movie.

Sharing was spontaneous as

students called “Come hear this!”

while making their movies. Sharing

also involved a wider audience as

writers burned their digital stories to

compact discs and brought them home

for family members to view. William

planned to give his digital movie to

his grandmother for Christmas. The

audience continued to expand as

children invited families into school to

view their digital story on a projected

screen. Brittany put her invitation in

her mother’s purse in hopes that she

would come.

Shaping and Reshaping Literacy OpportunitiesGraham and Harris (2007) posited

that students are more likely to




322

engage in planning if writing is

produced for authentic purposes and

audiences. We agree. But we caution

that not all planning leads to high-

quality texts. To be effective, plans

should enable writers to convert

their intended thoughts into well-

developed, organized written texts.

For the children in 3B, recorded oral

rehearsal was an effective planning

strategy; it allowed them to formulate

ideas, revisit their initial thinking,

and make decisions about what was

working or not working without

placing the considerable cognitive

demands on working memory that

written texts require. Producing

meaningful discovery drafts within an

environment of collaboration provided

opportunities for the students to adopt

“authorial stances” (Vasudevan et

al., 2010) of capable storytellers and

writers.

In Jenn’s class, the celebration

of these digital stories signaled

closure to her unit on personal

narratives; however, the cycle of

weaving traditional and new literacies

throughout the stages of the writing

process continued as she introduced

her students to realistic fiction. Jenn

began the second unit as she did the

first, by analyzing the characteristics

of this genre. Comfortable with using

technology for planning, each student

drew a story mountain and used the

Smartpen to record how story events

would unfold. Partners clicked on

any point of the mountain to hear

each event and to discuss with their

partners the important moments

at the top of their mountains, the

turning points of their stories. When

it was time to create their digital

stories, the writing pieces were full of

details that could be traced back to the

planning stage, when students were

engaged in discussing their audio

discovery drafts before writing their

stories on paper.

Recorded oral rehearsal and

digital storytelling are proving to

be particularly powerful during our

current unit on poetry. Students are

making decisions about the location

of line breaks in their poems based on

how their recorded readings sound.

They are playing with the line breaks to

create meaning by adjusting the breaks

and rerecording. As they draft their

poems, writers are already discussing

ways to make the writing come alive

for a wide audience through a blog

that Jenn created. For example, Lucy

called to her writing partner, who was

drafting a poem about growing up,

“You should look around your house

tonight for pictures of when you were

a baby and put them in your movie.”

The third graders have already received

comments from countless blog viewers

about their posted personal narratives

and realistic fictions [Note: Jenn

approves all comments before they are

posted.].

Hull (2003) noted the need to

expand what it means to be literate in

today’s world and suggested, among

other things, that we provide students

with “the space and support to

communicate critically, aesthetically,

lovingly, and agentively” (p.230).

Using nondigital and digital resources

continues to be engaging and

supportive for Jenn’s young writers.

Day by day, they shape and reshape

what it means for them to be literate

in the 21st century.

1. Have students generate and collect ideas

that could potentially be developed into per-

sonal narratives (e.g., brainstorm, focused

quick writes with pictures or objects, time-

lines, orally sharing tentative ideas).

2. Have students create story maps

that focus on the beginning, middle,

and end of intended stories.

3. Have students engage in recorded oral

rehearsal with technology such as Photo

Booth, iPods, or Livescribe Smartpens.

4. Have partners listen to each other’s

recordings and then confer together.

5. Have students create three-part

storyboards as planning for their digital stories:

a. Narration—Students decide how

to chunk their stories into sections that

will later align with the visuals they drop

into iMovie. They cut the final drafts

of their stories into these chunks and

paste them onto their storyboards.

b. Sketch—Students draw sketches

that represent the artwork or photos

they will use in their digital stories.

c. Media list—Students use the

items in the media list to determine how

they will transform the sketches they

made into visuals for their iMovies.

6. Have students create iMovies (or use

other video-editing software, such as Little Bird

Tales, PhotoStory, Animoto, or PowerPoint with

narration) and share them with a wide audience!

TA K E AC T ION!

“Plans should enable

writers to convert their

intended thoughts

into well-developed,

organized written

texts.”



www.reading.org R T

323

NoteWe thank Lesley University for supporting our work through a Lesley University Technology Innovation Grant, Principal Vicki Stewart for the resources and inspiration she provided, and Superintendent Gail Sullivan for encouraging the exploration of technology and learning.

RE F ERENC ES

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cameron, C.A., & Moshenko, B. (1996). Elicitation of knowledge transformational reports while children write narratives. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 28(4), 271–280. doi:10.1037/0008-400X.28.4.271

Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, D.J. (2010). Handbook of research on new literacies. New York: Erlbaum.

Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (2007). Best practices in teaching planning. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 119–140). New York: Guilford.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2006). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Hayes, J.R., & Flower, L. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hull, G.A. (2003). At last: Youth culture and digital media: New literacies for new times. Research in the Teaching of English, 38(2), 229–233.

Hull, G.A., & Nelson, M. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written Communication, 22(2), 224–261. doi:10.1177/0741088304274170

Kellogg, R.T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 1–26.

Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and

production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363–394. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363

Kress, G. (2005). Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge, and learning. Computers and Composition, 22(1), 5–22. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2004.12.004

Lane, B. (1992). After THE END: Teaching and learning creative revision. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

MacArthur, C.A., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students’ composing under three methods of text production: Handwriting, word processing, and dictation. The Journal of Special Education, 21(3), 22–42. doi:10.1177/002246698702100304

McCutchen, D. (2006). Cognitive factors in the development of children’s writing. In C.A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 115–130). New York: Guilford.

Miller, L.C. (2010). Make me a story: Teaching writing through digital storytelling. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Mills, K. (2010). A review of the “digital turn” in the new literacy studies. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 246–271. doi:10.3102/0034654310364401

Myhill, D., & Jones, S. (2009). How talk becomes text: Investigating the concept of oral rehearsal in early years’ classrooms. British Journal of Educational Studies, 57(3), 265–284. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8527.2009.00438.x

National Governors Association Center and Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: NGA Center/CCSSO.

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.

Ranker, J. (2008). Composing across multiple media: A case study of digital video production in a fifth grade classroom. Written Communication, 25(2), 196–234. doi:10.1177/0741088307313021

Sweeny, S.M. (2010). Writing for the instant messaging and text messaging generation:

Using new literacies to support writing instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(2), 121–130. doi:10.1598/JAAL.54.2.4

Troia, G.A. (2007). Research in writing instruction: What we know and what we need to know. In M. Pressley, A.K. Billman, & K.H. Perry (Eds.), Shaping literacy achievement: Research we have, research we need (pp. 129–156). New York: Guilford.

Vasudevan, L., Schultz, K., & Bateman, J. (2010). Rethinking composing in a digital age: Authoring literate identities through multimodal storytelling. Written Communication, 27(4), 442–468. doi:10.1177/0741088310378217

ReadWriteThink.org Lesson Plans ■ “Using Picture Books to Teach Setting

Development in Writing Workshop” by Sharon

Roth ■ “Writers’ Workshop: The Biographical Sketch” by

Lisa L. Owens

IRA Journal Article ■ “Digital Storytelling: Extending the Potential for

Struggling Writers” by Ruth Sylvester and

Wendy-lou Greenidge, The Reading Teacher,

December 2009

Even More! ■ “New Literacies and 21st-Century Technologies”

(IRA position statement): www.reading.org/

General/AboutIRA/PositionStatements/21st

CenturyLiteracies.aspx

MOR E TO E X PLOR E


Copyright of Reading Teacher is the property of International Reading Association and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

313 combining traditional literacies -century writing … · combining traditional and new...

Documents