Teaching and learning to read and write in the digital age

Given the above discussion on how ‘literacy’ is defined, the literature seems to agree that new technologies are shaping ‘new literacies’ and are bringing opportunities for teachers to teach reading and writing in ‘more diverse and participatory contexts’ (National Council of Teachers of English, 2008, p.2). More recently, research in the United States has showed that ‘a successful digital conversion for classrooms, districts, and states is not determined by the technology, but by how technology enables teaching and learning’ (McKnight, O’Malley, Ruzic, Horsley, Franey and Bassett, 2016, p.194). Musti-Rao, Cartledge, Bennett and Council (2015) have also agreed that due to several advances in the digital world, technology is becoming more accessible in classrooms. McKnight et al (2016) have further argued that ‘access to technology is an important first step in the digital conversion of school systems; however, for the conversion to be successful, it is critical to move the focus beyond the technology itself, to how technology enables teaching and learning’ (p.194).

This view has also been noted by Zammit (2004) who focussing specifically on Malta, stated that:

28

A transformation has been happening around us with the ubiquity of ICT, it is natural that this transformation must be reflected in the way we teach and the way we learn.... Schools have gone through a process by which in a relatively short time-span they have been equipped with an ICT infrastructure (Zammit, 2004, p.1).

As Zammit (2004) argues, information and communication technologies are changing both teaching and learning in the 21st Century and schools are now incorporating technology in their systems (McKnight et al, 2006). Furthermore we are living in a time of change in which information technology is affecting the way society functions and lives (Castells, 2004). This notion was earlier expressed by Reinking, McKenna, Labbo and Kieffer (1998) who presented their perspectives on how technological developments are changing foundations of literacy. This notion of ‘change’ in defining ‘literacy’ has been explored in the literature by many (Nutbrown, Clough, Levy, Little, Bishop, Lamb, Yamada-Rice, 2016; Cook- Gumperz, 2006). Cook-Gumperz (2006) has argued that importance should not only be given the impact of digital technologies but it is also important to identify how such advancements are influencing constructions of reading and writing. Thomas (2011) more recently, suggested that technology is changing the foundations of literacy and asks two reflective questions which need consideration when focusing on the teaching and learning of text in the 21st _Century:

What are the key literacies and competencies for the 21st Century, and how can we develop an education system that is adjusted to face these challenges of competence development for the future? Also, what do young people really know about media, and what implications does this

have for learning in educational settings? (p.106)

A number of researchers and practitioners agree that technology has brought drastic changes in education (Chai and Lim, 2011; Kolikant, 2010; Merchant, 2007) and therefore it is important for educators to be aware of the technological experiences students have had (Thomas, 2011). According to Jones-Kavalier and Flannigan (2006) a common scenario in a 21st Century classroom is a classroom filled with ‘digitally-literate students’ who are taught by ‘linear-thinking,

29

technologically stymied, instructors’ (p.4). Teachers need to ensure that technological resources are used in the best interest of the students since learning takes place when learners participate in activities which are personally relevant. (Betcher and Lee, 2011). Teachers are also expected to be ‘mediators’ and ‘knowledge brokers’ in order to provide students with guidance and assistance (Betcher and Lee, 2011).

In order to ensure positive learning with the use of information technologies, a number of scholars have argued that one must consider the teacher’s own level of ICT use. Prensky (2001) for example has referred to this by claiming that teachers or ‘digital immigrant instructors’ are struggling to teach students because students speak a different language. He goes on to argue that this is because students who are learning to read and write in the digital age are accustomed to receiving information very quickly (Thomas, 2011) and are learning in different ways than their teachers, due to several technological advancements along the years. In relation to this Thomas (2011) argued that today’s learners prefer graphics and images before their printed text rather than the other way round. Similar to Prensky’s (2001) ideology, Chai and Lim (2011) have also denoted that one must consider the teacher’s own level of confidence in using digital technology in class. They argued that many teachers are using information and communication technology in traditional settings and some are even doubtful about the positive effects ICT has on the teaching and learning of reading and writing.

Some scholars hold the view that teachers’ personal competences in ICT affects their teaching of reading and writing in class (Edwards and Bruce, 2000). However this view is not supported by Kajder (2005) who argued that teachers who use the computer and Internet browsers at home do not necessarily bring that knowledge into the classroom. Two thirds of the teachers in Kajder’s (2005) study reported that they felt unprepared to use technology in teaching, even though they were ICT competent. Edwards and Bruce (2000) also believe that the teacher’s own ICT competences do not necessarily affect instruction because according to them, technology is successfully used when the teacher makes use of critical reflection

30

and therefore teachers with few technological skills might still provide a good level of instruction.

Chai and Lim (2011) hold a more neutral standpoint and argue that integrating ICT into teaching and learning practices is ‘a complex and messy task’ (p.6). According to Chai and Lim (2011) teachers who teach in the digital age are requested to use ICT competently, have a sense of one’s developing identity and the right pedagogical ideas. A similar notion is expressed by Betcher and Lee (2011) who believe that when teachers reflect and start thinking about ‘e-teaching’, they normally go through three phases: ‘doing old things in old ways, doing old things but in new ways and doing new things in new ways’ (p.15). Similar to this, Glover and Miller (2001) also identified three types of categories of teachers; the

‘missioners’, the ‘tentatives’ and the ‘luddites’. The ‘missioners’ are those

teachers who understand the beneficial use of technology and use this in practical ways. The ‘tentatives’ refer to those teachers who are willing to try technological resources but with some difficulties whilst the ‘luddites’ are those teachers who prefer to teach in a traditional manner and refuse to amalgamate technological resources with their teaching.

Betcher and Lee (2011) also refer to three types of teachers. The ‘early adopters’ are described as those who are normally highly motivated to start using any new technology. Betcher and Lee (2011) regard these practitioners as seeing the positive impact of digital technologies and fully prepared to use it because of the benefits it brings. The number of teachers who fall in this group is normally smaller in comparison with those who fall in the second group of teachers which Betcher and Lee (2011) describe as ‘interested but a bit wary’ (p.15). These teachers are said to believe in the benefits of the technology but find some difficulties in using it on an everyday basis, finding it difficult to incorporate yet another concept into the curriculum. Although these practitioners are described as being more difficult to work with compared to the ‘early adopters’, once they understand the full benefits of the technology they tend to work with it in a very positive manner (Betcher and Lee, 2011). Betcher and Lee (2011) refer to the last group of teachers who are less excited about technology and tend to focus on the

31

negative reasons as to why technology might not work and possibly even regard it as a waste of time.

Whilst the literature presented here has suggested that teachers fall in three different groups this view can be criticised. Such a view focuses on the teacher’s use of technology but does not acknowledge outside factors which might impact the teacher’s behaviour. The literature does not refer to teachers whose enthusiasm wears off due to technological faults such as projectors and laptops which need replacements. Therefore a wise approach would be that of understanding teachers’ behaviours and giving the necessary support in order for students to make the best possible use of technological devices in the classroom. Regardless of the teachers’ level of ICT or which group teachers fit in, most researchers agree that completing ICT courses is not enough unless teachers practice the skills learned (Slay, Sieborger and Hodgkinson-William, 2008). Research also seems to agree that today’s students are entering into today’s schools with a good level of ICT knowledge and skills.

Today’s students are described as ‘natives to cyberspace’ and ‘digitally savvy’ (Jones-Kavalier and Flannigan, 2006, p.9). Ahmed (2012, p.1554) goes on to assert that 21st _{Century learners ‘respect knowledge, wisdom and human} experience less and less’ and are relying more on the modern technology which surrounds them. Since digital technology is constantly changing it is also influencing the way reading and writing are taught and ‘new media literacy technical skills catapult traditional learning methods into orbit’ (Jones-Kavalier and Flannigan, 2006, p.9). This change brings about reflection on whether the use of digital technology - in teaching and learning of reading and writing – is encouraging students to learn more. A number of researchers like Kolikant (2010) and Twenge (2006) have carried out studies in order to find out whether ‘digital natives’ are actually learning more than students of previous generations.

Answering this question is a difficult task as research shows varying outcomes. For example in an interview based study of 25 students, Kolikant (2010) found that the majority of students use technological devices at school but they believed that their generation was not as academically able as the ‘pre-ICT generation’. Twenge

32

(2006) also tackles this notion and argues that ‘Generation Me’- which refers to all the people born after 1970 – is less motivated to learn compared to the ‘pre-ICT generation’. According to Twenge (2006) the ‘modern’ generation of learners read fewer books and tend to avoid using textbooks when compared to students who have learned in more traditional settings without any form of technology. Twenge’s (2006) study also showed that students were becoming less ‘self-reliant’ when compared to previous generations of learners (p.1385).

A number of scholars and researchers in this field have presented a different scenario and have supported opposing views (Gee, 2004; Goldberg, Russell and Cook, 2003). A study conducted by The National Council of Teachers of English (2008) for example has shown that digital technology promotes writing and interaction. Goldberg, Russell and Cook (2003) also found that students who use digital technology for writing produce longer and better writing tasks and are more motivated to write compared with their peers. Gee (2004) also declared that students in the 21st _{Century are better equipped for late capitalism when compared} to those who were taught in a more traditional manner and without technological resources.

Whilst the research outlined so far presents a mixed picture regarding whether 21st Century learners are better learners than previous generations, other studies show neutral outcomes. Martin (2014) for example argues that computers do little in terms of learning. Merchant (2007) also holds a neutral perspective and denotes that ‘whether using computers can improve writing, or for that matter reading, is a notoriously difficult research question to answer and one that only really makes sense in a context in which there is real choice and genuine scope for comparison’ (p.120).

The literature presented here suggests a comparison between ‘digital natives’ and ‘older’ generations. Yet the literature fails to acknowledge the fact that in the near future, the divide between ‘digital natives’ and ‘digital immigrants’ will be diminished. Schools in Malta are being equipped with the latest forms of technologies and teachers who are not ‘digital natives’ are given training and support through in-service courses. The point being made here is that rather than

33

distinguishing between ‘digital natives’ and ‘older’ generations it would be wiser to invest in teacher training for educators who are born in the pre-technology era. Additionally, one must also keep in mind that this ‘era’ will fade out in the near future and all citizens will be considered as ‘digital natives’.

On the basis of my critical review of the literature it may be argued that although this section has shown that research tends to refer to the teacher’s own level of technological capabilities, emphasis must be on the pedagogical possibilities rather than the technological capabilities and digital technology on its own does not change pedagogy (Higgins, 2010). Teachers’ professional development should focus strongly on pedagogical as well as technological skills in order for technologies to create more dynamic classrooms through interactive teaching and learning (Cogill, 2010). Teachers need to be aware of the way students are learning in order to meet their pedagogical goals (Thomas, 2011). Although technology is important to teach literacy in the new century, other dimensions of learning need to be taken into consideration. Clearly there is a need for teachers to be ICT literate and teachers need to be experts in their fields of teaching and more importantly facilitators of students’ learning (Ahmed, 2012).

The literature presented in this section seems to agree that emphasis should be on the pedagogical skills rather than the technological capabilities (Bartolo, 2014). In order to understand what these pedagogical possibilities are, we need to understand what reading and writing in the digital age is and this justifies the importance of my study. Additionally, this section has showed that constructions of literacy are changing because of digital technologies and one of the research questions of this study specifically asks ‘What are the students’ and teachers’ views on the role of technology in the classroom?’ In order to have a better understanding of this the following section will address the relationship between the use of digital technology and reading and writing.