Young, C. A. & Bush, J. (2004). Teaching the English language arts with technology: A critical approach and pedagogical framework. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 4(1). Available: http://www.citejournal.org/vol4/iss1/languagearts/article1.cfm
Teaching the English Language Arts With Technology: A Critical
Approach and Pedagogical Framework
Western Michigan University
In order to cultivate the kind of technology literacy in
our students called for by leaders in the field, it must simultaneously
be cultivated in our teachers. While the literature in the field of English
education demonstrates the efficacy of computer technology in writing
instruction and addresses its impact on the evolving definition of literacy
in the 21st century, it does not provide measured directions for how English
teachers might develop technology literacy themselves or specific plans
for how they might begin to critically assess the potential that technology
might hold for them in enhancing instruction. This article presents a
pedagogical framework encompassing the necessary critical mindset in which
teachers of the English language arts can begin to conceive their own
"best practices" with technology—a framework that is based upon
their needs, goals, students, and classrooms, rather than the external
pressure to fit random and often decontexualized technology applications
into an already complex and full curriculum. To maximize technology's
benefits, educators must develop a heightened, critical view of technology
to determine its potential for the classroom. The steps for doing this
- To recognize the complexity of technology integration and its status
in the field.
- To recognize and understand the evolving and continuous effect computer,
information, and Internet technology has on literacy.
- To recognize the importance of creating relevant contexts for effective
technology integration by
- Developing a pedagogical framework.
- Asking the important questions.
- Establishing working guidelines.
- Implementing these strategies while integrating technology.
- Reflecting on the experience and revisiting these strategies
Included as part of the article are four brief cases of
teachers whose practices demonstrate a critical approach to technology
Victor Hugo once said, "Nothing is so powerful as an idea whose time has
come." Technology, specifically computer technology, is more pervasive
than ever before. As such, it has dramatically changed the face of education
in the 21st century and will continue to do so, but the extent to which technological
change has improved or revolutionized teaching and learning remains a topic
of debate among educators.
In the field of English, Barton (1993) claimed that there were
two broad areas of technological focus a decade ago: "the use of computers
in writing instruction and the incorporation of technology into concepts and
definitions of literacy" (p. 2). As this article will show, Hawisher
(1989) and Selfe and Hawisher (1991) have demonstrated the power of computer
technology in writing instruction while Myers (1996), Wilhelm (2000), Gilster
(1997), and others addressed the evolution of new conceptions of literacy as
a result of the proliferation of computer technology. Pope and Golub (1999)
provided general principals and practices for infusing technology, which serve
as a good starting point for teachers and teacher educators.
Absent from the literature, however, are measured directions
for how teachers might develop technology literacy themselves, as well as specific
plans for how they might begin to critically assess the potential that technology
holds for them in enhancing their English language arts or methods instruction.
This article aims to fill this gap by providing practical strategies for English
teachers and teacher educators to develop a critical approach toward and pedagogical
framework for technology integration, the first step being to recognize the
complexity of the enterprise.
Realizing the Complexities of Technology Integration
Despite the influx of large amounts of money being spent on technology
for America's schools, specifically information, computer, and Internet technology,
the results of this investment continue to be uneven. Bangert-Drowns and Pyke
(1999) pointed out that, although there has been a large financial investment
in bringing technology to schools, there has been little commensurate investment
in preparing teachers to implement it effectively. Although access to computers
in schools continues to improve for students, schools are spending only a small
percentage of technology dollars on professional development despite the fact
that teachers say they need more of it (Ansell & Park, 2003).
Federal and state initiatives like the Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers
to use Technology (PT3) grants, the Virginia Educational Technology Association
(VETA), and the Virginia Society for Technology in Education (VSTE) have made
strides in educating teachers to use technology in the classroom, but more needs
to be done. A large body of research is speculative of the extent to which technology
improves learning, suggesting that more studies need to be conducted (Alliance
for Childhood, 2001; Cuban 1986, 1999, 2001; Landry, 2002; Oppenheimer, 2003).
A recent body of literature reveals a "disconnect"
between the idealism of those advocating for the use of technology in schools
and the reality of integrating technology effectively into today's classrooms
(see Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck, 2001). This disconnect is made apparent
every time we, the authors, attend conferences where educators, on the one hand,
share stories of wireless classrooms and portable laptops, while others lament
not having air conditioning and enough textbooks. Such disparity complicates
the issue of technology's efficacy in the classroom.
Postman (1996) warned that technology lulls people into believing
that all children will have the same access to information and that technology
will equalize learning opportunities for the rich and the poor. Pope and Golub
(1999) acknowledged these issues, too, advising, "We need to devise ways
of responding and coping with the inequities the division of computer access
[presents] between poor children and the middle and upper class children"
(p. 95). While significant potential exists for technology to improve learning
opportunities for schools with low-income students, issues of access and equity
continue to be a challenge today.
The current push for technology applications is not new (Cuban,
1986; Trump, 2001). However, the speed and haste at which new technologies are
rushed into schools has often overshadowed the necessary pedagogical discussions
that guide the use of those technologies. The fact that most teachers use computers
at home more than at school points to the complexities of using technology effectively
in schools (Cuban 1999). If teachers' challenging working conditions were better
understood and their opinions taken more seriously, policy makers might provide
the necessary time, training, and support that could inspire teachers to use
technology in the classroom more often, perhaps at a frequency approaching their
at-home use and, more importantly, in a much more informed and meaningful way.
Oppenheimer (2003) stated that "education's policy makers,
from local school officials on up to state legislators, governors, and even
our presidents, have by and large failed [the] responsibility" of approaching
technology more critically and with more restraint, "squandering a good
many opportunities to make technology, and school as a whole, truly meaningful"
(pp. xx-xxi). For now, in the majority of American schools, there is little
evidence of a technological revolution in instruction, and teachers continue
to be infrequent and limited users of new technology applications for teaching
and learning (Cuban, 2001).
Denton (2002) asked the following question of technology: "Saving
grace or false prophecy?" Much of the writing about technology tends to
characterize it in these extremes, creating what Andrews (1998) refers to as
an "either-or" mentality. However, Postman (1992) provided a more
accurate assessment of the reality of technology when he wrote that it is "a
mistake to suppose that any technological innovation has a one-sided effect"
(p. 4). Technology is much more complex, providing both benefits and challenges
in varying degrees. Shaw (2003) characterized well the complexities technology
poses in his plea for technology and media literacy classes in our nation's
We live in increasingly complex times, and unless we teach our
children how to read about, watch, interpret, understand and analyze the day's
events, we risk raising a generation of civic illiterates, political ignoramuses,
and uncritical consumers, vulnerable not only to crackpot ideas, faulty reasoning
and putative despots but also to fraudulent sales pitches and misleading advertising
claims. (p. H4)
Shaw's plea becomes even more important in light of the Kaiser
Family Foundation's recent study, in which they found that 68% of kids 2 and
younger spend an average of 2 hours a day in front of a screen, either television
or computer, while children under 6 spend as much time in front of a screen
as they do playing outside and three times as much as they spend reading or
being read to (Rideout, Vandewater, & Wartella, E. A., 2003).
In order to inspire the kind of media and technology literacy
in our students called for by Shaw and others, we must simultaneously be
cultivating it in our teachers. The reality is that technology is a complex,
dynamic, and ever-changing part of our society and world today and, given this,
it is important to have an informed approach towards its role within our own
sphere of influence. For our purposes, this context is the English language arts
classroom, with the crucial understanding that technology and media provide yet
another critical layer of complexity to defining what English is and specifying
its connection to the larger issue of literacy.
(Re)Considering English and Literacy in the Information Age
To define English as a discipline is not as easy as one might
assume. James Moffet (1983) encouraged a view of English that goes beyond heterogeneous
content on the one hand and skills on the other to construe English as "all
discourse in our native language—any verbalizing of any phenomena, whether thought,
spoken, written; whether literary or non-literary" (p. 9). This resistance
to pinpointing English as a narrowly defined discipline that does not allow
for accommodating a larger sense of what English is has persevered.
In What Is English (1990), Peter Elbow provided critical
reflections of his and others' experiences in the profession, elementary through
college, of the 1987 English Coalition Conference, a 20-year follow up to the
historic Dartmouth Conference of 1966. The goal of the 1987 conference was,
in part, to see if a consensus about the teaching of English could be reached
across levels of schooling in a constructive manner (Elbow, 1990, p. 5). Consistent
with Moffet (1983), Elbow was struck by the diversity of answers to the question
of defining English: "English is peculiarly rich, complex, and many-faceted.
More so, I think, than most other disciplines. We're a satura (satire), a mixed
bag" (p. 110). Despite its multifaceted nature, participants at the conference
were able to reach some consensus about the teaching of English, if not a definition
itself. Conceptualized by Shirley Brice Heath, consensus focused upon the central
business of English studies having three main components:
- Using language actively in a diversity of ways and settings—that
is, not only in the classroom as exercises for teachers but in a range of
social settings with various audiences, where the language makes a difference.
- Reflecting on language use. Turning back and self-consciously reflecting
on how one has been using language—examining these processes of talking, listening,
writing, and reading.
- Trying to ensure that this using and reflecting go on in conditions
of both nourishment and challenge, that is conditions where teachers
care about students themselves and what they actively learn—not just about
skills or scores or grades. (Elbow, 1990, p. 18)
Inspired by Heath and Berthoff (1978, 1981), the emphasis became
the student, who, as an active rather than passive learner, constructs knowledge
through the language arts, as well as problematizes these activities by thinking
and reflecting upon them rather than ingesting prescribed curricula—a focus
consistent with critical literacy and the realization that these activities
are often ideologically situated.
Drawing upon Moffet's (1983) notion of the "universe of
discourse," English, for us, the authors, clearly refers to the English
language arts—reading, writing, speaking, listening, and, perhaps most importantly,
thinking. It also includes language, literature and composition, as well as
process, product, content, form, and skills. But it involves more. Our conception
of English, reflected in the work of Moffet (1983) and Elbow (1990), is also
intimately bound up with critical literacy, specifically Freire and Macedo's
(1987) notion of reading the word and reading the world—an influence that figures
prominently in the work of many teachers, including English educators Garth
Boomer (1985) and Eleanor Kutz and Hephzibah Roskelly (1991). Kutz and Roskelly
liken critical literacy to an"unquiet pedagogy," one with power to
[It] is about exchanging silent classrooms for talk-filled ones, about the role
of language in the classroom: about teaching English. It's about how students
can be encouraged to question, systematically, the ways that they use language
and the ways that language is used in their worlds and the literature they read.
It's about how teachers can build on the language and knowledge of social experience
that their students bring to their classrooms. For it is through language that
we make sense of the world—that we make the world. (xi-xii)
So with this multifaceted conception of English and literacy in
mind, where does technology fit?
Technology as Literacy: Another Critical Consideration
Understanding computer technology, along with reading, writing,
and mathematics, is cited as a core element of literacy in the Information Age,
with growing evidence to suggest that computer literacy should not be thought
of as simply possessing specific computer skills as much as developing a confident
and flexible attitude about technology (Chen, 1986; Ray & Barton, 1991;
Selfe, 1989; Zuboff, 1988). Kaplan (1991) pointed out that teachers must come
to terms with technology and do so in terms of their educational philosophy.
To her, it is crucial for teachers to do so "if they seek to empower themselves
or to foster the conditions within which students can empower themselves" (p.
38). Instead of becoming complicit in technological change, Kaplan advocates
the need for teachers to become involved and active in this change process.
Alluding to Freire and Macedo's (1987) notion of critical literacy, Kaplan (1991)
described technology as a "text which we are in a sense given to read but one
which we are also enjoined to rewrite" (p. 38) and offers hope in addressing
the issue of empowerment in relation to technology and teaching:
Reading ourselves, as teachers of English in a technological world, awakens
us to our roles, and our complicity, in the world. To foster the liberatory
education that Freire advocates, our practical work must begin with reading
the world, but it must not end there, acquiescing to that apparently authoritative
text in front of us. Rather, teachers must actively appropriate the world-text,
and thus reinscribe—re-vision—the technology of the word. (p. 38)
Where Freire called for society to develop a critical
consciousness with respect to the written word, Kaplan asserted the importance
of extending this critical awareness to technology.
In Changing Our Minds: Negotiating English Literacy
(1996), Miles Myers broadened this notion beyond computer technology, arguing
that a new form of "translation/critical" literacy is emerging, which demands
that teachers be skilled in shifting modes of communication and paradigms of
discourse. Myers explained that this new literacy will require "an active, meaning-making
student" with a flexible, adaptive intelligence (p. 144). Translation/critical
literacy, according to Myers, modifies the traditional practices of individualizing
education, "granting special emphasis to the importance of students becoming
literate in all the various manifestations of 'technology,' from group work
to using computers, from thinking strategies to writing-to-learn" (p. 158).
While readers and writers can and often do work alone, they also
need to be able to work in collaborative settings in order to solve contemporary
problems that are often interdisciplinary, ranging from implementing environmental
protection to balancing the issues of ethnic diversity to creating fair world
trade regulations. As Myers pointed out, "To secure the necessary collaborations
for solving these special kinds of problems, the expert reader and writer will
need to have a repertoire of hardware tools, software tools, external/internal
mentors, and cognitive strategies" (p. 159). Having these tools and being able
to manipulate them in order to generate a full range of ideas and show what
can be done with them will constitute the acquisition of this new literacy.
Tools expand our cognition, and the current technology industry
provides a perpetual stream of new tools daily. In turn, these tools create
the need for new skills, flexibility, and a critical eye. Technology, especially
in the form of hypertext, which fosters connections on the Internet, has become
an essential medium for this emerging literacy, due to its growing prevalence
and importance in our society and our interaction with the rest of the world.
As Myers asserted,
One looks smart in the contemporary world by having a distributed network of
tools that helps in solving problems—what some have called "distributed intelligence."
The creation of one's own customized, distributed system is one of the first
requirements of a thinking person in this postmodern age so that we are never
without necessary tools if we need them. (p. 168)
Gilster (1997) placed the emphasis more specifically on "digital
literacy" or "the ability to access networked computer resources and
use them" to understand and [manipulate] information in multiple formats
from a wide range of sources" (p. 1). Wilhelm (2000) explained this notion
as more of a natural progression, asserting that literacy "has always been
about using the most powerful cultural tools available to make and communicate
meaning. At the present, those tools happen to be multimedia tools that use
video, graphics, sound, and traditional texts in a hypertext format" (p.
7). For Wilhelm, literacy is dependent on knowing how to "critically use
these tools to their fullest meaning-making potential" (p. 7).
Myers and Wilhelm saw schools as being an important source for
teaching these distributed habits of mind and new conceptions of literacy, and
Oates (1989) asserted that many English educators "share a vision...that computers
can have a strong positive impact on the quality and scope of their work in
teaching English and language arts" (p. xiii). In order to reach the fruition
of this vision, however, teachers of the English language arts must first realize
the complexities of technology and its potential and probable effects on the
discipline, literacy, classroom instruction, and the learning process and develop
an informed approach to integrating it into their own practice. As Kaplan (1991)
pointed out, technology holds much promise for educators as
powerful enactments of cognitive and social theories of reading
and writing and rich extensions of privilege to those who have been excluded
from public discourse. As teachers however, they have an obligation to confront
the not-always-benign implications of choices foisted upon them and of choices
they themselves initiate. (p. 35)
Ultimately, teachers decide what happens within their own
classrooms and, as a result, they have the potential to be the key change agents
in reform efforts (Cuban, 1986), especially when it involves technology.
Considering Technology in the English Language Arts Classroom
While technology surely receives more exposure in mathematics
and science, it has also affected the manner in which we approach the teaching
of the English language arts in innumerable ways. Word processing has revolutionized
the way we perceive, teach, and implement the writing process, especially in
terms of editing, revision, and publishing, and the effects have been positive
for students as well (Hawisher, 1989; Hawisher & Selfe, 1991).
This application is probably familiar to most teachers at this
point. However, much of the current writing about and training for teaching
with technology often finds itself mired in the "nuts and bolts" of
hardware and software without consideration of whether instruction actually
warrants technology use or what the most appropriate methods of integrating
technologies into current teaching and learning contexts are. The English teaching
community, especially at the K-12 level, is only just beginning to wrestle with
the pedagogical complexities inherent in integrating these technologies into
writing, language, and literature classrooms. With no clear sense of effective
technology use, teachers often ignore it altogether or resort to exposing students
simply to whatever current software is most available, with little instructional
support or curricular connection. As a result, a larger sense of context is
often lacking—in other words, the reasons teachers should use technology and
how it can be used to advance their existing curricular goals and classroom
In the teaching of the English language arts, the notion of
context has always been important, and research has long supported this. For
example, teachers of writing continually look for potential authentic issues,
situations, and audiences in order to help their students contextualize their
work (Atwell, 1998; Calkins, 1994; Dyson & Freedman, 1991; Elbow, 1998;
Elbow & Belanoff, 1995; Graves, 1983; Hillocks, 1986; Kirby, Kirby, &
Liner, 2004; Murray, 1990; Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde, 1998; etc.).
Contemporary pedagogical discussions regarding grammar, language, and literature
also show the need for addressing context in English language arts classrooms
(Andrews, 1998; Hillocks, 1986; Martinez & Roser, 1991; Moore, 1997; Pinnel
& Jagger, 1991; Weaver, 1996, 1998; Wilhelm, 1995; Zemelman, Daniels, &
Hyde, 1998; etc.).
Technology use must have a relevant context, as well, and in
terms of using it to teach the English language arts, developing a critical
mindset is key for teachers to implement technologies efficiently and effectively.
As Kajder (2003) wrote, "Focus has to be placed on learning with the technology
rather than learning from or about the technology" (p. 9). Similarly, Willis,
Stephens, and Matthew (1996) advocated an approach "which places technology
in the background and the models or theories of instruction in the foreground"
To integrate technologies in a classroom without an understanding of context
risks using technologies ineffectively or inappropriately, thus wasting
opportunities for new learning experiences and, potentially, vast amounts of
money spent on underutilized technological resources.
In addition to the sources mentioned previously, the authors'
school and classroom observation experiences bear this out. Examples include
entering a computer classroom with high-end, Internet-connected computers being
used by a high school English department solely as a typing instruction lab.
Upon inquiring further, it was discovered that the faculty neither asked for
the lab, nor were they given instruction on ways to integrate such technologies
in their teaching of literature and writing. On several occasions we have encountered
schools with labs that were underutilized by teachers who had received no training
on how to make use of computer-assisted instruction, as well as teachers facing
resistance to letting their students use the labs for fear that they would damage
To avoid situations like these
and to create a relevant context for technology integration in the English
language arts classroom or methods course, we propose the following strategies
working in tandem with one another:
- Develop a pedagogical framework.
- Ask the important questions.
- Establish working guidelines.
After implementing the strategies, teachers should try integrating the technology
and reflect upon the experience as a way of revisiting and revising the strategies
regularly. A detailed description of each strategy follows.
A Pedagogical Framework
Together, we, the authors, present a pedagogical framework encompassing
a critical mindset, in which teachers of the English language arts can begin
to conceive their own "best practices" with technology—a framework
based upon their own needs, goals, students, and classrooms, rather than the
external pressure to fit random and often decontexualized technology applications
into an already complex and full curriculum.
Part of our philosophy with regard to technology use is that
there should be a genuine need on behalf of the teacher or her instructional
goals that the technology fills, recognizing, too, the importance of enhancing
a student's overall literacy. In other words, the power of the pedagogy must
drive the technology being implemented, so that instruction, skills, content,
or literacy is enhanced in some meaningful way. Otherwise, the technology itself
often becomes the content focus rather than the English language arts.
Teachers must avoid the temptation to use technologies without
understanding the pedagogical implications of using them. Zeurcher (2002) employed
the metaphor of technologies as "power tools" that are not ends in
themselves, but tools to be used to enhance the goals of the current project,
much like a carpenter would use appropriate tools for a specific task. Thus
the pedagogical goals take precedence; the technologies are thought of as another
means of reaching those goals.
|Figure 1. A pedagogical framework for developing a critical
approach to technology applications.
We believe that this is an important distinction; when technology
is not tied to an authentic context and purpose, it will likely become a burden
for users. Therefore, when we bring technologies into our English language arts
classrooms, we should do so with forethought—we should do so critically, with
an explicit understanding of why we want to do it and how it will affect students,
instruction, and curricular goals. Figure 1 represents our pedagogical framework
for the decision-making process resulting in an informed and effective integration
of technology applications into the classroom.
This framework can guide teachers in planning their use of technologies. We
developed the framework by defining the issues we consider when we bring technologies
into the classroom, by observing other teachers who use technologies, and by
engaging others in discussions about problems and challenges they faced when
they or their colleagues brought technologies into their existing English language
What we found was that the desired result, "thoughtful and informed use
of technology" in a classroom, was dependent on teachers' implicit or explicit
understanding of key contextual issues. This understanding includes their conception
of English, knowledge of their goals as teachers without the presence of those
technologies, an understanding of the social and pedagogical context in which
they taught, knowledge of the available technologies, how to interact with them
as users and teachers, and an awareness of other issues that affect the teaching
in that context. In short, the decisions that good teachers make every day when
considering what to do, how to act, and how to run a successful English language
arts classroom are made explicit.
This framework is important in two ways. For experienced
teachers, those who successfully integrate technologies in their classes and
have done so previously, this framework can give form to their thinking
processes and help them make future decisions regarding technologies, as well as
help justify those decisions to others. For other teachers, those less
experienced with technologies, this framework can guide decision-making
processes and serve as a professional development tool. Making these issues
visible can also help classroom teachers resist pressure to implement uncritical
applications of new technologies and allow them to negotiate for the appropriate
time, support, training, and resources they need.
Classroom Goals of the English Language Arts Teacher: Asking the
When we begin to think about using technologies in our English
classes, it is important to consider our overall goals. As a part of this process,
it is important to develop and entertain key questions to decide how, when,
and whether to change an activity, lesson, or unit by incorporating technology.
According to Kajder (2003), the tech-savvy English teacher is defined in part
by knowing "how to ask questions and, perhaps more important, whom to ask"
(p. 11). According to Richards (2000), a veteran high school English teacher,
two affirmative answers to the following questions indicate that a teacher should
make the change to implement technology:
- Will this use of technology enhance the conversation of the classroom?
- Will it validate the work of the classroom?
- Will it validate the individual?
- Is it worth the time and effort? (p. 38)
Richards' questions may provide a good starting place for reflection,
but they do not give much insight beyond deciding whether or not technology
might be an option or give any indication of with whom else the teacher might
consult. Drawing on our own experiences and of those from the teachers with
whom we work, we also suggest the following questions as a means of inspiring
a more critical consideration for those teachers of the English language arts
and English educators entertaining the thought of integrating technology:
- Why do I want to use technologies? Is the purpose authentic? Purposeful?
Do I have an instructional need that is not being currently met that technology
might help with? If not, is there an instructional strategy or learning activity
that I want to implement that technology might enhance or assist?
- What are my goals and objectives as a teacher for my students? How can the
technologies enhance my ability to reach these goals and objectives? How can
they enhance my students' abilities to reach these goals and objectives?
- What are my students capable of doing and handling with regard to technology?
What are their limitations? What am I capable of doing? What are my limitations?
How can we teach each other, grow together?
- What technology resources are available for me and for students, and how
can they be used?
- How might issues of access and equity affect our experience?
- If resources are minimal, how can I maximize them? How can I adapt to limited
access to technology tools and resources?
- How will the use of technology affect or enhance my students' overall literacy?
Are there applications available for developing "translation/critical"
literacy (Myers 1996) and/or "digital" literacy (Gilster 1997)?
Are these consistent with my goals and objectives?
- What are the curriculum standards, local, state, and national, which address
technology in the English language arts? How might I fold these into a purposeful
use of technology in my classroom?
- What other issues do I need to consider? What other resources can I draw
upon for insights?
Rather than rely on quantifying the decision to use technology,
we suggest teachers use their answers to these questions as a strategy to be
proactive in preparing to teach with technology and as a way to flesh out an
informed plan for doing it effectively.
Richards (2000) asserted, "As responsible educators, we
owe it to ourselves and our students to make thoughtful, not compulsive, choices
in instruction. Our answer should never be the same as the mountaineer, "'Because
it's there'" (p. 41). While Richards point is valid, the reality is that
technology is here, more pervasive than ever and proliferating at a furious
pace. This fact raises another important consideration in terms of context—our
students. Students are often the first to possess new technologies—if not the
tools themselves, then the knowledge and skill involved to use them in strategic
ways. They often bring a sense of technological know-how and literacy, which
most teachers are not aware of and do not know how to draw upon for instructional
purposes. While some teachers may not be comfortable using technology themselves,
much less integrating it into their teaching, today's students have always lived
in an age of modern computer technology, the Internet, and e-mail. While the
levels of development may vary among students, they are on average more savvy
and more accustomed to life with technology than their teachers.
Berger (2003), Gee (2003), and Smith and Wilhelm (2002) all revealed
how students' use of technology, specifically computer and video games, can
provide important insights into literacy, learning, and effective teaching practices.
According to Gee, "The theory of learning in good video games is close
to what I believe are the best theories of learning in cognitive science"
(7). He adds, "Furthermore, the theory of learning in good video games
fits with the modern, high-tech, global world today's children and teenagers
live in than do the theories (and practices) of learning that they see in school"
Berger (2002) explored the effects of storytelling in the transition
from print to electronic media, part of which involves a sense of agency in
the interactive narratives of computer and video games that could potentially
inspire children to read more. Together these authors provide the impetus for
considering students' experiences with technology applications beyond the classroom
along with those literacies more traditionally recognized in school, and point
to the need for more research on the potential effects and benefits that technology,
like computer and video games, might hold for more effective teaching and learning.
Working Guidelines for Using Technology Effectively
In addition to asking key questions, the development of guidelines
for using technology effectively is also an important consideration. Drawing
on informal survey data, the authors have compiled a list of working guidelines,
which represents both preservice and veteran teachers' perceptions of what should
and should not occur when technology is integrated into the English language
arts classroom. (The first author surveyed students in methods courses over
a two-year period to collect perceptions while the second author gathered ideas
from teachers during a recent Third Coast Writing Project seminar he facilitated.)
Although the list provides important guideposts, it is
important for individual teachers to consider this list as a bridge to creating
their own guiding principles of technology use based upon their own unique
classroom goals, contexts, and students. Thus, this list is intended as a
starting point for teachers to consider their goals and to then work towards
asking the difficult questions that lead to effective teaching with
- Work to validate individual students and empower their ability to achieve
academic and "real world" success.
- Supplement and enhance instruction and, in effect, work almost transparently
and seamlessly with content instruction.
- Supplement and enhance traditional print/literature/media materials.
- Provide additional resources and create wider access to them.
- Expand students' means of expression and broaden their opportunities to
reach meaningful and authentic audiences.
- Deepen students' understanding of complex issues and enhance their ability
to make more global connections.
- Expand and enhance the definitions and dimensions of literacy (critical,
digital, media and otherwise).
- Facilitate an open forum for discussion that allows for more opportunities
for free and democratic participation and dialogue.
Technology should not...
- Replace complex language and developmental goals with more simplistic "learn
- Replace teachers or pedagogy.
- Complicate or supercede content instruction or become the content focus
of instruction itself.
- Replace or overshadow traditional print/ literature/media materials.
- Limit appropriate resources or access to them.
- Disrupt or complicate normal classroom community efforts and objectives
for addressing audience.
- Diminish students' ability to participate or contribute by favoring students
with advantaged access to technology.
- Deepen social, racial, gender, and economic inequalities.
- Stifle creativity or opportunities for using the imagination or multiple
- Completely replace teacher-student and/or student-student "face-to-face"
communication and interaction.
Critical Uses of Technology Applications in the English Classroom
The following list provides a few examples of teachers who, in
our minds, have developed a critical mindset and used an informed approach when
making the decision to use technology to teach the English language arts. They
are by no means intended to be exhaustive; instead, they are meant to be
indicative of the kind of thoughtful, informed, and critical approach that can
yield potentially better results for both teacher and students.
In the fall of 1999, Allyson Young, a high school English teacher
in Charlottesville, Virginia was having difficulty teaching writing with two
of her applied level ninth-grade English classes. In addition to her students
struggling with fluency and poor writing skills, they posed behavior problems
for each other. A veteran teacher of city schools, Young rarely had problems
with classroom management. Even in this situation, the issue was not that her
students acted out toward her but with one another. They simply could not get
along without verbal and sometimes physical altercations, making group work,
especially writing workshop and conferencing nearly impossible. As a result,
she began to look for a way to address this problem beyond simple classroom
management techniques and considered technology applications.
Through a partnership with the English Education program at the
University of Virginia, Young began to use an online portfolio tool with the
students in this particular class to facilitate the teaching of writing and
enhance the writing process and writing workshop. In addition to the excitement
and enthusiasm the students expressed for being able to pilot new technology
and to use the school's computer lab, they also responded by successfully engaging
in drafting, conferencing, revising, editing, and publishing their writing.
In effect, students could compose, share, provide feedback, revise and edit
online spread out in the same computer lab without having to sit in groups in
close proximity to one another. In addition to completing descriptive writing
assignments, they also composed pieces in conjunction with their study of Romeo
and Juliet. Young described the effects as such:
The focus was now on the writing rather than cutting each other down. My
students began to consistently get writing down on paper and complete drafts.
Fluency was a major problem, but their fluency improved over time with the
online feedback they were receiving from their peers. Their drafts not only
became longer, but they improved in terms of content and quality too. (Personal
In addition to the gains in writing ability, Young also reported
that students' behavior in class improved as well.
English teacher Tom Gray played a central role in developing
and implementing the Myths and Legends program at Pine Ridge High School, Pine
Ridge Indian Reservation, South Dakota. The program incorporates computer technology
to integrate Oglala Sioux traditions into the high school's curriculum. The
inclusion of intercultural myths into the school curriculum began as a result
of Gray's students forging connections between the Greek myths they were reading
and their own Native American cultural myths, along with his own growing interest
in computer technology.
Gray began to envision computers providing a means for students
to illustrate and animate the stories and legends of their ancestors, which
they had collected from tribal elders. To realize the vision, Gray developed
a cross-cultural and interdisciplinary curriculum focusing on other cultures
as a bridge to his students' own cultural heritage while also acquiring the
necessary computer technology through a grant. The program's primary goal of
linking the traditions of the Oglala Sioux directly to the school curriculum
with the help of computers was realized. Not only have students used the computers
to write, illustrate, animate, and publish, but they have also created an archive
of cultural artifacts, published an anthology of student work each semester,
performed dramas interpreting Lakota legends, composed and sampled electronic
music, and filmed and edited digital videos. Gray and his fellow teachers then
applied technology to other core subjects, and his colleagues have continued
the initiative (Gooden, 1996).
For nearly 20 years, Margo Figgins has included a major research
project as a requirement in her Language, Literacy, and Culture methods course
in the English Education program at the University of Virginia. Students engage
in a Heuristic Quest or HQ, an extension of Ken Macrorie's (1980) I-Search Paper
that focuses on some aspect of language or the teaching of language filtered
through Freire and Macedo's (1987) notion of critical pedagogy. The project
originated as a pen-and-paper and then word-processed product. However, the
limitations of such tools soon led to redundancy. Without easy access to previous
HQ's, students ended up asking many of the same questions year after year. In
addition, only so much time in class could be devoted to student sharing of
Consequently, Figgins began to consider ways in which technology
might address these pedagogical limitations—how to make previous research available
to students who could then build upon existing research information and data
and how to allow students to communicate and share their process, progress,
and research with others in the course as well as with teachers, future students,
and the public. Solving these pedagogical problems became the catalyst for considering
technology applications and led to her use of the Q-folio, an online electronic
portfolio which, in effect, simulated the interactive research community she
desired. Through the use of the tool, students have been able to access and
reflect critically upon previous research projects, expand upon them, and ultimately
make their own distinct contribution to the course archive. For more information
see Young and Figgins
(2002) and Figgins' fall 2003 course home page (http://nmc.itc.virginia.edu/Q-folio/edis542/2003fall-1/scripts/sitedescription.cfm;
click on treble clef icon for audio introduction).
At Penn State University, Jamie Myers encourages traditional
uses of technology, like word processing and web research, but he also prepares
preservice English teachers to integrate hypermedia authoring of web sites as
content-based strategies to teach critical literacy, literary analysis, and
language and communications skills. As taught by Myers, hypermedia authoring
involves the process of juxtaposing, through video sequences or website hyperlinks,
various multimedia "texts"—print, image, gesture, artwork, music,
video, and more—to focus on a life-relevant issue or experience represented
by these texts. Through the process of creating hypermedia projects, preservice
teachers engage in the analysis and critique of the possible identities, relationships,
and values represented by the texts and their possible multiple readings.
This constructivist approach generates the critical literacy
activity with texts that is a central content goal of the English language arts
curriculum. In effect, students create relevance by finding many ways to connect
and manipulate their rich multimedia lives outside of school within the
classroom, and in turn, they gradually begin to discover how the ideas expressed
in course readings permeate all the texts of the world.
Using commercially available software such as StorySpace, Adobe
Premiere, Photoshop, SoundEdit 16, iMovie, and various web authoring products to
create English methods classroom projects, Myers has been integrating hypermedia
authoring for critical literacy since 1995. Most of the projects originated in
conjunction with the reading of literature, a central component of the secondary
English classroom, which has helped to facilitate the successful transfer of
critical hypermedia authoring to the students and their cooperating mentor
teachers in the field experiences Myers has supervised.
Some projects originated in the analysis of media texts and
their role in the construction of cultural identities and values. For example,
one project requires small groups of students to identify significant themes in
a work of literature and then explore how multiple perspectives on those themes
through multimedia texts inspire and motivate students. In effect, the students
create websites that forge connections between novels using a thematic approach
to raise questions about cultural ideals and beliefs.
Another project involves the analysis of one literary piece by
the entire class as a means of expanding the traditional literature
instructional approach of focusing on a single interpretation, one in which the
teacher becomes the single arbitrator of correct meaning. While authors
certainly have intentions, meaning is a constructed event that draws from the
prior experience, knowledge, and social lives of the readers. These whole class
hypermedia websites involve students organizing and juxtaposing texts from their
experiences to bear on a central piece of literature. This activity builds the
intertextual context, or cultural schemas, and provides the necessary bridge
required to debate potential meanings within the focal text of study. New
computer digital technologies provide the teacher and student with tools for
experiencing these connections in ways not previously available. Projects like
these help generate relevance for traditional school readings in everyday life
In addition to these projects and others involving asynchronous
communication about literary texts and analysis of popular culture media, Myers
has also initiated the creation of electronic portfolios for English education
students as a multiyear, constructive process of authoring a hypermedia website
that allows them to explore their developing stances on educational issues and
curricular ideas for English instruction. In describing some of his most current
work, Myers explains, "I'm working with 8th graders to create iMovie Music
Videos about community. We have introduced the idea of speaking against images
as well as about images using words and music and images in juxtaposition....Ultimately,
we hope to look at the kinds of critical thinking that happens through the creation
of these QuickTime videos" (J. Myers, Personal Communication, March 2004).
For more details and links to many examples of products resulting from the English
methods projects listed above, see Myers' website at http://www.ed.psu.edu/k-12
For other examples, see the list of additional resources at the
end of this article.
Despite the challenges that effective technology integration
poses for educators, there is hope in the powerful suggestions provided by
preservice teachers and those teachers who continue their professional
development through opportunities like the National Writing Project and its
regional and state sites across the country. As Pope and Golub (2000) asserted,
it is also important for English educators to model effective practices of
teaching with technology.
Keifer (1991), Young (2001), and Young and Figgins (2002) emphasized
the potential technology holds for teacher empowerment and school reform when
addressed as a part of teacher education. Although technology alone may not
be the saving grace of education, there are important ways in which we can use
it to support and enhance our teaching practices in the English language arts
classroom—the key to which is developing a critical perspective that informs
our pedagogical approach.
To prevent the misperceptions of technology as a false prophecy
or as a silver bullet reform, it is important for educators, both preservice
and veteran teachers, to develop a heightened, critical view of technology and
its potential applications for the classroom (Hawisher & Selfe, 1991; Pope,
1999; Young & Figgins, 2002). Kajder (2003) characterized this informed
perspective as one of making a critical choice:
We choose the texts we want our students to enjoy and explore. We choose the
challenges and exercises we want them to experience as writers. Now we need
to choose the most efficient tools for our students as learners.... The computer
is simply another tool, only to be chosen when it is appropriate. (p. 11)
Under the right conditions and contexts, we know that technology
has the potential to change education in compelling ways (Sandholtz, Ringstaff,
& Dwyer, 1997). However, Selfe (1990) reminds us, "Computer support
for English programs will succeed when we identify for the profession our own
uniquely humanistic vision of computer technology and its ability to support
the networking of individuals" (p. 200). With an informed pedagogical framework
in mind, English teachers and English educators can begin to bring focus to
this vision by asking the hard questions that lead to the development of guidelines,
which in turn, allow us to make the best choices for effective technology applications
and create beneficial learning experiences for our students.
Alliance for Childhood. (2001). Fools gold: A critical look at computers
in childhood. College Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood. Retrieved March
31, 2004, from http://www.allianceforchildhood.net/projects/computers/computers_reports.htm
Andrews, L. (1998). Language exploration and awareness: A resource book
for teachers (Rev. ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Ansell, S. E., & Park, J. (2003). Tracking tech trends. Education Week,
22(35), 43-44, 48.
Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understandings about writing, reading,
and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., & Pyke, C. (1999). Technology in the schools:
Can we make it work? Albany, NY: The National Research Center on English
Learning and Achievement (CELA). Retrieved March 31, 2004, from http://cela.albany.edu/newslet/winter99/bbdtext.html
Barton, E. (1993, September). Computers and literacy: Access and equity.
Support for the Learning and Teaching of English (SLATE) Starter Sheet. Urbana,
IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Berger, A. A. (2002). Video games: A popular cultural phenomenon. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Berthoff, A. (1978). Forming/thinking/writing: The composing imagination.
Rochelle Park: Hayden.
Berthoff, A. (1981). The making of meaning: Metaphors, models, and maxims
for writing teachers. Montclair, NJ: Boynton.
Boomer, G. (1985). Fair dinkum teaching and learning: Reflections on literacy
and power. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Calkins, L. M. (1994). The art of teaching writing: New edition. Portsmouth,
Chen, M. (1986). Gender and computers: The beneficial effects of experience
on attitudes. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2, 265-282.
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology
since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cuban, L. (1999). The technology puzzle. Education Week, 18(43), 68,
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cuban, L., Fitzpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use
of technologies in high school classrooms. American Educational Research
Journal, 38(4), 813-834.
Denton, T. (2002, September 29). Saving grace or false prophecy of technology?
The Roanoke Times, H1.
Dyson, A. H., & Freedman, S. W. (1991). Writing. In J. Flood, J. M. Jensen,
D. Lapp, & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the
English language arts (pp. 754-774). New York: Macmillan.
Elbow, P. (1990). What is English? New York: MLA and National Council
of Teachers of English.
Elbow, P. (1998). Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing
process (New ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Elbow, P., & Belanoff, P. (1995). A community of writers (2nd
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the
world. South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and
literacy. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York: Wiley Computer Publishing.
Gooden, A. R. (1996). Computers in the classroom: How teachers and students
are using technology to transform learning. Indianapolis, IN: Jossey-Bass
and Apple Press.
Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth,
Hawisher, G. (1989). Research and recommendations for computers and composition.
In G. Hawisher & C. Selfe (Eds.), Critical perspectives on computers
and composition instruction (pp. 44-69). New York: Teachers College Press.
Hawisher, G. E., & Selfe, C. L. (1991). Introduction. In G. E. Hawisher
& C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Evolving perspectives on computers and composition
studies (pp. 1-4). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English
and Computers and Composition.
Hillocks, G. Jr. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions
for teaching. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of Engish and ERIC.
Kajder, S. B. (2003). The tech-savvy English classroom. Portland,
Kaplan, N. (1991). Ideology, technology, and the future of writing instruction.
In G. E. Hawisher & C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Evolving perspectives on computers
and composition studies (pp. 11-42). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers
of English and Computers and Composition.
Keifer, K. (1991). Computers and teacher education in the 1990s and beyond.
In G. E. Hawisher & C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Evolving perspectives on computers
and composition studies (pp. 117-131). Urbana, IL: National Council of
Teachers of English and Computers and Composition.
Kirby, D., Kirby, D. L., & Liner, T. (2004). Inside out: Strategies
for teaching writing (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Kutz, E., & Roskelly, H. (1991). An unquiet pedagogy: Transforming
practice in the English classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Landry, J. (2002, Aug.). Is our children learning? Red Herring, 116,
Martinez, M. G., & Roser, N. L. (1991). Children's responses to literature.
In J. Flood, J. M. Jensen, D. Lapp, & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Handbook
of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 643-654). New York:
Macrorie, K. (1980). Searching writing. Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden
Book Company, Inc.
Moffett, J. (1983). Teaching the universe of discourse. Portsmouth,
NH: Boynton Cook.
Moore, J. N. (1997). Interpreting young adult literature: Literary theory
in the secondary classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton Cook.
Murray, D. M. (1990). Write to learn (3rd ed.). Fort Worth: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Myers, J. (2004). Using technology tools to support learning in the English
language arts. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education
[Online serial], 3(4). Retrieved March 31, 2004, from http://www.citejournal.org/vol3/iss4/general/article2.cfm
Myers, M. (1996). Changing our minds: Negotiating English literacy.
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Oates, W. R. (1989). Introduction: A history and overview of this collection.
In C. L. Selfe, D. Rodrigues, & W. R. Oates (Eds.), Computers in English
and the language arts: The challenge of teacher education (pp. xiii-xix).
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Oppenheimer, T. (2003). The flickering mind: The false promise of technology
in the classroom and how learning can be saved. New York: Random House.
Pinnell, G. S., & Jagger, A. M. (1991). Oral language: Speaking and listening
in the classroom. In J. Flood, J. M. Jensen, D. Lapp, & J. R. Squire (Eds.),
Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 691-720).
New York: Macmillan.
Pope, C.A. (1999). Reflection and refraction: A reflexive look at an evolving
model for methods instruction. English Education, 31, 177-200.
Pope, C., & Golub, J. (2000). Preparing tomorrow's English language arts
teachers today: Principles and practices for infusing technology. Contemporary
Issues in Technology an Teacher Education [Online serial], 1(1).
Retrieved March 31, 2004, from http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss1/currentissues/english/article1.htm
Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Postman, N. (1996). The end of education: Redefining the value of school.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Ray, R., & Barton, E. (1991). Technology and authority. In G. E. Hawisher
& C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Evolving perspectives on computers and composition
studies (pp. 279-299). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English
and Computers and Composition.
Richards, G. (2000, November). Why use computer technology. English Journal,
Rideout, V. J., Vandewater, E.A., & Wartella, E. A. (2003). Zero to
six: Electronic media in the lives of infants, toddlers and preschoolers
(A Kaiser Family Foundation Report). Retrieved March 31, 2004, from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/3378.cfm
Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with
technology: Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College
Selfe, C. (1989). Redefining literacy: The multilayered grammars of computers.
In G. Hawisher & C. Selfe (Eds.), Critical perspectives on computers
and composition instruction (pp. 3-15). New York: Teachers College Press.
Selfe, C. L. (1990). English teachers and the humanization of computers: Networking
communities of readers and writers. In G. E. Hawisher & A. O. Soter (Eds.),
On literacy and its teaching: Issues in English education (pp. 190-205).
New York: State University of New York Press.
Smith, M. W. & Wilhelm, J. D. (2002). "Reading don't fix no Chevys":
Literacy in the lives of young men. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Shaw, D. (2003, December 14). Information inundation imperils our children.
The Roanoke Times, H4.
Trump, D.T. (2001). Welcome to cyberschool: Education at the crossroads
in the Information Age. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Weaver, C. (1996). Teaching grammar in context. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton
Weaver, C. (Ed.). (1998). Lessons to share: On teaching grammar in context.
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton Cook.
Wilhelm, J. D. (1995). "You gotta be the book": Teaching engaged
and reflective reading with adolescents. New York: Teachers College Press
and National Council of Teachers of English.
Wilhelm, J. D. (2000). Literacy by design: Why is all this technology so important?
Voices From the Middle, 7(3), 4-14.
Willis, J. W., Stephens, E. C., & Matthew, K. I. (1996). Technology,
reading, and language arts. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Young, C. A. (2001). Technology integration in inquiry-based learning: An evaluation
study of students' implementation and perceptions of a web-based electronic
portfolio (Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 62(1), 70.
Young, C. A., & Figgins, M. A. (2002). The Q-folio in action: Using a web-based
electronic portfolio to reinvent traditional notions of inquiry, research, and
portfolios. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education
[Online serial], 2(2). Retrieved March 31, 2004, from http://www.citejournal.org/vol2/iss2/english/article1.cfm
Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (1998). Best practice in writing.
Best practice: New standards for teaching and learning in America's schools
(2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Zeurcher, N. (2002). Technology: Power tools for writers. In M. L. Warner (Ed.)
Winning ways of coaching writing: A practical guide for teaching writing,
grades 6-12. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work
and power. New York: Basic Books.
For further insights on effective uses of technology, here are some resources
we have found helpful:
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education (CITE Journal,
Pope and Golub's (1999) "Preparing Tomorrow's English Language Arts Teachers
Today: Principles and Practices for Infusing Technology" (http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss1/currentissues/english/article1.htm).
A seminal article from two leaders in the field.
The Oregon Writing Project at Willamette University's "Manifesto of Writing
and Technology" (http://www.willamette.org/owp/pages/tech/principles.html).
A strong list of principles for teachers considering integrating computer technology
English Journal, November 2000. Technology-themed issue that contains
strong discussions of when to use technologies and why and when not to use technologies
and why in the English Language Arts classroom.
Voices from the Middle, March 2004, March 2003, and March 2000. 2004
issue is a technology-themed issue. Both 2000 and 2003 are literacy-themed issues
that focus heavily on technology applications and considerations in the English
Language Arts classroom.
Computers in the Writing Classroom, Dave Moeller (NCTE, 2002). Book
gives a strong overview of the guiding concepts and practices that make for
effective integration of technology in the writing classroom.
Teaching with Technology: Creating Student-Centered Classrooms, Judith
Haymore Sandholtz, Cathy Ringstaff, and David C. Dwyer (Teachers College Press,
1997). Book details the decade-long Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (ACOT) experience,
the goal of which was to created different forms of teaching and learning assisted
by technology rather than having the technology determine what was to be learned
or how it would be taught.
Computers in the Classroom: How Teachers and Students Are Using Technology
to Transform Learning, Andrea Gooden (Jossey-Bass and Apple, 1996). Provides
portrayals of six schools (2 elementary, 4 high schools) in which technology
has been integrated in effective and compelling ways for students, teachers,
and their communities.
Teaching with Technology: Seventy-Five Professors from Eight Universities
Tell Their Stories, David G. Brown, Ed., (Anker, 2000). Vignettes 32 and
34 provide stories addressing college composition, and Vignette 33 addresses
renewing a large lecture literature class with computer applications.
Apple Mobile Computing for Education: Research and Resources. Site provides
annotated links to a collection of research studies promoting the use of
wireless laptops as a way to increase student motivation and achievement. URL:
Resources Mentioned in the Cases
Margo Figgins Fall 2003 Language, Literacy, and Culture course
Jamie Myers homepage:
Carl A. Young