LITE Home

Preparing for New Literacies: Empowering Educators with New Models of Professional Development

Findings from current research

1. The nature of literacy is rapidly changing asnew technologies emerge (Dresang & McClelland, 1999; Leu, Kinzer, Coiro,& Cammack, 2004; Reinking, McKenna, Labbo, & Kieffer, 1998). These rapid changes in literacy demand new ways of thinking about the natureof classroom instruction, assessment, and professional development (e.g.,Coiro, 2003a; Coiro, 2003b; Coiro, 2005; Coiro, 2006; Leu, Leu, & Coiro,2004). 
   
   
   
2. Federal legislation (U.S. Department of Education,2001) mandates that teachers ground their instruction in current research-basedpractices for literacy and technology integration. However, evidence suggeststhat teachers receive very little support in the way of research-based instructional strategies or opportunities for quality professional development (Lemke & Coughlin, 1998; Pianfetti, 2001; Task Force on Technology and Teacher Education, 1997; Trotter, 1999).
   
   
   
3. Recent research suggests that the most successfulprofessional development models engage and empower teachers to have a strongervoice in directing their own learning (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin,1995; Educational Research Service, 1998; Lyon & Pinnell, 2001; Robb,2000).  A review of the literature suggests effective models of professionaldevelopment in the area of literacy and technology integration follow threepremises:

• They recognize a developmental process throughwhich teach! ers use technology (Apple Education, 2004; Texas Center for EducationalTechnology, 1999; Valdez et al, 2000). 
• They validate the different attitudes anddispositions that teachers bring to their use of technology (e.g., Christenson& Knezak, 2001; Honey & Moeller, 1990; Labbo & Reinking, 1999). 
• They employ job-embedded study groups as ameans of empowering teachers to take a more active role in their own learning(Lyon & Pinnell, 2001; McKenzie, 2001; Murphy & Lick, 2001; Robb,2000)
• The study group has proven particularlyeffective in supporting technology integration among teachers (Branigan,2002; Garry & Graham, 2004; Gora & Hinson, 2003; Martin, Hupert,Gonzales & Admon, 2003).
  

Lessons learned from classroom teachers and school leaders

Professional development opportunities are most effective when teachers are empowered to determine their own needs for professional study with regards to literacy and technology integration.

Facilitators and school leaders should listen carefully to a teacher’s needs and provide resources that address those needs from a realistic classroom perspective.

• Provide instructional strategies for integrating educational software that links to standards of literacy and content area learning.

Provide specific models and support for developing lessons that integrate critical evaluat! ion and higher level thinking strategies (rather than skill-and-drill) with the use of technology.

• Classroom teachers are desperately seeking research-based effective practices that support the integration of technology into instruction and assessment.
• A shortage of unbiased research on particular programs/packages and a shortage of research in areas such as new literacies and Internet inquiry are negatively impacting a school’s willingness to support teachers’ use oftechnology in the classroom

Teachers learn best when provided with models for linking technology with purposeful reading and writing activities.

• Network with teachers who can share sample lessons, templates, or student product ideas, or invite them to join a project that has already been designed (see, for example, the Miss Rumphius Award Winners in Karchmer, Mallette, Kara-Soteriou, & Leu, 2004).

Characteristics of effective teachers (e.g., Miss Rumphius AwardWinners) who are successfully integrating the Internet into their languagearts and content area curriculum

1. Start out small and move through stages.
2. Take a few risks along the way.
3. Take a proactive approach to learning.
4. Encourage your students to share their expertise.
5. Never underestimate the power of collaboration.
6. Seek authentic learning opportunities.
7. Be prepared for change. 

Models of Professional Development in Connecticut

1. School Leadership Training

• Technology for Leadership and Learning in Connecticut (TL2C)

2. Whole Faculty Study Groups

• A series of half-day workshops over time sparksexploration and reflective dialogue.  This is followed-up by additionalreadings back in school study groups. Later, we join teachers in return visitsfor more dialogue about successes, challenges and next steps (e.g., The Literature Curriculum and The Internet) 
• PD days are (1) prefaced with meetings withlibrary media teams, administrators, and invested classroom teachers; (2)grade level teams complete anticipation guides/needs surveys and forwardtheir responses back to the facilitators; (3) online links are customizedaccording to grade specific themes; (4) support continues with an onlineresource with additional readings, prompting questions, and opportunitiesto network across grade levels.  
• Elementary School: http://www.lite.iwarp.com/clint2005.html 
• Middle School: http://www.lite.iwarp.com/winmodel.html 
• Middle-High School: http://www.lite.iwarp.com/instrmodel.html 
• District wide professional development days with hands-on activities and guided discussion (e.g,. Monroe School District)  
• Facilitated dialogue centered around online video resources 
• Canter Videos of New Literacies 
• Ann! enberg Reading Grades 3-5 Videos
  

3. Quality online resources to support ongoing, systematic professional development in the area of literacy and
    technology integration

• Annette Lamb’s Teacher Tap   
• Read, Write, Think
• The Literacy Web at the University of Connecticut (Research into Practice)  
• Teaching with the Internet: New Literacies for New Times (Leu, Leu, & Coiro, 2004)
• Teaching Matters (Balanced literacy) 
• Balanced Literacy Resources  
• Balancing Literacy with Promising Practices for Technology   
• Emints National Center  
• Intel Innovation in Education  
• Innovation Odyssey  
• Title III Technology Literacy Challenge Grant 
• The TELUS Learning Connectionin Canada 
• KathySchrock’s Guide for Educators 
• Think.com Online Community  
• 21s t Century Information Fluency Project  
• Media Awareness Network
  

References

Apple Education. (2004). The evolution of thoughtand practice. Technology planning guide: Professional development.Retrieved February 8, 2004, from http://www.apple.com/education/planning/profdev/index4.html

Branigan, C. (2002). Study: Missouri’s ed-tech program is raising student achievement. Retrieved November 18, 2004, from http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showStory.cfm?ArticleID=3588&CFID=542241&CFTOKEN=84785092

Christenson, R., & Knezak, G. (2001). Equity and diversity in K-12 applications of information technology: KIDS Project Findings for 2000-2001. Retrieved November 2, 2003, from http://www.iittl.unt.edu/KIDS2001/

Darling-Hammond, L., and M. W. McLaughlin. (1995). Policies That Support Professional Development in an Era of Reform. Phi Delta Kappan 76, 8: 597-604.

Coiro, J. (2003a). Reading comprehension on the Internet: Expanding ourunderstanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. TheReading Teacher, 56, 458–464.

Coiro, J. (2003b). Rethinking comprehension strategies to better prepare students for critically evaluating content on the Internet. NERA Journal, 39, 29–34.

Coiro, J. (2005). Making sense of online text. Educational Leadership, 63(2), 30-35.

Coiro, J. (2006). Measuring online reading comprehension:  Accessing, evaluating, and communicating informa! tion. Research poster presented aspart of a structured poster session entitled Developing Internet Reading Comprehension Strategies Among Adolescents At Risk to Become Dropouts.  Annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

DiSessa, A.A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dresang, E.T., & McClelland, K. (1999). Radical change: Digital ageliterature and learning. Theory Into Practice, 38(3), 160–167.

Karchmer, R.A., Mallette, M., Kara-Soteriou, J., & Leu, D.J. Jr. (Eds). (2005). New literacies for new times: Innovative models of literacy education using the Internet.  Newark, DE:  International Reading Association.

Lemke, C. & Coughlin, E. C. (1998). Technology in American Schools:Seven Dimensions for Gauging Progress. A Policymaker's Guide. The MilkenExchange on Educational Technology, Available at http://www.mff.org/publications/publications.taf?page=158.

Leu, D. J., Jr., Leu, D. D. & Coiro, J. (2004). Teaching with theInternet K-12: New Literacies for New Times (4th ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.  Companion website at http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~djleu/fourth.html

Educational Research Service. (1998). Professional development and support: An essential ingredient of instructional technology planning. The Informed Educator Series. Arlington, VA: Author.

Garry, A., & Graham, P. (2004). Using study groups to disseminate technology best practices. Tech Learning [Online Serial]. Retrieved January 18,2004, from http://www.techlearning.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=17301678

G! ora, K., & Hinson, J. (2003). Teacher-to-teacher mentoring. Learning & Leading with Technology, 31, 36–40.
Honey, M., & Moeller, B. (1990). Teacher’s beliefs and technology integration: Different values, different understandings. CTE Technical Report, Issue No. 6. Retrieved November 18, 2004, from http://www.edc.org/CCT/ccthome/reports/tr6.html

Leu, D.J., Jr., Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J., Cammack, D. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other ICT. In R.B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, Fifth Edition (1568-1611). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Lyon, C.A., & Pinnell, G.S. (2001). Systems for change in literacyeducation: A guide to professional development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Martin, W., Hupert, N., Gonzales, C., & Admon, N. (2003). Real teachers making real changes: The RETA model for professional development. Journal of Computers in Teacher Education, 20(2), 53–62.

McKenzie, J.A. (2001). Planning good change with technology and literacy. Bellingham, WA: FNO Press.
Murphy, C.U., & Lick, D.W. (2001). Whole-faculty study groups: Creating student-based professional development (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,CA: Corwin Press.

Pianfetti, E.S. (2001). Teachers and technology: Digital literacy through professional development. Language Arts, 78(3), 255–262.

Reinking, D., McKenna, M.C., Labbo, L.D., & Kieffer, R.D. (Eds.). (1998). Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Robb, L. (2000). Redefining staff development: A collaborative modelfor teachers and administrators. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Task Force on Technology and Teacher Education (1997). Technol ogy andthe new professional teacher: Preparing for the 21st century classroom.Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.

Texas Center for Educational Technology. (1999). Research instruments. Retrieved February 3, 2004, from http://www.tcet.unt.edu/research/instrumt.htm

Trotter, A. (1999). Preparing teachers for the digital age. Retrieved January 8, 2005, from http://counts.edweek.org/sreports/tc99/articles/teach.htm

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). The No Child Left Behind Act of2001: Enhancing education through technology. Retrieved January 12, 2004,from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg34.html

Valdez, G., McNabb, M., Foertsch, M., Anderson, M., Hawkes, M., & Raack, L. (2000). Computer-based technology and learning: Evolving uses and expectations. Naperville, IL: Northeast Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

This page was created in April, 2006