Post on 03-Jul-2020
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 jbogard@lesley.edu.
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 mcmackin@lesley.edu.
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?
TRTR_1048.indd 314TRTR_1048.indd 314 1/13/2012 2:21:33 PM1/13/2012 2:21:33 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
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.”
TRTR_1048.indd 315TRTR_1048.indd 315 1/13/2012 2:21:34 PM1/13/2012 2:21:34 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
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
TRTR_1048.indd 316TRTR_1048.indd 316 1/13/2012 2:21:35 PM1/13/2012 2:21:35 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
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
TRTR_1048.indd 317TRTR_1048.indd 317 1/13/2012 2:21:35 PM1/13/2012 2:21:35 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
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)
TRTR_1048.indd 318TRTR_1048.indd 318 1/13/2012 2:21:36 PM1/13/2012 2:21:36 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
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.”
TRTR_1048.indd 319TRTR_1048.indd 319 1/13/2012 2:21:37 PM1/13/2012 2:21:37 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
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.
Figure 6 Erika’s Storyboard (Page 3)
Figure 5 Erika’s Storyboard (Page 2)
TRTR_1048.indd 320TRTR_1048.indd 320 1/13/2012 2:21:37 PM1/13/2012 2:21:37 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
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
TRTR_1048.indd 321TRTR_1048.indd 321 1/13/2012 2:21:39 PM1/13/2012 2:21:39 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
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.”
TRTR_1048.indd 322TRTR_1048.indd 322 1/13/2012 2:21:39 PM1/13/2012 2:21:39 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
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
TRTR_1048.indd 323TRTR_1048.indd 323 1/13/2012 2:21:40 PM1/13/2012 2:21:40 PM
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.