A comparison of ICT programmes to be used in Literacy lessons.

Futurelab (2010) state that educational settings should “furnish children and young people with the skills, knowledge and understanding that will help them to take a full and active part in social, cultural, economic, civic and intellectual life now and in the future” (Futurelab, 2010; 2). Similarly Burnett, Dickinson, Merchant and Myers (2006) echo the importance of combining the teaching of digital skills together with the importance of cross curricular links, in order to reinforce technological skills, and make the content purposeful.

In my experience, I have used programmes which combine the use of digital skills, with cross curricular links, although some were more obvious than others. These will now be debated further.

Tagxedo (Leung, 2011) required selecting a background image, and then to type in key words relating to a topic, so that they appear randomised on the background image. I used this on a crown background with a theme of Queen Victoria. It would be good to use for a classroom display, allowing children to recap over key words or ideas that they have learned about over a topic. However, the program does not allow children to write in complete sentences, therefore this may be encouraging children to be less literate, which Merchant (2009) explains is an issue with popular culture, as it is disrupts traditional literacies whilst children become lazy with the use of standard English.

Similarly, Wordle (Feinberg, 2011) also encourages children to summarise a topic through one word answers, however does not allow children to select a background image.

A programme that allows children to extend their literacy skills is Story bird. It reverses visual storytelling by starting with the image, and then encouraging children to type a story based on the pictures given. This encourages children to think about the pictures, and the meaning that they carry, whilst making cognitive connections between them. It also allows children to publish their stories on the programe webpage, providing them with a purpose for writing, whilst allowing them to read other children’s stories. In addition, the program does not allow children to critique the stories, which Weil and Kincheloe (2004) argue is a negative of the program, as analysing work is a skill that should be rehearsed and encouraged where possible. However Marsh (2005) argues that many parents do not feel comfortable with their children’s work being criticised and viewed by others, which suggests they would be happy with their children using Story bird. Futurelab (2010) does however acknowledge the limitations of such programs, and accepts that they should be used alongside traditional literacy lessons.

In conclusion, It has been discussed that whilst some programmes can aid in literacy skills, and support cross currciular links, the balance between traditional literacy lessons, and tecnhology based lessons should be made clear as both can support children in learning to be literate.  

 

Bibliography

Burnett, C., Dickinson, P., Merchant, G. & Myers, J. (2006). Digital connections: Transforming literacy in theprimary school. Cambridge Journal in Education, 36(1), 11–29.

Feinberg, J. (2011) Wordle. Available at: http://www.wordle.net/create[accessed: 5^th February 2013].

Futurelab. (2010) Digital literacy across the curriculum. London: Becta.

Leung, H (2011) Tagxedo. Available at: http://www.tagxedo.com/app.html[accessed: 5^th February 2013].

Marsh, J. (2005) Popular culture, new media and digital literacy in early childhood. Oxon: Routledge.

Merchant, G. (2009) ‘Literacy in virtual worlds’ Journal of Research in Reading 32, (1) 38-56.

Weil, D and Kincheloe, J. (2004) Critical Thinking and Learning: An Encyclopedia for Parents and Teachers. USA: Greenwood Press.