curriculum-based instruction is based
on the results of this research. We suggest matching technology integration
strategies to planning methods, rather
than asking teachers to plan instruction that exploits the opportunities
offered by particular educational
technologies.
One way to assist with technology
integration during planning is to draw
from a comprehensive set of learning activity types for each curriculum
area, with particular educational
technologies specified that can best
support the learning goals within each
activity. We have organized the ELA
learning activity types into subcatego-ries to form an informal taxonomy.
Once teachers have determined the
learning goals for a particular lesson,
project, or unit, they review the activity types for that content area, selecting
and combining the activities that will
best help students achieve the learning goals. Teachers then choose from
the educational technologies listed for
each learning activity type to support
the instructional plan. We consider
this grounded technology integration
because it is based in content, pedagogy, and instructional planning.
As a postreading activity, students
could work in small groups to create
a digital video that defines and represents the theme of guilt, not only
with reference to the novel, but also by
exploration of their own guilt-related
episodes, their in-class and online
discussions, and the collaborative thematic inquiry in which they engaged.
Invitation for Collaboration
Given continual changes in ELA curricula and instructional resources as
well as the ongoing evolution of new
literacies, the range of ELA learning activity types and the emerging
technologies that can support each
will continue to develop over time.
We invite you to help us to expand,
refine, and revise the secondary ELA
learning activity types taxonomy. To
contribute, please visit the ELA section of the Activity Types Wiki and
share your ideas via the online survey
posted there.
Activity Types for Secondary ELA
To date, we’ve identified 65 learning activity types for secondary ELA
teaching and learning that address the
five primary ELA processes: reading,
writing, language use, oral speaking/
performance, and listening/watching.
Though space restrictions don’t permit
us to share the entire list of activity
types here, the complete ELA taxonomy is available on the Activity Types
Wiki at http://activitytypes.wmwikis.
net. In the tables of sample activity
types on page 29, we’ve provided brief
descriptions, along with illustrative
lists of technologies that may be used
to support each.
Combining ELA Activity Types
Ideally, ELA teaching integrates the
processes discussed here: reading, writing, language use, speaking/perform-ing, and active listening/watching.
Consider, for example, the activity
types combined to study The Scarlet
Letter. One compelling bridge for high
school students reading Nathaniel
Hawthorne’s classic novel is to explore
their own feelings of guilt or shame
that are made concrete by having to
display their own “scarlet letters.” In
a prereading activity, students are
asked to think deeply about guilt and
what it means. These initial thoughts
are kept private to build anticipation
and personal connection. For homework, students find or create their
own symbols representing an episode
of personal guilt or shame to wear to
school the next day without divulging
to others what the symbols represent.
Once students return to class, they
discuss their symbols and related
incidents. More important, they discuss the experience of wearing their
objects throughout the day. Students
could also record their initial ideas
about guilt and shame, as well as their
experiences wearing a symbol of one
of those themes, in blogs. Using video
cameras to record their experiences
could add a multimodal element to
these reflections.
As a reading activity, teachers could
partner with a class at another school
to share these initial blog postings and
digital videos. This could foster discussion, creating dynamic reference points
for exploring the theme of guilt as students read the novel. They could discuss these ideas using iChat, Skype, or
online discussion boards. They could
also conduct mini-inquiries on the
nature of guilt in contemporary society,
especially given current ethical issues
in banking and lending, as well as illicit
drug use in professional sports.
Resources
“Grounded Tech Integration,” L&L, September/
October, 2009, pp. 22–25
“Grounded Tech Integration: Languages,” L&L,
December/January 2009, pp. 26–28
“Grounded Tech Integration: Math,” L&L,
November, 2009, pp. 24–26
Learning Activity Types Wiki: http://activity
types.wmwikis.net/World+Languages
“Tech Integration in Social Studies,” L&L,
September/October, 2009, pp. 26–28
Plan to Vote!
Online Board elections n March 11–April 12, 2010
www.iste.org/elections
—Carl A. Young is an associate professor of
English education at North Carolina State
University. His research and teaching focus on
the integration of new literacies and emerging
technologies in the English language arts classroom, in English teacher preparation, and in
professional development models for teachers.
—Mark Hofer is an associate professor of educational technology at the College of William
& Mary. He works with classroom teachers to
incorporate technology to support curriculum-based teaching and learning.
—Judi Harris is the Pavey Family Chair in educational technology at the College of William &
Mary. Her teaching and research focus on K– 12
curriculum-based technology integration, tele-mentoring, and teacher professional development.
