RM Winter 2017 FINAL

24 / 72

Reading Matters
Research Matters
| 24| Reading Matters | Volume 16 • Winter 2016 |
consequences of the intervention, (Reinking &Watkins, 1998,
2000). Consistent with formative design, our research question is
more of a pedagogical goal (e.g., Reinking &Watkins, 1998, 2000).
This research aimed to help a teacher successfully
incorporate multimodal storytelling into her classrooms as
an effective means to enhance students’ literacy. Formative
design allowed, us, the researchers to be active participants
in the research and in accomplishing the pedagogical goal,
rather than being passive bystanders until the conclusion
of the intervention. Within this goal we explore the benefits
and obstacles to teacher implementation of multimodal
storytelling, as well as the supports that strengthen teachers’
content, pedagogical, and technological knowledge bases with
regard to literacy. Data collected were used to make ongoing
decisions to best support the teacher as she implemented
multimodal storytelling. This formative process naturally
mirrors the ongoing problem-solving that teachers do in their
class on a daily basis. By documenting this process, we were
able to identify and communicate triumphs and challenges
to a teacher’s successful implementation of multimodal
storytelling and document how we attempted to reinforce
the successes and overcome the challenges. Consequently,
implementing multimodal storytelling in the classroom
incorporates evidence-based strategies that aimed to meet
the unique classroom needs. The results are presented
categorically as the triumphs and challenges are described.
Subjects and Setting
The study took place in a suburban school district, directly
outside a large urban city. The majority of students who attend
the school district are Caucasian (97%). The district serves 4,634
students in grades k-12 across six elementary schools (primary
and secondary elementary), one middle school, and one high
school. The primary elementary school where the research
took place is considered to be an Elementary and Secondary
Act Title I primary elementary school, which serves students
in grades kindergarten through third grade. Approximately
47 % of the students who attend the school receive free or
reduced lunch. District-wide, 18.9% of students receive services
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
The teacher-participant, Ms. T. (pseudonym), was an energetic
third grade teacher. With 15 years of experience, and the last 13 in
a third grade classroom, she was a veteran teacher. Ms. T. had the
inclusive third grade classroom at the time of the study. She had
a Master’s degree in instructional technology, thus minimizing
the risks associated by the impact of learning a new technology
compounding learning new applications for the technology
(Donnelly et al., 2011). Ms. T. volunteered to be involved in this
study, as she was interested in integrating technology into her
classroom, but sometimes found it difficult to balance the various
demands faced by educators in the current educational system.
Description of Intervention
The pedagogical goal was to help a teacher implement
multimodal literacies using multimodal storytelling as the vehicle,
documenting her triumphs and challenges along the way. Ms. T.
was given two iPads in protective cases, a BlueTooth keyboard, and
iTunes credit to use for multimodal storytelling in her classroom.
The researchers had six meetings with Ms. T, one prior to
the start of the research, four during the intervention, and
one after the intervention. In addition to this, the researchers
were available to meet or talk with Ms. T, as needed. The
primary method of communication was e-mail.
At the first meeting, the researchers described the nature
of the research and the roles of the teacher and researcher.
The researchers shared a table demonstrating how multimodal
storytelling aligned with third grade CCSS . Ms. T. was instructed to
implement multimodal storytelling as she saw fit in her classroom
and communicate with the researchers via journal, meetings, and
electronic communications. The researchers established their
roles as supports for the teacher, acting as consultants, resources
to finds apps, and resources to provide support and ideas. This
included providing guidance on how to incorporate multimodal
storytelling in established units. The researchers facilitated in the
multimodal storytelling when requested by the teacher, as not
to impose “more work” on her or distract from her planning and
instructional routines. By the second meeting, Ms. T. had created
a table that shared with the school district’s pacing guide for third
grade writing instruction. On the table, she listed type of writing
(e.g., persuasive, perspective, poetry), activity using the iPad,
and brainstorming notes. She used this to create a schedule and
organize what apps would work best to meet the writing standards.
Data Collection
Teacher Journal. Ms. T. maintained a running record of
multimodal storytelling activities and the lesson, the apps that
she used, what she felt were the triumphs and challenges to
the lesson, and questions she had for the researchers. These
running records were recorded in an online journal. The
researchers had access to the journals and responded to concerns
via standard communications (e.g., e-mail or meetings).
Interviews and Informal Discussion. Ms. T. met with the
researchers six times throughout the instructional period. More
structured interviews were conducted at the beginning, middle,
and end of the intervention at a public location. Informal meetings
took place in the teacher’s classroom, after school hours, and
between the first author and the teacher. These meetings were
often used to discuss upcoming iPad projects and troubleshoot
any anticipated complications to implementation. The first author
took notes during the meetings and summarized the notes with
the participant at the end of the meeting to ensure clarity and
correct collection of information. Although meetings between
the researcher and participant were not audio-recorded, the first
author summarized and reviewed all notes with the participant
prior to the end of each meeting to ensure clarity and accuracy.
Additional communication. Occasionally, the participant
would email the researchers for help with issues that needed
immediate responses. All communications were recorded and
analyzed as data and analyzed for recurring patterns and themes.