RM Winter 2016 FLIP

66 / 88

Reading Matters
Technology Matters
| 64| Reading Matters | Volume 16 • Winter 2016 |
The “Silent Seminar” had students read a content-area article
before responding to the teachers’ prompt and their classmates’
responses. The “Musical Think-Pair-Share” allowed students to
read and write content-area texts and then share those texts
with both their partner and entire class. Finally, the “Kahoot
as an Anticipation Guide” activated students’ background
knowledge by their responding to prompts first in writing and
then by sharing, so they were prepared to read a content-area
text. The commonality that cuts across these three activities is
that technology is used to spur students’ responses, and the
way students responded was specific to the content area while
the skill could transfer to other content-areas and be applied
to students’ personal and professional lives. In these ways, the
activities presented here each were uniquely designed to support
students engage and develop their disciplinary literacy skills.
Through these activities, and the skills students utilized were
transferable to their academic, professional, and personal lives.
Conclusion
As the calls for teaching disciplinary literacy in the content
areas continue to get louder and louder, teachers need to use the
technology in their schools – whether they work in a 1:1 school
where all students are provided technology, only have access to
computer carts, or are limited to a projector and laptop – in ways
that develops students’ reading and communicating abilities. As
they plan these activities, teachers need to be dually aware that the
skills they are teaching need not only be specific to their content
area but also transferable. It is this “transfer of skills” that teachers
must consider and emphasize in their instruction as they work
towards preparing all students for academic and career success.
References
Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (2011). Student engagement with science in early
adolescence: The contribution of enjoyment to students’continuing interest in
learning about science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 4-12.
Allington, R. L. (2014). Reading Moves: What Not to Do. Educational
Leadership, 72(2), 16-21.
Barnett, J. E., & Francis, A. L. (2012). Using higher order thinking questions to
foster critical thinking: a classroom study. Educational Psychology , 32(2), 201-211.
Boyles , N. ( 2013 ). Closing in on close reading . Educational Leadership , 70( 4 ),
36-41 .
Brown, T., McNamara, O., Hanley, U., & Jones, L. (1999). Primary student teachers’
understanding of mathematics and its teaching. British Educational Research
Journal, 25(3), 299-322.
Botzakis, S., Burns, L. D., & Hall, L. A. (2014). Literacy reform and common core
state standards: Recycling the autonomous model. Language Arts, 91(4), 223.
Certo, J. L. (2011). Social skills and leadership abilities among children in small-
group literature discussions. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 25(1),
62-81.
Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., &Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012).The handbook of
research on student engagement. New York, NY: Springer Science.
Cook, K. L., & Dinkins, E. G. (2015). Building Disciplinary Literacy through Popular
Fiction. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 19(3). 1-24.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). The right start: Creating a strong foundation for the
teaching career. Kappan, 94(3), 8-13.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wilhoit, G., & Pittenger, L. (2014). Accountability for college
and career readiness: Developing a new paradigm. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 22(86), 1-34.
Duke, N. K. (2013). Transforming Students’Literacy Lives through Reading and
Writing for Real-World Purposes. In S. Szabo, L. Martin, T. Morrison, L. Haas, & L.
Garza-Garcia (Eds.), Literacy is Transformative (39-44). Louisville, KY: Association of
Literacy Educators and Researchers.
Elmore, R. F. (2007). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and
performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Fang, Z. (2012). Language correlates of disciplinary literacy. Topics in Language
Disorders, 32(1), 19-34.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2014). Close reading as an intervention for struggling middle
school readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(5), 367-376.
Gallagher, K. (2009). Readicide: How schools are killing reading and what you can do
about it. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPACK)?. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago press.
Maclellan, E. (2008). The significance of motivation in student-centred learning: a
reflective case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(4), 411-421.
Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (1997) The fall and rise of standards-based
education: A National Association of School Boards of Education (NASBE) issues in
brief. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
McClanahan, B., Williams, K., Kennedy, E., & Tate, S. (2012). A breakthrough for
Josh: How use of an iPad facilitated reading improvement. TechTrends ,56(3),
20-28.
McKenna, M.C., & Robinson, R.D. (1990). Content literacy: A definition and
implications.Journal of Reading, 34, 184–186.
Ming, K. (2012). 10 Content-Area Literacy Strategies for Art, Mathematics, Music,
and Physical Education. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies,
Issues and Ideas, 85(6), 213-220.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Too Cool for School? NoWay! Using the TPACK
Framework: You Can Have Your Hot Tools and Teach with Them, Too. Learning &
Leading with Technology, 36(7), 14-18.