RM Winter 2017

was given two iPads in protective cases, a BlueTooth keyboard, and iTunes credit to use for multimodal storytelling in her classroom.

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.

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.

Reading Matters Research Matters

| 24 | Reading Matters | Volume 16 • Winter 2016 | scira.org

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS