Planning cycle for Integrating Technology into Literacy Instruction Hutchinson and Woodward 2014

455

A PLANNING

C YCLE FOR

I N T EGR AT I NG

DIGITAL

TECHNOLOGY
INTO LITER AC Y

INSTRUCTION

Amy Hutchison ■ Lindsay Woodward

The Technology Integration Planning Cycle is a guide to help teachers
integrate digital technology into literacy instruction in meaningful ways
that are consistent with the Common Core State Standards.

Imagine the following scenario: Ms. Thomas (all With enthusiasm, she plans a lesson that will allow her
teacher names are pseudonyms), a third-grade to use one of the apps that she learned about at the recent
teacher, is thrilled that she just received a class set
of iPads to use with her students. Through a profes- Amy Hutchison is an assistant professor at Iowa State University, Ames,
sional conference she attended, she learned about many USA; e-mail [email protected].
of the unique features of the iPad and has heard from her Lindsay Woodward is a doctoral student at Iowa State University;
principal and literacy coach that it is important to inte- e-mail [email protected].
grate digital technology into her literacy instruction.

The Reading Teacher Vol. 67 Issue 6 pp. 455–464 DOI:10.1002/TRTR.1225 © 2014 International Reading Association RT

456
A PLANNING CYCLE FOR INTEGRATING DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY INTO LITERACY INSTRUCTION

conference she attended. Although she is “We have seen teachers both struggle with
well prepared for the lesson and the stu- incorporating digital tools into instruction
dents are enthusiastic to use the iPads, and with capitalizing on the affordances
she realizes at the end of the lesson that
although the students were able to figure out of using digital tools.”
how to navigate the app, she isn’t sure that
they understand how to identify main ideas, seen happen during our time in class- form and function of reading as digital
which was the goal of her lesson. rooms and it is what is commonly tools afford new modes of text and new
written in reports of research on this modes for responding to text, such as
In the next room over, Ms. Kay is also topic. In our recent research (Hutchison the use of audio, video, and photos.
using her new set of iPads and has carefully & Beschorner, 2013; Hutchison,
planned a lesson that will allow her to use Beschorner, & Schmidt-Crawford, 2012; Each mode of response contrib-
an app she heard about from her colleague. Hutchison & Reinking, 2010; Hutchison utes to the meaning of a message in a
However, during the lesson, she spent so & Reinking, 2011), we have seen teachers unique way. Because these modes of
much time allowing students to find inter- both struggle with incorporating digital communication are so common in digi-
esting pictures to use with the app that she tools into instruction and with capital- tal environments, it is important that we
never actually got to the part of the lesson izing on the affordances of using digital teach students the literacy skills needed to
that would help students identify the main tools. By observing and analyzing teach- read these alternate forms of text (Hassett
ideas of the text. Both Ms. Thomas and ers’ reflections as they have attempted & Curwood, 2009), as well as provide
Ms. Kay are left frustrated and don’t know to integrate digital technology into their them with opportunities to create mean-
how they will go about using the iPads in literacy instruction, we have gathered ing through a combination of images,
their instruction again. some key insights into the process that words, and sounds. As such, teachers
literacy teachers undergo as they incor- have a responsibility to integrate digi-
This scenario likely seems familiar porate digital tools into their daily class tal technologies into their instruction to
because it is what we have commonly activities. Thus the purpose of this article prepare students with these new modes
is to propose an instructional planning of reading and writing so that they can
Pause and Ponder cycle for literacy teachers to use as they be prepared for the future (International
attempt to integrate digital technology Reading Association, 2008).
■ What successes and failures have you into their literacy instruction.
encountered when integrating technology Perhaps most importantly, the use
in your literacy instruction? How have Background of digital tools for literacy and lan-
these experiences empowered or guage arts is integrated throughout
prevented your future instructional Ms. Thomas, the teacher in our scenario, the Common Core State Standards
planning? is accurate in believing that it is impor- (National Governors Association Center
tant to integrate digital technology into for Best Practices [NGA Center] &
■ Think of a recent learning activity with her literacy instruction. This is true for Council of Chief State School Officers
which you have planned to use several reasons. First, digital tools and [CCSSO], 2010). For example, Anchor
technology. What process did you use? environments alter what it means to be Strand Seven for Reading states:
Did you consider the constraints literate (Coiro, Knobel, Lankshear & “Integrate and evaluate content pre-
before the affordances or instructional Leu, 2008; Lankshear & Knobel, 2007). sented in diverse formats, including
approach? In relation to this idea, Kress (2003) visually and quantitatively, as well as in
argued that the screen has replaced the words” (NGA Center & CCSSO, 2010,
■ How might using the New Literacies book as the central medium of commu- p. 35). Similarly, Anchor Standard Five
Instructional Planning Cycle change your nication. Consequently, the modes of for the Speaking and Listening strand
daily classroom instruction? Will having a image, sound, and color have and will states: “Make strategic use of digi-
plan for considering the right tool for an continue to have lasting effects on the tal media and digital displays of data
instructional objective have an impact on to express information and enhance
how much you use technology?

RT The Reading Teacher Vol. 67 Issue 6 March 2014

457

A PLANNING CYCLE FOR INTEGRATING DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY INTO LITERACY INSTRUCTION

understanding of presentations” (NGA into instruction, we consider the standards and goals and make that con-
Center & CCSSO, 2010, p. 48). Technological Pedagogical Content tent accessible to learners through their
Knowledge (TPACK) framework instruction and the integration of digi-
Among the primary ways that the designed by Mishra and Koehler (2006) tal technology. However, it is important
standards call for the integration of as a starting point for our instructional to note that the TPACK framework is
digital technology is through the con- planning cycle. The TPACK frame- theoretical and is not a practical guide
sumption, production, and presentation work is based on Shulman’s (1986) idea for helping teachers plan instruction
of multimodal texts. Throughout the of Pedagogical Content Knowledge. He with digital technology. The TPACK
standards, students are asked to pro- argued that the recognition that good framework is illustrated in Figure 1.
duce a response that incorporates digital teachers have knowledge of their sub-
media or to understand information ject matter and of general pedagogical Mishra and Koehler (2006) sug-
that is conveyed through digital media. strategies is not sufficiently complex for gested that the most effective way to
Therefore, it is critical that teachers capturing the knowledge of good teach- integrate technology into classroom
begin to consider how to integrate these ers. Rather, it is the interplay of these instruction is for teachers to simulta-
opportunities into their instruction. components that allows teachers to both neously draw on their technological,
Ideally, students would have the oppor- interpret subject matter and make it pedagogical, and content knowledge.
tunity to learn both print-based literacy accessible for learners. Consequently, the TPACK framework
skills and digital literacy skills simul- “emphasizes the connections, inter-
taneously (Hutchison, Beschorner, & Similarly, the TPACK framework actions, affordances, and constraints
Schmidt-Crawford, 2012). highlights the types of knowledge, between and among content, pedagogy,
and the interplay among them, that and technology” (Mishra & Koehler,
Other reasons that digital tools are allow teachers to interpret curricular 2006, p. 1025).
valuable in the literacy classroom is that
they can support literacy skill develop- Figure 1 The TPACK Framework and Its Knowledge Components
ment (Barone & Wright, 2008), enhance
existing literacy practices (Hutchison,
Beschorner, & Schmidt-Crawford, 2012;
Vasinda & McLeod, 2011), support dif-
ferentiated learning opportunities
(Stanford, Crowe, & Flice, 2010), and
act as a resource through which stu-
dents can independently construct new
knowledge with guidance from a teacher
(Northrop & Killeen, 2013). With these
tenets in mind, we have researched liter-
acy teachers’ uses of digital technology
in classrooms (Hutchison, Beschorner, &
Schmidt-Crawford, 2012; Hutchison &
Reinking, 2010; Hutchison & Reinking,
2011) and have used our experi-
ences in those classrooms to create the
Technology Integration Planning Cycle
for Literacy and Language Arts that we
present in the current article.

Technological Pedagogical Note. Image reproduced by permission of the publisher. © 2012 by tpack.org.
Content Knowledge

To guide our understanding of the

knowledge that teachers must apply

when integrating digital technology

www.reading.org RT

458
A PLANNING CYCLE FOR INTEGRATING DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY INTO LITERACY INSTRUCTION

“Digital tools and these types of knowledge to “orchestrate their instruction and to the development
complex contexts for literacy and learn- of digital literacy skills. Rather, they rec-
environments alter ing rather than simply dispense literacy ommend just that teachers choose a
skills” (p. 1599). Without an ability to digital tool from the ones that they pro-
what it means to be draw on the strengths of each of these pose will support particular learning
types of knowledge to create a rich and activity types. In doing so, they do not
literate.” meaningful learning experience for suggest, as we do, that teachers choose
students, both teachers and students are a nondigital tool if, on reflection, they
Mishra and Koehler described disadvantaged (Leu et al., 2004). Thus discover that using a digital tool will
Technological Content Knowledge we believe there is a need for an instruc- not make a strong contribution to their
(TCK) as an understanding of how tional planning cycle that would guide instruction or if they are unable to locate
technology and content are reciprocally teachers in using their TPACK. a tool that will appropriately support
related and involves knowledge of how their learning goal.
one’s subject matter can be changed To guide our instructional plan-
by the application of technology. They ning cycle, we draw on is Harris and Additionally, Harris and Hofer did
described Technological Pedagogical Hofer’s (2009) suggestions about the not suggest that teachers consider the
Knowledge (TPK) as knowledge of var- instructional decisions that teachers constraints of the tools they select,
ious technologies and their capabilities, can make to plan a learning event that how they might overcome potential
as well as how teaching might change involves digital technology. They sug- constraints, or how they use those con-
as a result of using various technolo- gested that teachers (a) choose learning siderations to inform their instruction.
gies. Pedagogical Content Knowledge goals, (b) make pedagogical deci- They also did not suggest that teachers
(PCK) is described as “knowing what sions about the nature of the learning particularly consider the ways that the
teaching approaches fit the content, experience, (c) choose activity types to integration of digital tools will influence
and likewise, knowing how elements of combine, (d) select assessment strate- the classroom environment and rou-
the content can be arranged for better gies, and (e) select the digital tools that tines. Considering how many classroom
teaching” (p. 1027). This type of knowl- will best help students benefit from the factors will need to differ with digital
edge involves understanding of what learning experience. technology, this is an important aspect
makes concepts easy to learn, how con- of planning instruction.
cepts can be best represented, and of Elements of our planning cycle are
what learners bring to the learning sit- similar to Harris and Hofer’s sugges- Perhaps most importantly, our cycle
uation. Using the TPACK framework tions, particularly in the fact that both is specifically aimed at helping literacy
to develop our instructional planning models exert that instruction should not teachers consider whether their planned
cycle allowed us to identify the types be driven by the technology that will be instruction contributes to both digi-
of knowledge and understandings that used, but rather, the technology should tal and nondigital literacy development.
might contribute to teachers’ instruc- be selected based on the learning stan- Finally, our cycle is situated within a
tional choices. dards and pedagogical approach to the sphere of reflection that we believe is
lesson or unit. However, our approach critical to technology integration Thus
The Need for an differs in important ways. we believe that our proposed planning
Instructional Planning cycle, though similar in some elements,
Framework First, Harris and Hofer did not explic- extends beyond the recommendations of
itly recommend that teachers specifically Harris and Hofer in important ways.
Recent research indicates that teach- outline how digital tools contribute to
ers often have a difficult time using their
TPACK in a systematic and useful way “We have gathered some key insights into
(Hutchison, Beschorner, & Schmidt- the process that literacy teachers undergo
Crawford, 2012; Hutchison & Reinking, as they incorporate digital tools into their
2011). Leu et al. (2004) asserted that
teachers must be able to synthesize daily class activities.”

RT The Reading Teacher Vol. 67 Issue 6 March 2014

459

A PLANNING CYCLE FOR INTEGRATING DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY INTO LITERACY INSTRUCTION

Figure 2 presents our Technology instructional planning, delivery, and well as the exit point, as the goal should
Integration Planning Cycle for Literacy reflection. be revisited after the other elements
and Language Arts, which is designed have been considered to ensure that the
as a recursive decision-making process The model is a reflective cycle; design still fully meets the goal.
that teachers can use as they endeavor to although each element is intended to be
integrate digital technology into literacy considered in a particular order, deci- Classroom illustration—To illustrate
instruction. sions made about one element should each part of this instructional planning
reflect the considerations of the previous cycle, consider a simplistic classroom
The Technology Integration elements. A discussion of each critical example. We recognize that this exam-
Planning Cycle for Literacy element follows. ple is simplistic and does not take into
and Language Arts account the many school and classroom
Instructional Goal factors that teachers need to consider
We have identified seven criti- when planning instruction. However, it
cal elements that influence teachers’ Whether the teacher is using this model can serve as a starting point for under-
instructional planning involving digi- to plan instruction for a whole unit or standing how to use the Technology
tal technology and the success or failure a daily lesson, the instructional goal Integration Planning Cycle. With that
of the resulting classroom instruction. should be the first consideration. The understanding in mind, imagine that
The seven critical elements are as instructional goal should be explicitly Ms. Thomas, the third-grade teacher
follows: stated and tied to overall course goals, from the opening scenario, has iden-
grade-level goals, and state and national tified the following Common Core
1. Ability to identify and adhere to a standards. Additionally, the instruc- Standard as the goal for her instruc-
clear instructional goal when inte- tional goal is both the first and last tion: “Determine the main idea of a text;
grating digital technology element to be visited in the literacy and recount the key details and explain how
language arts technology integration they support the main idea” (CCSS.ELA.
2. Ability to identify an appropri- process. The instructional goal serves Literacy.RI.3.2; NGA Center & CCSSO,
ate instructional approach for the as both the entry point to the process as
instructional goal
Figure 2 The Technology Integration Planning Cycle for Literacy and Language Arts
3. Ability to select appropriate dig-
ital or nondigital tools to support
instruction

4. Ability to foresee how the selected
tool can contribute to the instruc-
tional goal

5. Ability to identify the poten-
tial constraints of using the tool
to determine whether they can be
overcome

6. Ability to understand how the
instruction will need to be deliv-
ered or altered due to the use of
the selected tool

7. Ability to reflect on the resulting
instruction and make changes/
learn more about the instructional
tools as needed

These elements represent the areas
that should be most frequently and
heavily weighted by teachers in their

www.reading.org RT

460
A PLANNING CYCLE FOR INTEGRATING DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY INTO LITERACY INSTRUCTION

2010, p. 14). We will continue with this more or less structured learning; “Decisions made
example throughout to illustrate each (g) take place in a whole group, small
step of the instructional planning cycle. group, or individual configuration; and about one element
(h) involve additional resources.
Instructional Approach should reflect the
Classroom illustration—In our exam-
The methods used to meet the objec- ple, Ms. Thomas uses her Pedagogical considerations of the
tives laid out in the instructional goal Content Knowledge to determine that her
represent the instructional approach. students will need to receive some direct previous elements.”
Although this will be further refined by instruction, but should also construct
selection of a tool and a careful analysis knowledge for themselves through inde- Classroom illustration—Continuing
of how the instruction will take place in pendent practice opportunities. She wants with our example, Ms. Thomas must
the classroom, it is important to begin students to come to a similar under- determine how or if she can use iPads
with an understanding of the best meth- standing, but also wants them to draw on to support her goals. First she must
ods for meeting the instructional goal. familiar experiences and contexts to con- decide if the iPads should be used as a
Teachers must use their Pedagogical struct their understandings; therefore, tool to search for information or if she
Content Knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, they may come to their understandings should use apps intended for specific
2006) to determine the best approach to in slightly different ways. She would like functions such as organizing informa-
facilitate student learning. for them to work in pairs so that they can tion, providing practice on particular
orally describe and discuss their under- topics, listening to recorded readings,
Here, we draw on Harris and Hofer’s standing of main idea and details as well or responding to texts through audio or
(2009) suggestions for making pedagog- as collaboratively engage in activities that video recording, writing, or drawing.
ical decisions, but extend them in a few will move them from a more surface-level
ways. Harris and Hofer suggested that to a deeper understanding. iPads offer many unique options for
teachers consider the extent to which literacy instruction, but teachers must
the learning should (a) be teacher or Tool carefully consider which, if any, of these
student centered; (b) be convergent or options aligns with their instructional
divergent (should students develop sim- Once the instructional goal is estab- goals. As a starting point, Ms. Thomas
ilar understandings or draw their own lished and an instructional approach determines that an app for viewing
conclusions?); (c) involve relevant prior is selected, teachers will draw on their videos and images will help support
experiences with the topic. To this sug- TPACK to consider the type of tool her instructional goal because she
gestion, we would add that this is an best used to accomplish the instruc- knows that pictures can be an effec-
important point at which the teacher tional goal with the desired approach. tive way to scaffold and demonstrate
should also consider students’ prior If this tool is a digital tool, then teach- understanding.
experiences with technology. Teachers ers will begin to think specifically about
should consider the digital skills stu- how the tool may contribute to instruc- During her app search, Ms. Thomas
dents will need to learn to participate tion. If it is evident that a nondigital tool identifies several ways that iPads can
in the lesson; (d) facilitate a more sur- will best suit the instructional goal and support her instruction and decides that
face-level or deep understanding of the approach, then teachers will not need her lesson will proceed in the follow-
topic. To this suggestion, we add that to use this model of technology inte- ing way: First, she recognizes that using
this decision may vary by the phase of gration. An important consideration at iPads will allow her to introduce the
instruction and within a lesson; (e) be this step is whether or not a digital tool concept of main idea and details with a
longer or shorter in duration; (f) involve might complement the nondigital work. video. Doing so will be likely be more
engaging for her students and will help
“The use of digital tools for literacy and language her present the concept in a simple and
arts is integrated throughout the Common straightforward manner. Thus she will
Core State Standards.” first have students access the YouTube
app to view the following video: www
.youtube.com/watch?v=W24RyhtX1qA.

RT The Reading Teacher Vol. 67 Issue 6 March 2014

461

A PLANNING CYCLE FOR INTEGRATING DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY INTO LITERACY INSTRUCTION

Next, she will ask students to discuss This is a critical element in the pro- Thus when teachers are integrat-
and summarize their understanding of cess because it enables the teacher to ing digital technology into their
the video and then have them practice focus on the specific features of the tool instruction, they should consider
finding the main idea with photos that that will be used for the learning expe- whether the activity also affords
she has loaded onto the photo stream in rience, rather than considering the tool the opportunity to address a
the built-in camera app on the iPads. She as a whole. Additionally, looking at the Common Core State Standard
chooses to have them look at photos first contributions of the tool, before the con- related to using and understand-
because she believes that photos and straints, will enable teachers to not only ing digital technology.
illustrations are a good way to introduce fully explore the potential of the digital
this topic to ensure that they understand tool they have selected, but will also Classroom illustration—The lesson
the concept before moving on to printed reduce the impact that potential barriers Ms. Thomas has planned provides stu-
text. Additionally, she wants to help her have on instruction. dents with the opportunity to gather
students understand that images carry meaning from images and video, but not
meaning in a text. Furthermore, she Perhaps most importantly at this the opportunity to create a multimodal
chooses photos from classroom proj- juncture, teachers should consider text. She recognizes that she may be able
ects and related to activities that she whether the lesson they have planned to use the activity to address additional
knows her students participate in outside with the digital tool affords students the standards related to digital technology.
of school because she wants them to be opportunity to: On reviewing the third-grade ELA stan-
able to draw on familiar experiences as dards, she sees other standards related
she introduces the skill. (a) Learn both digital and nondigi- to her activity.
tal literacy skills. For example, the
After this, she will guide students lesson Ms. Thomas has planned For example, she first realizes that
in identifying main ideas and details in affords students the opportunity she is already addressing Speaking
a text. She will have students use free to learn the traditional literacy skill and Listening Standard 3.2 (CCSS.
digital texts from a site such as library. of identifying the main ideas of a ELA-Literacy.SL.3.2), which states that
uniteforliteracy.com. At this point, she text and thus addresses a Common students should “Determine the main
will again draw their attention to the Core State Standard. Yet, it also ideas and supporting details of a text
illustrations and how they carry mean- addresses digital skills such as read aloud or information presented in
ing and can support the main idea of identifying main ideas from videos diverse media and formats, including
the text as well. In doing so, she can also and images and how to navigate visually, quantitatively, and orally”
address the following standard: “Use and use features of a digital tool. (NGA Center & CCSSO, 2010, p. 14). She
information gained from illustrations is addressing this standard by having
(e.g., maps, photographs) and the words (b) Engage in the types of mul- students view a video and use images to
in a text to demonstrate understanding timodal production or learn about the concept of main idea.
of the text” (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.3.7; consumption required by
NGA Center & CCSSO, 2010, p. 14). the Common Core English At this point, she also recognizes
Language Arts (ELA) standards. how her activity could connect to other
Contribution to Instruction Requirements to both understand standards involving digital technology
and produce information involv- as well. For example, she sees how her
Using their TPACK, teachers will outline ing diverse media and formats are lesson could address Writing Standard
the specific contributions to instruction woven throughout the standards. 3.6 (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.3.6), which
that the digital tool provides. Because
this is a reflective cycle, the instruc- “Throughout the standards, students are asked
tional goal or approach may be revisited to produce a response that incorporates digital
as a result of the possible contributions
to instruction of the tool. The contri- media or to understand information that is
butions should be directly tied to the conveyed through digital media.”
specific tool and should aim to reflect
the specific reasons this digital tool is
the best fit for the instructional goal.

www.reading.org RT

462
A PLANNING CYCLE FOR INTEGRATING DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY INTO LITERACY INSTRUCTION

“Our cycle is specifically aimed at helping ■ Do constraints of using the digital
literacy teachers consider whether their planned tool overwhelm the instruction?

■ Can you overcome the constraints?

instruction contributes to both digital and One potential constraint that teach-
nondigital literacy development.” ers may face is that students may lack
familiarity or experience with the dig-
ital tools being used (Hutchison &

Reinking, 2011). If this is the case, then

states: “With guidance and support from Constraints teachers will need to ensure that such
adults, use technology to produce and is accounted for in their instruction.
publish writing as well as to interact and Digital tools, like all tools used for learn- Likely, this constraint can be overcome
collaborate with others” (NGA Center & ing, have their limitations. It is important with careful planning and scaffolding,
CCSSO, 2010, p. 21). for teachers to consider possible con- but the teacher may need to consider
straints before implementing technology how to scaffold the students’ experience
Thus Ms. Thomas expands her to ensure that the constraints do not with the tools so that their inexperience
lesson to include a practice opportu- overpower the instructional goal. The doesn’t overwhelm the instructional
nity in which she asks students to work contributions of the tool should serve as

with a partner to independently illus- a guide for considering the constraints. goal. If the constraints do seem likely to
trate their understanding of main idea Teachers should analyze the tool to overwhelm the instruction, then that is

and details with the Popplet app, which determine whether there are features or an indicator that use of the digital tool

is a graphic organizer app that allows circumstances that would prevent the as planned, or perhaps use of any digital

the user to combine text, image, and tool from contributing to instruction or tool, is not the best choice for meeting

color to graphically illustrate ideas. The would minimize the possible contribu- this instructional goal.

user can also annotate photos and does tions. Once the possible constraints have Classroom illustration— In our exam-

not have to exit the app to take photos been determined, then it is important to ple, Ms. Thomas is aware that students

or access existing ones from the camera consider the following questions: may get so excited about the iPads that

roll; it can all be done within the app.

This inclusiveness will work well for her

third graders. Figure 3 Example of Student Product Produced Using Popplet
Ms. Thomas will have her students

use Popplet to graphically organize the

main idea and details of their assigned

text through a combination of images

and text. This means that she will again

need to discuss with students the ways

that image, text, and color can mutu-

ally support each other, so she will make

that a part of her lesson. Thus her lesson

provides students with the opportu-

nity to not only consume multimodal

texts, but to also produce one of their

own. See Figure 3 for an example illus-

trating a main idea and details that were

created with Popplet. Best of all, the

lesson Ms. Thomas has planned affords

the opportunity for her to address both

print-based and digitally-based ELA

standards.

RT The Reading Teacher Vol. 67 Issue 6 March 2014

463

A PLANNING CYCLE FOR INTEGRATING DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY INTO LITERACY INSTRUCTION

they forget about the purpose of their “It is important for teachers to consider possible
assignment. They could spend so long constraints before implementing technology
examining the photos that little time is to ensure that the constraints do not
left to explain how to identify main ideas overpower the instructional goal.”
in a text. However, Ms. Thomas has con-
sidered the way she can overcome these a clear idea of how to use the digital tool Conclusion
constraints. First, she will provide stu- to accomplish the learning goal. Finally,
dents with a specific amount of time to before beginning the lesson, the teacher By situating this cycle within a sphere of
view the introductory video and iden- should revisit the instructional goal reflection, teachers should feel empow-
tify the main ideas of the photos she to ensure that the contributions, con- ered to carefully consider how to use
has selected for them. She will pro- straints, and instruction are all tied to their TPACK in their own classrooms
vide explicit guidelines for how students the goal. with specific instructional goals. We
should complete the tasks and display a believe this instructional planning cycle
timer indicating the amount of time they Classroom illustration—In our exam- serves as a bridge between the types of
have left to complete their tasks. ple, Ms. Thomas has already considered knowledge needed for teachers to effec-
many of the ways she will provide direc- tively integrate technology into their
Next, she will carefully scaffold her tions and explanations, but realizes that instruction (Mishra & Koehler, 2006)
instruction using the Gradual Release she will likely need to provide an intro- and the critical elements needed in plan-
of Responsibility model (Pearson & duction and simple explanation of the ning to integrate technology for specific
Gallagher, 1983) to explain and model Popplet app because this will be the first literacy and language arts instructional
how to identify the main ideas within time that students have used it. She will goals. Engaging students in the kind of
a text to ensure that the students have also need to consider how she will view comprehension activities dictated by the
ample opportunity to understand the students’ work in Popplet. For example, standards and preparing them to be dig-
concepts before completing their inde- will she have students email their work itally literate in the ways dictated by the
pendent examples. When it comes to her or will she collect the iPads and standards can seem like a daunting task.
time for students to create their work view the work there? However, we believe that this task can
in Popplet, she will provide explicit become more manageable if teachers
instruction about what she would like Furthermore, she will need to con- aim to simultaneously teach both tradi-
students to include and how to demon- sider how she will assess the students’ tional and digital literacy skills through
strate their understanding. With these work and evaluate their understanding the process outlined in this article.
plans in mind for overcoming her con- because their final product will con-
straints, Ms. Thomas decides to continue sist of not only text, but also images This cycle also has particular rele-
with the instruction as planned because contained within a graphical display. On vance for professional development that
she believes that the benefits will out- again considering her instructional goal, supports teachers’ technology integra-
weigh the possible constraints. Ms. Thomas believes that the instruc- tion planning and practices. Hutchison
tion she has planned can help her to & Reinking (2010) found that 82% of
Instruction and Reflection meet her instructional goal while also surveyed literacy and language arts
providing students with opportunities teachers believed that a lack of mean-
After making the decision that any to develop a variety of additional skills. ingful professional development was
possible constraints can be over- She will proceed with the instruction a barrier to technology integration.
come, teachers should envision how and reflect on the outcome to deter- One particular aspect of professional
the instruction will take place when mine whether changes need to be made development that teachers identi-
using this digital tool. Considerations for future instruction. Figure 3 shows fied as lacking was access to successful
in this element might include physical an example of a Popplet using image models for integrating digital technol-
space, classroom environment, class- and text to represent the main ideas and ogy into their instruction. The proposed
room management, student work time, details of a text. cycle may meet this need and mediate
directions or explanations needed, and
assessments. After analyzing how the
instruction will take place, the teacher
should, at this point in the process, have

www.reading.org RT

464
A PLANNING CYCLE FOR INTEGRATING DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY INTO LITERACY INSTRUCTION

the frustration felt by teachers who are classroom teachers as they develop their Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2010). A national
trying to integrate technology by guiding survey of barriers to integrating informa-
them toward reflection and the criti- ability to integrate the digital strands of tion and communication technologies into lit-
cal assumptions necessary for creating eracy instruction. In R. Jimenez, V. Risko,
meaningful integration opportunities. the Common Core State Standards into M. Hundley, & D. Rowe (Eds.), Fifty-Ninth
Yearbook of the National Reading Conference
In conclusion, we believe that our pro- their instruction. We hope that teach- (pp. 230–243). Milwaukee, WI: National
posed instructional planning cycle for Reading Conference.
teachers can act as a starting point for ers will see it as a flexible, reflective cycle
Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers’
TAKE ACTION! that highlights the aspects of instruc- perceptions of integrating information
and communication technologies into
1. Become familiar with your own level of tion that should be considered when literacy instruction: A national survey in
the U.S. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4),
Technological, Pedagogical, and Content integrating digital technology into liter- 308–329.
Knowledge. To plan for integrating technol-
ogy into instruction, it is important to have acy instruction. International Reading Association (2009). New
a clear understanding of the technology literacies and 21st century technologies: A
available to you, the varying pedagogical REFERENCES position statement of the International Reading
approaches suitable for your learning goal, and Association. Newark, DE: Author.
the specific content. Work toward strength- Barone, D., & Wright, T.E. (2008). Literacy
ening any areas that may need develop- instruction with digital and media technol- Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., & Wachira, P. (2008).
ment and seek out resources that will allow ogies. The Reading Teacher, 62(4), 292–302. Computer technology integration &student
you to use your knowledge effectively. doi:10.1598/RT.62.4.2 learning: Barriers and promise. Journal of
Science Education & Technology, 17(6), 560–565.
2. Consider the importance of using and Beach, R. (2012). Uses of digital tools and litera-
cies in the English language arts classroom. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age.
teaching new literacies skills in your over- Research in the Schools, 19(1), 45–59. London, UK: Rutledge.
all curriculum. Understand those standards
and learning objectives that involve a digital Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2007). Sampling
environment to guide the selection of learn- in multimodal texts: A social semi- “the new” in new literacies. In M. Knobel &
ing objectives and digital tools. Evaluate otic account Of designs for learning. C. Lankshear (Eds.), A new literacies sam-
the types of media that may be used with Written Communication, 25(2), 166–195. pler (Vol. 29, pp. 1–24). New York, NY: Peter
the digital tools available to you, and care- doi:10.1177/0741088307313177 Lang.
fully think about how multimedia projects
may contribute to students’ learning. Castek, J., & Beach, R. (2013). Using apps to Leu, D.J. Jr., Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J., & Cammack,
support disciplinary literacy and science D.W. (2004). Toward a theory of new litera-
3. Choose an instructional goal and use the learning. Journal of Adolescent & Adult cies emerging from the Internet and other
Literacy, 56(7), 554–564. doi:10.1002/JAAL.18 information and communication technol-
New Literacies Instructional Planning Cycle to ogies. In R.B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.),
effectively integrate technology into literacy Coiro, J. (2011). Predicting reading compre- Theoretical models and processes of read-
instruction. Be reflective as you consider the hension on the Internet: Contributions of ing (5th ed., pp. 1570–1613). Newark, DE:
different critical elements of the cycle and ensure offline reading skills, online reading skills, International Reading Association.
that you have considered the affordances before and prior knowledge. Journal of Literacy
the constraints of the tool. On completion of Research, 43(4), 352–392. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006).
the lesson, revise your instruction and the Technological Pedagogical Content
instructional plan to reflect the insights gained Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the Knowledge: A new framework for teacher
about the suitability, affordances, constraints, online comprehension strategies used by knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6),
and impact of using the digital tool. sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and 1017–1054.
locate information on the Internet. Reading
Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214–257. National Governors Association Center for
Best Practices and the Council of Chief
Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Leu, State School Officers. (2010). Common Core
D. (2008). Central issues in new litera- State Standards for English language arts
cies research. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. and literacy in history/social studies, science,
Lankshear, & D. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of and technical subjects. Washington, DC:
research in new literacies (pp. 1–21). New Authors.
York, NY: Erlbaum.
Northrop, L., & Killeen, E. (2013). A frame-
Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: work for using iPads to build early literacy
The final frontier in our quest for technol- skills. The Reading Teacher, 66(7), 531–537.
ogy integration? Educational Technology doi:10.1002/TRTR.115
Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.
Pearson, P.D., & Gallagher, M.C. (1983). The
Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Grounded tech instruction of reading comprehension.
integration. Learning and Leading with Contemporary Educational Psychology,
Technology, 37(2), 22–25. 8(3), 317–344. doi:10.1016/03614-76X(83)
90019-X
Hassett, D.D., & Curwood, J.S. (2009). Theories
and practices of multimodal education: The Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand:
instructional dynamics of picture books and Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
primary classrooms. The Reading Teacher, Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
63(4), 270–282.
Standford, P., Crowe, M.W., & Flice, H. (2010).
Hutchison, A., & Beschorner, B. (2013, April). Differentiating with technology. TEACHING
The iPad as an early literacy learning tool. Exceptional Children Plus, 6(4), 1–9.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Vasinda, S., & McLeod, J. (2011). Extending
San Francisco, CA. readers theatre: A powerful and pur-
poseful match with podcasting. The
Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt- Reading Teacher, 64(7), 486–497. doi:10.1598/
Crawford, D. (2012). Exploring the use of the RT.64.7.2
iPad for literacy learning. Reading Teacher,
66(1), 15–23.

RT The Reading Teacher Vol. 67 Issue 6 March 2014

Copyright of Reading Teacher is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.