Skip to main content

My quick thoughts, back stage, and rants as I try to Teach kids about the Web while learning how to help others build a better Web.

IndieWebRing

Come Journey Through the IndieWeb Sites

🕸💍

Greg McVerry

I just posted another microcast https://jgregorymcverry.com/podcasts/2toPonder/2toPonderSe03Ep02.m4a where I discuss sociocultural views of and meaning making

Greg McVerry

Greg McVerry

Lessons From Sociocultural Writing Research for Implementing the Common Core State Standards

Examining the Writing Standards Through a Sociocultural Lens

From Text Types and  to “Genre”

Privileging Argument as a Text Type Is Contested.

A Focus on Text Types Neglects the Social Dimensions of Writing.

From “Using Technology to Produce and Publish” to “New Media Literacies”

From “Conventions and Standard English” to “Cultivating Asset-Based Perspectives on Language Use”

Grammar Is Hard for Students to Learn and Has Little Impact on Writing.

Recognizing Multiple Grammars.

Moving Beyond Negotiating Language Difference to an Asset->Based Perspective on Nondominant Language Use.

Applying Sociocultural Understandings to Pedagogical Practices

Toward Socioculturally Informed Inatruction

 

Greg McVerry

Trying to Define Digital #literacies on wikipedia

4 min read

I am trying to fix the digital literacy article on Wikipedia. Here is the current definition:

Digital literacy refers to an individual's ability to find, evaluate, and compose clear information through writing and other mediums on various digital platforms. Digital literacy is evaluated by an individual's grammar, composition, typing skills and ability to produce writings, images, audio and designs using technology. While digital literacy initially focused on digital skills and stand-alone computers, the advent of the Internet and use of social media, has caused some of its focus to shift to mobile devices. Digital literacy does not replace traditional forms of literacy, instead building upon the skills that form the foundation of traditional forms of literacy.[1]

Digital literacy built on the expanding role of social science research in the field of literacy[2] as well on concepts of visual literacy [3], computer literacy [4], and information literacy, [5]

Overall digital literacy shares many defining principles with other fields that use modifiers in front of literacy to define ways of being and domain specific knowledge. The term has grown in popularity in education and higher education settings and can be found used in International and national standards [6]. Similar to other expanding definitions of literacy that recognize cultural and historical ways of making meaning [7] digital literacy does not replace traditional forms of literacy, instead building upon the skills that form the foundation of traditional forms of literacy.[1]

I have issues with this mainly as it draws only from information processing models of research yet in the second paragraph discussed the social sciences used. Specifically the current dfn is only relying on an informational retrieval model.

I know of few scholars who still use an IR perspective for digital literacy...and I studied at the New Literacies Research Lab...probably the most cognitive approaches to digital literacy. Don, studied under Jean Chall and we studied under him.You can't get much more old school than that.

Online reading comprehension was a cognitive approach whereas most other literacy researchers used much stronger socio-cultural approaches. Thus to define digital literacy from an IR perspective makes little sense.

The only citation to defining the term is Henry Jenkins book on Participatory culture. I love the text but it is not the go to guide for defining digital literacies. It is tangentially connected.

The discussion of mobile devices as a shift in the definition does not fit in a dfn nor is the claim supported.

Much of our ideas in the third paragraph remain, and it is too confusing and still needs work. I will agree with the other editors there.

Here was our edit:

Digital literacy, also known as digital literacies[1], refers to the shared cultural practices of encoding and decoding meaning on the world[2] through multiple modalities produced or transferred using information digitally recorded and stored . Digital literacies encompass a bricolage of skills, attitudes, and dispositions as participants negotiate meaning and identity[3] in a networked society [4]and may include, but is not limited to, an individual's grammar, composition, writings, images, audio, video, podcasting, remixing and designs using technology.

Digital literacy, first coined in 1997 by Paul Gilster [5] built on the expanding role of anthropological research in the field of literacy[6] as well on concepts of visual literacy [7], computer literacy [8], and information literacy, [9]

Overall digital literacy shares many defining principles with other fields that use modifiers in front of literacy to define ways of being and domain specific knowledge. The term has grown in popularity in education and higher education settings and can be found used in International and national standards [10]. Similar to other expanding definitions of literacy that recognize cultural and historical ways of making meaning [11] digital literacy does not replace traditional forms of literacy, instead building upon the skills that form the foundation of traditional forms of literacy.[12]

I feel this is better cited and combines both cognitive and socio-cultural perspectives on reading. I lead with a sociocultural perspective as it reflects the current state of literature and where the work of digital literacies happens. In terms of citations I added Belshaw (wrote the book on Digital Literacy). Lanksher and Knobel (new literacies anyone), and Gillchrist (coined the term)

Other editors felt my revision is too confusing. Maybe I did use too much jargon and flowery metaphors (bricolage) yet I do not think the constant reversion of my edits is the best approach. Wikipedia works better when we revise rather than reject edit.

Greg McVerry

Read Lessons From Sociocultural Writing Research for Implementing the Common Core State Standards #EDU407Sum19

What we mean by “the role of context” is the recognition that writing is not just a cognitive process but a social and cultural one. Writing and writers develop through interactions with one an-other over time.

Such ideas about the role of context and culture in writing development underlie a sociocultural per-spective that pays particular attention to the ways that writers develop practices and identities over time and in interactions with others, recognizing that “conventional encoding is not arrived at in a uniform, linear path (Clay, 1998) and that composing involves much more than encoding” (Dyson, 2015, p. 201).

In many ways it is this identity as a reader and writer we need to build in the classroom, this has to go beyond a grade number or a box in a rubric

which positions teachers to draw on their local knowledge to contextualize learning offers insights into how to interpret and implement the Standards in more meaningful ways.

  • describ-ing what the Standards explicit-ly say
  • highlighting additional information from the Standards that may be missed without dig-ging deeper into the appendix-es
  • detailing important components that the Standards do not address.

A student could make this a write post, go through some standards or lesson plans using this as a lens

Writing Anchor Standards 1–4 identify three text forms for students to master: opinion/argument, in-formative/explanatory, and narrative. They also suggest an explicit focus on task, purpose, and audience (see Table 1)

Not much on exploring your world or focusing on writing for change

Privileging Argument as a Text Type Is Contested. “While all three text types are important, the Standards put particular emphasis on students’ abil-ity to write sound arguments on substantive topics and is-sues, as this ability is critical to college and career emphasis”

Why is argument considered the pinnacle of our education? What if we focused on civic and community ready before college ready.

Toulmin-style graphic organizer, which fo-cuses on warranting claims with evidence, for an essay assignment about whether schools should foster individuality or conformity. Olson, Scarcella, and Matuchniak (2015) similarly described why ar-gument is a linguistically and rhetorically difficult text type for English learners, suggesting that nar-rative forms should be taught first as a foundation before focusing on more complex text types.

Argumentation is a very western and very male way of looking at knowledge

. Sociocultural teachers pay attention to the kind of work and learning accomplished during the production of written genres, not just the surface fea-tures of the textual form. They move beyond asking if writing looks right to understanding what students are doing and accomplishing with their writing. As Bazerman and Prior (2005) put it, “learning genres in-volves learning to act—with other people, artifacts, and environments, all of which are themselves in on-going processes of change and development” (p. 147).

Writing as inquiry and examining multiple persepectives

By Rebecca Woodard, Sonia Kline

Greg McVerry

@anna_phd Here is mine https://edu305.jgregorymcverry.com We have foundations of literacy test so a lot of the big five, more sociocultural approaches in https://edu307.networkedlearningcollaborative.com

Greg McVerry

No Need for Complicated #OpenPedagogy Metadata to Track Student Growth, Go #IndieWeb

No Need for Complicated #OpenPedagogy Metadata to Track Student Growth, Go #IndieWeb

I use WordPress.com with my students to introduce them to the web and but this year I added an amazing feature that makes tracing knowledge growth and keep track of progress super easy.

I do not need some expensive data analytics platform or have to use tools in some LMS every student hates.

Instead, I use HTML.  You may have heard of it before.

Specifically, I added webmentions this year. All of my students had to connect their WordPress.com with https://brid.gy. I then taught them to look at HTML and add in this class "u-in-reply-to."

Those four words and hyphens create a network across all my students. I do not have to figure out webhooks or APIs or worry about single sign on across so many overpriced platforms. We just use HTML.

So now instead of posting native comments on each other's blogs students send reply posts to each other. When they complete a reading they send a reply to the module page.

In the image above you see a record of a student who has completed a reading assignment. They did not need to upload it or share it on a discussion board. Instead, they simply publish a post and semantic HTML, specifically, microformats does the work.

I post the links below for my audience using screen readers or anyone interested in seeing how webmentions could track learning.

https://literacybydej.wordpress.com/2019/01/29/thinking-globally-in-literacy-instruction-and-critica...
on http://edu407.jgregorymcverry.com/moduleone.html

https://literacybydej.wordpress.com/2019/01/29/lessons-from-sociocultural-writing-research-synthesis...
on http://edu407.jgregorymcverry.com/moduleone.html

Greg McVerry

Notes on #CCSS and Sociocultural Theories of Writing #407

2 min read

As we consider theories of meaning we Lessons From Sociocultural Writing Research for Implementing the Common Core State Standards by Rebecca Woodward in Sonya Klein

The Standards’ college and career readiness perspective suggests a pathway for writing development that was determined by starting with what students need to know in college and careers, then working backward 

This is how all CCSS is was organized. 

What we mean by “the role of context” is the recognition that writing is not just a cognitive process but a social and cultural one. Writing and writers develop through interactions with one another over time.

Here the authors define their central position and their key terms. Always write as if your audience knows nothing.

 However, the Standards do not acknowledge that the privileging of argument as a text type is contested; nor do they explicitly connect a focus on text types to the social dimensions of writing

We should never cast argument as the highest form of learning. i think that is partly responsible for the mess we find ourselves in.

 DeStigter (2015) documented how Manny, a Mexican student, struggled to use a Toulmin-style graphic organizer, which focuses on warranting claims with evidence, for an essay assignment about whether schools should foster individuality or conformity. Olson, Scarcella, and Matuchniak (2015) similarly described why argument is a linguistically and rhetorically difficult text type for English learners, suggesting that narrative forms should be taught first as a foundation before focusing on more complex text types.

Never really thought about the cutural implications of learning how the discourse patterns when you come from a culture that stresses the narrative form.

Gallagher (2011) made the case that “we must move beyond the narrowly prescribed school writing discourses found in most school districts and stretch them into areas that can be readily applied

This has to include digital

However, the Standards don’t extend this line of thinking to name various grammars as equally legitimate; explicitly address how our ideas about “proper” grammar are related to culture, race, and power (Delpit, 1995; Ehrenworth & Vinton, 2005); or acknowledge language difference and plurality as a potential resource rather than a deficit. 

There are so many wonderful ways to twist language but never let the connection to home and community unravel. 

Greg McVerry

Lessons From Sociocultural Writing Research for Implementing the Common Core State Standards.

Woodard, R., & Kline, S. (2016). Lessons From Sociocultural Writing Research for Implementing the Common Core State Standards. Reading Teacher70(2), 207–216. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/trtr.1505

Greg McVerry

Growing reading list for #edu407 Looking for blog post/article recommendations #elachat #3rdchat #4thchat #5thchat

7 min read

Theories of Meaning Making

Woodard, R., & Kline, S. (2016). Lessons From Sociocultural Writing Research for Implementing the Common Core State Standards. Reading Teacher70(2), 207–216. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/trtr.1505

Hoffman, J. V., Sailors, M., & Aguirre, S. H. (2016). Thinking Globally in Literacy Instruction: Making a Difference in the World. Reading Teacher70(2), 143–148. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/trtr.1507

Moje, E. (2010) What is Disciplinary Literacy? https://youtu.be/Id4gKJ-wGzU

Literacy Research Association. Critical Race Theory.

Instructional Routines

Ciampa, K. (2016). Implementing a Digital Reading and Writing Workshop Model for Content Literacy Instruction in an Urban Elementary (K-8) School. Reading Teacher70(3), 295–306. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/trtr.1514

McClure, E. L., & King Fullerton, S. (2017). Instructional Interactions: Supporting Students’ Reading Development Through Interactive Read-Alouds of Informational Texts. Reading Teacher71(1), 51–59. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/trtr.1576

Hebert, F. (2013). Text Complexity Playlist

Scholastic. What is Guided Reading? (Beyond a Commercial Cash Cow).

Hoffman, J. V. (2017). What If “Just Right” Is Just Wrong? The Unintended Consequences of Leveling Readers. Reading Teacher71(3), 265–273. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/trtr.1611

Phonics and Spelling

Montelongo, J. A., Hernández, A. C., Herter, R. J., & Cuello, J. (2011). Using Congnates to Scaffold Context Clue Strategies for Latino ELs. Reading Teacher64(6), 429–434. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1598/RT.64.6.4

Bear, D. R., & Templeton, S. (1998). Explorations in developmental spelling: Foundations for learning and teaching phonics, spelling.. Reading Teacher52(3), 222. Retrieved from http://scsu.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&...

Alderman, G. L., & Green, S. K. (2011). Fostering Lifelong Spellers Through Meaningful Experiences. Reading Teacher64(8), 599–605. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1598/RT.64.8.5

 

Academic Vocabulary

Gallagher, M. A., & Anderson, B. E. (2016). Get All “Jazzed Up” for Vocabulary Instruction: Strategies That Engage. Reading Teacher70(3), 273–282. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/trtr.1498

Picot, C. J. (2017). Using Academic Word Lists to Support Disciplinary Literacy Development. Reading Teacher71(2), 215–220. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/trtr.1593

Flynt, E. S., & Brozo, W. G. (2008). Developing Academic Language: Got Words? Reading Teacher61(6), 500–502. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1598/RT.61.6.9

Comprehension

McKee, L., & Carr, G. (2016). Supporting Beginning Readers in Reading to Learn: A Comprehension Strategy. Reading Teacher70(3), 359–363. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/trtr.1510

Cappello, M., & Lafferty, K. E. (2015). The Roles of Photography for Developing Literacy Across the Disciplines. Reading Teacher69(3), 287–295. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/trtr.1418

Roehling, J. V., Hebert, M., Nelson, J. R., & Bohaty, J. J. (2017). Text Structure Strategies for Improving Expository Reading Comprehension. Reading Teacher71(1), 71–82. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/trtr.1590

Wright, T. S., & Gotwals, A. W. (2017). Supporting Disciplinary Talk From the Start of School: Teaching Students to Think and Talk Like Scientists. Reading Teacher71(2), 189–197. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/trtr.1602

Hamilton, B. Supprting Young Readers Developing Reading Club Conversation Skills

 

Writing instruction

Roth, K., & Dabrowski, J. (2014). Extending Interactive Writing Into Grades 2-5. Reading Teacher68(1), 33–44. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/trtr.1270

Moser, S. (2017). Using Mentor Texts to Reach Reluctant Readers and Writers. Reading Teacher71(3), 371–372. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/trtr.1620

Zawilinksi, L. Hot Blogging.

Assessment Strategy

Philippakos, Z. A. (2017). Giving Feedback: Preparing Students for Peer Review and Self-Evaluation. Reading Teacher71(1), 13–22. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/trtr.1568

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2015). Checking for Understanding Digitally During Content Area Learning. Reading Teacher69(3), 281–286. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/trtr.1407 

Wixson, K. K., & Valencia, S. W. (2011). Assessment in RTI: What Teachers and Specialists Need to Know. Reading Teacher64(6), 466–469. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1598/RT.64.6.13

 

Creating a Home and Community Culture

 

Louie, B., & Davis-Welton, K. (2016). Family Literacy Project. Reading Teacher69(6), 597–606. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/trtr.1444

Protacio, M. S., & Edwards, P. A. (2015). Restructuring Sharing Time for English Learners and Their Parents. Reading Teacher68(6), 413–421.

Jensen, D. A. (2006). Using newsletters to create home-school connections. Reading Teacher60(2), 186–190. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1598/RT.60.2.8

Cognitive, Cultural, and Developmental Differentation

Stahl, K. A. D. (2016). Response to Intervention. Reading Teacher69(6), 659–663. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/trtr.1457

Teaching with Nonfiction

Duke, N. (2016). Using Informational Text to Build Literacy and Content Knowledge, Nell Duke, University of Michigan

Kersten, S. (2017). Becoming Nonfiction Authors: Engaging in Science Inquiry. Reading Teacher71(1), 33–41. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/trtr.1577

Young, T. A., & Miner, A. B. (2015). Guiding Inquiry With Biography Breaks and the C3 Framework. Reading Teacher69(3), 311–319. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/trtr.1415

 

Teaching with Novels

Ripp, P. Ideas for How to Do Better Book Clubs in Middle School

Larson, L. (2008) Electronic Reading Workshop

Cummins, S., & Quiroa, R. E. (2012). Teaching for Writing Expository Responses to Narrative Texts. Reading Teacher65(6), 381–386. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/TRTR.01057

Teaching with Poetry

Ferguson, K. (2017). A Poetry Coffee House: Creating a Cool Community of Writers. Reading Teacher71(2), 209–213. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/trtr.1610

Timmermans, K. M., & Johnson, A. (2017). Introducing and Sustaining Close Reading and Writing Through Poetry. Reading Teacher71(3), 357–362. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1002/trtr.1613

Ciardiello, A. V. (2010). “Talking Walls”: Presenting a Case for Social Justice Poetry in Literacy Education. Reading Teacher63(6), 464–473. https://doi-org.scsu.idm.oclc.org/10.1598/RT.63.6.3

 

CLMOOC

Prev | Home | Join | ? | Next