ICTs for literacy instruction

In the information society, being ‘print literate’ is often not enough anymore. Pupils are encouraged to be ‘computer literate’ too, which is best done when the Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) are introduced in the first years of schools, a time at which children are developing literacy and numeracy skills as symbolic systems of representation (Yelland, 2007, pp.108-111).

ICTs have been used increasingly in classrooms, not for their own sake, but also to support the process of literacy acquisition, especially the phonological approach to reading. Indeed, as explained before, the phonological approach recommends that reading instruction should be based on the learning and stabilization of the correspondences phoneme-grapheme of the language, and that these correspondences should be practiced until they become automatic. This domain of practice can be done effectively using ICTs, by drilling the learner repeatedly, especially in the case of a transparent or near transparent writing systems (Lyytinen, Erskine, Kujala, Ojanen, & Richardson, 2009, pp.669-671;

Lyytinen, Ronimus, Alanko, Poikkeus, & Taanila, 2007, p.124). Once the learner can fluently retrieve the phoneme-letter correspondences –in an accurate and fast manner-, cognitive space is freed for comprehension (ibid.).

Actually, ICTs can ensure that this process of stabilization of the phoneme-letter correspondences is done in an optimal and fast manner by providing individualized practice to the learner. Software developed for literacy acquisition can adapt to the level of each individual reader and offer the possibility to evolve at the pace of each learner (Biancarosa & Griffiths, 2012, p.164; Saine, Lerkkanen, Ahonen, Tolvanen, & Lyytinen, 2011, p.1014). Moreover, ICTs can give immediate feedbacks to the learner (Biancarosa

& Griffiths, 2012, p.163; Schmid, Miodrag, & Di Francesco, 2008, p.64). The adaptability of ICTs, along with their potential to provide individualized support and feedbacks to students, make them an ideal individual teacher.

Furthermore, this support to the learning process can be done in a diverse and playful manner, so as to keep the learner motivated and focused on the reading acquisition. In her book Shift to the future: rethinking learning with new technologies in Education, Yelland (2007, p.37) underlines the greater diversity in terms of modes of representation offered by ICTs to the student: going beyond the linguistic alone, ICTs support literacy acquisition process using visual, audio, gestural and spatial modes of representation. By using a computer game format for instance, the child’s practice can be perceived as ‘more play, less work’, guaranteeing the involvement of the child that is necessary in any learning process (Lyytinen et al., 2007, p.111).

It is for their contribution to the emotional development of pupils that ICTs are especially praised. In fact, as pointed out in Lyytinen et al. (2007, p.2), ‘children with delayed acquisition of fluent and accurate reading typically face negative consequences such as development of avoidance behaviour towards learning in general’. With automation on the other hand, the learner is required to answer every time, therefore offering the possibility to provide positive reinforcement for each of the pupil’s correct answers (Pressey, 1964 cited in Driscoll, 1994, pp.58-61). Skinner also pointed out that by arranging the content to be learnt in small steps with a progression from simple to complex task, the pupils answer correctly most times, further increasing the chance of receiving positive reinforcement (Skinner, 1958 cited in Driscoll, 1994, pp.58-61).

Consequently, ICTs, by being learner-centred, can enhance the learner’s self-esteem and confidence (Yelland, 2007, pp.49-50.)

These features of adaptability to the learner’s level, providing feedbacks, keeping the reader motivated and positive about his or her abilities make ICTs a tool especially

adapted to the struggling and impaired readers. For example, Olson and his colleagues (1997, cited in Biancarosa & Griffiths, 2012, p.164) found evidence that pupils with reading disorders benefitted from programs offering individualized e-reading practice opportunities through a diversity of engaging word tasks. The NRP analysis also found general agreement in the experimental literature that ICTs have been used to provide successfully a variety of types of reading instruction (NRP, 2000, pp.430-439).

In addition, this support to struggling readers can be provided anywhere with the ICTs, regardless of whether there are trained remediation personnel, for instance when the remediation software is available via the internet (Lyytinen et al., 2007, p.109). Such ICT tools often incorporates additional mechanisms to gather useful data on the students’

work. Some data gathering mechanisms are sometimes limited to frequency and duration of use but sometimes extend to include assessment of learning, which can be extremely valuable tools for the teachers’ understanding of where the pupils are at –in terms of level and pattern of mistakes (Biancarosa & Griffiths, 2012, p.146).

In conclusion, the advances of ICTs make it increasingly possible to offer wide-ranging support to meet the needs of every learner. Nevertheless, the NRP report (2000, pp.430-439) also pointed out that relevant research was still lacking in the field of computer for reading instruction, especially in the case of research independent of specific computer platforms and software –as technology development seems to outpace research. Many questions remain according to the report (NRP, 2000, p.439), such as:

1. What is the proper role for integration of computers in reading instruction? In what contexts can they be used to either replace or supplement conventional instruction?

2. What are the conditions under which multimedia presentation is useful or desirable in reading text?

3. What are the requisite characteristics of software to teach reading?

4. What is the appropriate mix of reading and writing instruction delivered by computer?

5. How can professional development programs be structured to help teachers effectively integrate computer solutions with instruction?

6. How are the effects of computer usage in pedagogy most effectively measured? Do conventional assessments measure all of the learning that takes place in computer environments?