I’ve just finished exploring the “technology-enhanced literacy instruction” literature and creating a prezi presentation file about it, that I will share will our educational sciences bachelor students (4th year: “Younger”).
I’m heavily relying on the TPACK Model (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) to structure this presentation. I have also introduced the SAMR Model (Puentedura, 2009) to analyze/predict the added-value of different uses of (digital) technology for instructional purposes. The Instructional Software Functions Model (Roblyer & Doering, 2010) helps me to clarify the connections between Learning Theories/Teaching Strategies, Educational Uses and Software Functions. The Learning/Teaching Events Model (Leclercq & Poumay, 2005) will be used to distinguish between different learning events and the corresponding teaching events. I have tried to connect these learning/teaching events with Instructional Software Functions (Roblyer & Doering, 2010) and with ICT Potentials (Busana, 2001).
And now I’m sleepless after this exciting, stimulating and exhausting “explore and create” learning event… my brain feels like deconstructing, reconstructing, connecting, disconnecting, reconnecting and restructuring its soft- and hardware… I think I’ve learned quite a lot about Literacy, Literacy Instruction, Literacy Technologies, Instructional Technologies and Technologies for Literacy Instruction. Well, and I’ve learned a lot about how to use the Prezi Desktop program.
However the alarm clock will ring in exactly 1 hour… guess that’s been a productive night, but also a no-sleep- after-all night too… Let’s hope I’ll be fit enough in the afternoon to deliver the presentation…
I will probably be sharing the presentation online, very soon… 🙂
4 Feedbacks on “Technology-Enhanced Literacy Instruction”
the prezi presentation file can be found here:
N.B. It’s still somewhat *work-in-progress* and it may be difficult to understand without the narrative and comments 🙂 feel free to leave your impressions, questions and hesitations
N.B. I don’t think that neuroscientific findings are the ultimate holy findings, just as much as I don’t think that psychological findings or pedagogical findings are “eternal truths” – I still do claim that we need diverse integrative and interdisciplinary, contrastive and controversial empirical evidence from many neighboring research fields to “eliminate” *false* assumptions and theories…
No scientific discipline has ever really suffered from confronting its knowledge with neighboring disciplines… rather the contrary is true: dogma and close-mindedness have discredited these disciplines as pseudo-scientific 🙂
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bob Reuter. Bob Reuter said: New blog post: Technology-Enhanced Literacy Instruction https://www.simple.lu/2009/?p=471 […]
Comments are closed.