FEATURE ARTICLES

The Common Core Standards on Technology:A *SHIFT* in Focus for States

Kathryn Roberts

JL AÄ7

iLai/ J\í?x

Meagan Shedd

Rebecca Norman

The Common Core State Standards (CC-SSs, National Governors Association forBest Practices 8c Council of Chief StateSchool Officers, 2010) have been adoptedby 45 states to date, including all six New

England: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massa-chusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Their adop-tion over the next two school years (in New England),naturally, will require significant changes in the con-tent taught in each state, as they are not identical toany existing state standards (SSs). Some of the moststriking differences between the CCSSs and the SSsfor any given state, partially due to the recency of theformer, are the expectations for the use of technology.Particularly relevant to educators is the fact that, be-cause technology has had such a profound influence onour modes of communication, many of the technolo-gy-related CCSSs are found in the literacy standards.Determining how states' curricula will change posesan exciting and interesting challenge for teachers andresearchers. Indeed, in our own work around the newstandards with pre- and in-service teachers, we oftenhear educators express both exdtement for the possi-bilities and trepidation because they feel unprepared orunderprepared to meet this challenge. In an atterript toaddress these concerns, we sought to identify the im-pending technology-related changes in the elementaryliteracy and technology curricula in each of the six NewEngland states, and then to identify research-based bestpractices for teachers to use in implementing them. Inmany cases, because some of these standards are so new

aiid technology has progressed so quickly, the educa-tional researdi and publication process has not beenable to keep up. Thus, both teachers and researchershave their work cut out for them.

A Constructivist View of "New Literacies"This study is grounded in a constructivist view of "newliteracies.'' Leu (1997) has described the definition of"new literacies" as "deictic," meaning it is contextuallydependent upon time and place. In á time (the begin-ning of the 21st century) and place (the United States)in which children are spending more time than evertuned into media—in excess of seven hours each day—and increasingly less time with print media (Rideout,Foehr, 8c Roberts, 2010), "new literacies" is often op-erationalized as digital literacies, with a particular focuson information and communication technologies (Leu,Kinzer, Coiro, 8c Kammack, 2006). How do we bestsupport young learners as they strive to become digi-tally literate? Per constructivist theory, children con-struct knowledge by developing and testing hypothesesin very pragmatic ways (Devries et al., 2002; Dewey,1916). In the case of new literacies, this construction ofknowledge is virtually continuous because of the ever-changing nature of technology and its use in the class-room (Leu et al., 2006; Reinking, 1998). The challengeto teachers, then, is to figure out how to support stu-dents' investigations and evolution of knowledge andskills. Thus, there is a need to identify best practices forteachers, both as they work to create contexts in whichauthentic learning can be situated and as they negoti-

56 I Feature Artides

ate and facilitate the integration of constantly evolvingvisual, textual, and audio technology.

Bridging Content KnowledgeThe integrated nature of the CCSSs suggests the needto look beyond the technology itself and see how it isused (Mishra 6c Koehler, 2006). For teachers, it is notjust a matter of "the what" to teach about technology, orthe content knowledge, but also "the how" of teachingabout technology, or the pedagogy. Educators need tonot only understand the content that they teach, butalso have a cache of effective practices for teachingthat are specific to that content In order to supportlearners as they work to construct knowledge. This ideais not new. Shulman (1986) first proposed the idea ofpedagogical content knowledge, or the intersection ofboth content and pedagogical knowledge. Mishra andKoehler (2006) expanded Shulman's idea, making itmore specific to teehnology; the resulting intersectionis technological pedagogical content knowledge, orTPACK. Essentially, the assumption is that effectiveteachers who are facilitating the development of studentsin their classrooms to construct their own knowledge of"new literacies" require both the understanding of howthe technology relates to the content, and also how itrelates to pedagogy (Mishra 6c Koehler, 2006).

As with any new learning, initially, it can be diffi-cult to integrate technology use into dassroom instruc-tion in meaningful ways. In the past, teachers' planningto include technological literacy has been described as"technocentric" (Papert, 1987), meaning that the pri-mary focus was on using the technology for the purposeof learning about technology, instead of as a tool in ser-vice of other goals. However, the new CCSSs are quiteclear—most of them call for technology to be used forother purposes such as communication, collaboration,and location and synthesis of ideas. With the appro-priate TPACK and planning support, more recentlysome teachers have been quite successful at integratingtechnology into their curricula (Harris 6cHofer, 2009).When curriculum goals remain at the forefront of plan-ning and teachers possess the necessary content knowl-edge, it is possible to effectively integrate technology inmeaningful ways (Harris 6cHofer, 2009).

The Current StudyOver the last twelve months, we've spent a great deal oftime in conversations with teachers who are searchingfor clarification and guidance—asking really importantquestions such as "What am I expected to teach?""What if I don't know how to do these things, myself?"and "Don't most kids just grow up knowing how to dothese things, today?" While many states have done anexcellent job of comparing the current to new standardsand apprising teachers of the differences for both thenew math and English language arts standards (or at

least making such a resource available), we found thesituation to be a bit less clear in the case of standardsrelated to technology because, unlike many currentSS documents, CCSSs on technology do not standalone, but rather are integrated into the content areas,necessitating the comparison and interpretation ofseveral different documents. The first purpose of thisstudy was to make such comparisons for all six NewEngland states, identifying which elementary-level(K-5) CCSSs would overlap with or be new to eachstate. Next, we identified literature that might informthe teaching of each ofthe CCSSs on technology, witha particular focus on those standards that would be newto most or all states. It is our hope that the resultinginformation will aid educators in developing thenecessary TPACK to allow them to see the possibilitiesfor the intersection of technology and literacy, aswell as provide concrete pedagogical suggestions forimplementation. At the same time, we view our workas constructivist in nature, in that we preface the restof this article by acknowledging that technology is arapidly changing construct, so the recommendationsincluded here are not meant to be all-encompassing, butrather a starting point for continual evolution.

MethodsThis study involved a text analysis of seven standardsdocuments: The Common Core Standards (NGABPand CCSSO, 2010), Connecticut English Language ArtsCurriculum Framework: A Guide for the Developmentof Prekindergarten—Grade 12 Literacy (ConnecticutState Department of Education, 2006), LearningResults Parameters for Essential Instruction (Maine)(Maine Department of Education, 2007), MassachusettsCurriculum Framework for English Language Arts andLiteracy (Massachusetts Department of Elementaryand Secondary Education, 2011), New Hampshireand Rhode Island Grade Level Expectations (NewHampshire Department of Education, 2006J, andVermont's Framework of Standards and LearningOpportunities (Vermont Department of Education,2006). Additionally, the available technology plans foreach of these states were reviewed for speeifie languageand/or teehnology standards that may have beenseparate from the standards documents (ConnecticutState Department of Education, 2006; MassachusettsDepartment of Elementary and Secondary Education,2008; New Hampshire Department of Education,2006; Rhode Island Department of Education, 2011;Vermont Department of Education, 2009). Of each ofthe six states, only Maine's technology plan could notbe located on the Maine Department of Educationwebsite.

First, we reviewed each document, highlighting allelementary-level (K-5) standards that referenced tech-nology or digital resources/skills. Next, we made side-

The NERA Journal (2012), Volume 48(1) Feature Articles I 57

by-side comparisons between each state's document(s)and the CCSSs, noting all of the CCSSs that were simi-lar to existing SSs at each grade level, as well as thosethat represented new curricula. We then reviewed litera-ture on research-based classroom instruction of one ormore particular standards. When no such literature wasavailable related to the teaching of a particular standard,we sought research-based best practices that had beenused for other purposes, but that were good theoreticalmatches and could be adapted to meet the standards.

ResultsOverlap between states' and Common Core

State Standards. Our investigation revealed eightc e s s strands that involved technology, which collec-tively accounted for 29 grade-level standards. Examina-tion of state-level documents showed that there were 20CCSSs that were already being addressed at the samegrade level by at least one state. Additionally, the com-parison of state documents with the CCSSs suggeststhat all but one state addressed at least one standard,with Massachusetts having the most comprehensivecoverage, encompassing 10 of the 29 CCSSs, or approx-imately 34%. Of the four CCSSs currently in practice,shared by one or more states, three were in writing (al-though not beginning until the fourth grade) and onewas in reading (beginning in fifth grade). Most of thestandards are addressed by the individual state in thethird, fourth, or fifth grade, with 13 of the 20 over-lapping standards occurring in later grades. Only onestandard was addressed for kindergarten by any state,two for first grade, three in second grade, two in thirdgrade, three in fourth grade, and four in fifth grade.Below, we outline the comparisons by strand. For side-by-side comparisons, see Table 1.

Similarities between the technology standardsin the CCSSs and SSs on reading. Seven of the 20 statestandards noted to overlap with the CCSSs were specificto reading. For example, under the broad category of"Reading Literature," the second-grade standards forConnecticut overlapped with the CCSSs Integrationof Knowledge and Ideas, which calls for students touse information gained from reading informationaltexts to demonstrate understanding (RL.2.7), and thefifth-grade standards for Massachusetts addressedthe standard of analyzing how visual and multimediaelements contribute to the meaning, tone, or beauty ofa text (RL.5.7).

Relative to addressing the reading of informationaltext, Massachusetts was the sole state to cover Craft andStructure, beginning in the first grade and continuingthrough second and third grades. This encompassesknowing and using various text features, includingthe use of electronic menus to "locate key facts orinformation" in text (RI.1.5). Beginning in fourthgrade, the CCSSs call for Integration of Knowledge

and Ideas via interpreting and utilizing multiple printand/or digital sources to gain information (RI.5.7), astandard that is addressed in fourth and fifth grades byMassachusetts and in fifth grade by Vermont.

Similarities between technology standardsin the CCSSs and SSs in writing. The remainingeight standards with overlap between the CCSSs andthe individual New England states were germane totwo strands of writing standards: Production andDistribution of Writing (W.6) and Research to Buildand Present Knowledge (W.8). The first (W.6), callsfor students to use digital tools to publish writing,specifying the use of keyboarding in grades 3-5 andthe internet in grades 4-5. This standard, overlaps in atleast one state at every grade level except, interestingly,third. Connecticut overlaps the standard for grades K.-2and 5, Massachusetts includes the standard in grades 4and 5, and the New Hampshire document addresses itin grade five. The second writing standard (W.8) callsfor students in grades 3-5 to be able to gain informationfrom digital and print sources, while taking andorganizing notes. Connecticut, Massachusetts, NewHampshire and Rhode Island currently address thestandard beginning in grade 4. Massachusetts, NewHampshire, and Rhode Island continued to addressthis standard in grade 5, expecting students to utilizeprint and digital sources as part of their research.Interestingly, Maine did not require that students meetthis standard in grades 3-5, but did require it in theirpreK-2 standards.

CCSSs not addressed by current SSs. Although20 of the 29 CCSSs could be cross walked with theindividual SSs, some enjoying multiple state overlap, 10CCSSs are not currently covered by any state's standarddocuments. Notably, these were all in the Speaking andListening and Language categories, with three broadcategories within this larger category, including Com-prehension and Collaboration, Vocabulary Acquisitionand Use, and Presentation of Knowledge and Ideas.

Standards for Comprehension and Collaborationbegin in third grade, with children expected to determinemain ideas from a text and share those ideas using avariety of media and formats (SL.3.2). The standardis expanded in fourth grade, with students expected toparaphrase text from diverse media (SL.4.2), and thenfurther expanded in fifth grade, with students expectedto summarize text from diverse media (SL.5.2).

In the Presentation of Knowledge and Ideas strand,technology components are to be used to support thesharing of ideas. This standard gradually increasesin complexity across third through fifth grades,beginning in third grade when students are expectedto demonstrate fluency via audio recordings with theappropriate addition of visual displays to support factsand details (SL.3.5). In fourth grade, audio recordingsand visual displays are added to presentations to support

58 I Feature Articles

Table 1Overlap Between Common Core and State Standards

CCSSRL.7-use information from varioussources (e.g., words, digital text.illustrations, various genres.multimedia) to demonstrateunderstanding of story elements(e.g., characters, setting, tone);grades 2 6c 5RI.5- use text features to locateinformation in a text (e.g., headings.glossaries, electronic menus.hyperlinks); grades 1-3RI.7- Interpret visual, audio, andquantitative information (e.g., charts.diagrams, time lines, animations.interactive elements on web pages)and explain how the informationsupports understanding of theadjacent text; grade 4Use information from the sourcesabove to answer a question solve aproblem; grade 5W.6- use digital tools to publishwriting, including in collaborationwith peers; grades K-5Use keyboarding skills to publish.interact, and collaborate; grades 3-5Use the internet to publish, interact.and collaborate; grades 4 6c 5W.8- gain information from digitaland print sources, taking andorganizing notes; grades 3-5SL.2- ask and answer questionsabout texts published in a varietyof media; recount or summarizekey ideas from texts published in avariety of media; grades 1-5SL.5- Create audio recordings ofstories or poems; grades 2 6c 3Combine audio recordings and visualdisplays to enhance development ofmeaning; grades 4-5L.4- use both print and digitalresources to determine/clarify wordand phrase meaning, as well aspronunciation; grades 2-5

Connecticut

X(grade 2)

X(gradesK-2,6c5)

X(grade 4)

Maine

*

Massachusetts

X(grade 5)

X (grades 1-3)

X(grades 46c 5)

X(grade 46c5)

X(grades 46c5)

NewHampshire

X (grade 5)

X(grades 46c 5)

RhodeIsland Vermont

X (grade5)

Covered at grade levels other than those listed in the CCSSs (preK-2)

The NERAJoumal (2012), Volume 48{1) Feature Artides I 59

main ideas (SL.4.5), while multimedia components areincluded in the standard in fifth grade (SL. 5.5).

Lastly, in the category of Language, VocabularyAcquisition and Use, standard L.4 begins in the secondand third grades, with the expectation that students use(digital) lexical resources to determine the meaningsof unknown words. In the fourth and fifth grades, tlaestandard includes the expectation of consulting lexicalresources for not only the meaning of words, but alsotheir pronunciation.

Existing Research-Based Practicesfor Literacy-Technology Integration

The nature of technology, both hardware and software,is such that it is constantly changing. Therefore, it isnot surprising that there is not a great deal of researchavailable on the effects on literacy of using the "latestand greatest" trends in technology. There does exist,however, research and recommended practices relatedto fairly stable technologies (i.e., websites and blogs)and to particular technology (e.g.. Twitter) that couldbe adapted to other technologies as they emerge.Below, we describe three such ideas for instruction/instructional platforms, linking each to one or more ofthe standards listed above as not being addressed by anyof the SSs, indicating a critical need for guidance forimplementation. As each of these practices also meetsseveral other standards related to technology, many ofwhich are areas of needs for individual states, we willalso note those, as appropriate.

WWWDOT Approach to Website EvaluationThe internethas literally put vast amounts of informationat students' fingertips. While the availability of up-to-date information can be helpful to students as they readand research, the near complete lack of restriction asto what can be published on the web and by whomalso means that there are large amounts of informationon the internet that are not accurate. In addition, thequantity of information available and ease with whichstudents can hop from one website to another via linkscan make maintaining a focus on the objectives of asearch difficult.

The WWWDOT framework (Zhang, Duke,Sc Jimenez, 2011) is designed to scaflfold students'evaluation ofthe quality and task-relevance of particularwebsites, and has been shown to be effective, at least forolder elementary students. The ideabehind the approachis that teachers guide students through a six-step systemfor evaluating websites and organizing themselves to usethe information gained from them, in which studentsask themselves: Who wrote this and what credentials dothey have? Why did they write it? When was it written andupdated?Does this help me meet my needs (andhow) ? Howis this website Organized? What do I need To do next? (p.152). Teachers then teach students to give their opinions

as to the trustworthiness and utility ofwebsites, citinganswers to the above questions as evidence. As studentsbecome more accustomed to the process as a group, theygradually transition to working in smaller groups orindependently, using a written organizer to help themkeep track ofthe answers to each question (see Duke,Caughlan, Juzwick, Sc Martin, 2011 or Zhang, Duke,Sc Jimenez, 2011 for a copy ofthe organizer).

Employing this or a similar approach is one wayto address CCSS SL.2 (ask and answer questions abouttexts published in a variety of media), with each partof the process/section of the organizer asking explicitquestions about the text (website) at hand—a standardwhich is currently not systematically addressed by anyof the six states. Use of this approach also addressesthree additional CCSSs on technology. For example,WWWDOT provides a structure for students to gaininformation from digital sources and take organizednotes (CCSS W.8 for third through fifth graders).In addition, the attention to maintaining the focusof a search can aid students as they strive to useinformation from online sources to solve problems oranswer questions (CCSS RI.7, fifth grade). Finally, theWWWDOT approach requires that students attend tothe organization of the site, which necessarily involvesattending to the headings and menus on the site, bothof which are specifically required in first through thirdgrades by CCSS RI.5.

Twitter FeedsOver the last few years, as we've visited schools, formallyand informally, and discussed the positive and negativeaspects of the increased push toward technology usein classrooms, the mere mention of social media as alearning tool has rarely failed to produce a collective,visible shudder and audible gasp. Parents and educatorsalike are rightfully much more coricerned about thedangers of technology when it moves from being asource of information to an interactive platform in whichchildren co-create the text. As parents and educators,ourselves, we share this concern. However, we knowthat media use is the activity on which children ages8-18 spend the second most amount of time per day (thefirst is sleeping). Within that block of time, when themedia being used is a computer, social networking is themost popular activity (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2010).Clearly, keeping social media out of our classrooms isunlikely to keep children from accessing it. However,using social media as an instructional tool does enableeducators to teach children how to use these types ofmedia safely, in a relatively controlled environment.

Twitter, a social networking app or website thatallows users to read and post short (140 characters orless) messages, has only been widely used for the last3-5 years. Due perhaps to its recency and intentionalmarketing as an informal form of communication, there

60 I Feature Articles

is not a clear base of research supporting the benefitsof Twitter, specifically, in the classroom. However,there is qualitative research providing evidence as to itsefficacy, even with young children (Kist et al., 2010),and the nature of the application naturally lends itself toseveral of the CCSSs on technology, in particular W.6and SL.2. The sixth writing standard explicitly callsfor children, as young as kindergarten, to use digitaltools to publish writing. We know that children oftenproduce more and better writing when they are writingfor authentic purposes, which includes writing for aninterested audience (Purcell-Gates 8c Duke, 2004), anda classroom Twitter feed with parents and friends assubscribers provides just that. In addition, despite fearsof the danger of online sodal interaction, the CCSSscall for students to be able to use keyboarding skillsto interact and collaborate beginning in third grade,and specify that they should do so using the internetin fourth and fifth grades. Furthermore, Twitter canbe used to help children meet the second Speech andLanguage standard, which addresses students beingable to summarize ideas. The limit of 140 characterspushes students to practice the use of concise languageto communicate only the most important of information(though note that "important" is still widely open tointerpretation and instruction).

We end this section and introduce the next witha caveat: media in which students and others co-createthe text necessitates authentic interaction betweenreaders and writers, which can have many cognitive andmotivational benefits. However, interaction also exposeschildren to the wider world in ways that may be lessdesirable. As teacher educators, we always encouragepre-service and in-service teachers to take risks in theirteaching and learn from their mistakes. However, whenit comes to student safety, we strongly recommend thatteachers are given the time and support necessary upfront to learn how to do things such as password-protectaccounts and limit followers on Twitter or commenterson blogs to approved people. Technology glitches asyou learn side-by-side with your students are teachablemoments, safety glitches due to inadequate preparationare just unnecessary risks.

Classroom BlogsBlogs, short for web logs, are essentially online portfo-lios. However, while a typical student portfolio involveswritten and/drawn work, blogs allow for use of addi-tional modes of communication such as audio and video(CCSS SL.5). Blogging, in many ways, is similar toother types of dassroom writing: the texts included canbe of any genre and on any topic, there are opportuni-ties for feedback from others, blogs can indude finishedworks or drafts, to name a few. Basically, when studentsblog, they are either writing in an online format or writ-ing offline and then posting online. However, blogs can

provide several things that traditional writing outletsdo not. For example, writing can be made availableto a wider authentic audience (think Grandma Sue inIdaho, Jake's mom, Desiree's big brother, and a dass offourth graders in Hawaii engaged in similar curricula)allowing for a wider range of feedback and opportuni-ties to respond to feedback (CCSS W.5, beginning asearly as kindergarten), as well as increasing motivationto write and write well for many children.

In addition, to address standard SL.5, blogs canalso be used to teach children to utilize text featuresto locate information as they peruse model blogs andgive input as to the design and use of the navigationalfeatures for their own blogs (RI.5). When children areactively involved in posting their own work to blogs,standard W.6 is addressed, which requires that studentsuse digital tools to publish their writing. When studentsare posting directly to blogs or posting more polished,typed pieces, they also meet the part of this standard thatrequires that third through fifth grade students becomeproficient in keyboarding. Finally, perhaps the greatestadvantage of blogs and other interactive media is thatthey give students opportunities to solicit and receivefeedback from (teacher-approved) others. Dependingupon their role as author or reader, this gives studentsopportunities to either ask or answer questions abouttext (SL.2).

While there are many options when it comes tochoosing a host for your blog, the following tend to beteacher- and student-friendly (i.e., require less specifictechnological knowledge to get started and haveimportant safety features):

• www.edublogs.org• www.21dasses.com• www.epals.com/products/esb

Existing Research-Based Best Practicesfor Print Literacy Applicable to Technology

As mentioned above, it seems unlikely that the researchprocess, which can take years for a single study, willever fuUy catch up with technology, which undergoessignificant evolution daily. However, much of what weknow about good literacy teaching, in general, is notspecific to paper-based reading and writing. Below,we discuss five instructional approaches that havestrong bases in research on paper-based media, but aretheoretically equally applicable to digital media.

Scaffolding and Gradual Release of ResponsibilityOne way to address all CCSS technology standardsis through scaffolding using a gradual release ofresponsibility model (e.g., Pearson 8c Gallagher, 1983).With gradual release of responsibility, instruction movesfrom being teacher-centered—through modeling andthink alouds—to student-centered—at which pointthe student is able to use the strategies or perform the

The NERA Journal (2012), Volume 48(1) Feature Articles I 61

tasks independently. Guided practice, which occursbetween these two ends ofthe continuum, is an essentialcomponent ofthe model. During this phase, students areapplying parts of a strategy whUe the teacher is providingsupportive feedback and applying the other parts ofthestrategy with students. Gradually, the student takes overmore and more responsibility, and the teacher takes onless and less of a role. For example, to address CCSS L.4.(use both print and digital resources to determine/clarifyword and phrase meaning, as well as pronundation), ateacher might start by identifying a phrase with whichshe is unfamiliar, such as the idiom "go down Tike a deadballoon," and modeling for her students how she uses thewebsite virww.idiomsite.com to figure out the meaningof the phrase. During this demonstration, the teacherwould explain why she is using this website instead ofa print or a web-based dictionary, as well as how thewebsite helped her understand the passage better. Next,in the context of a shared or interactive reading, theteacher provides students with a passage with wordsand phrases they might not know and asks them toidentifying what type of resource would best help themunderstand the word or phrase and why. During thistime, the teacher provides feedback to the students ontheir ehoiees. Then, the students spend time using suchresources to actually look up the terms and phrases andhelp them better understand the passage. Again, theteacher supervises the students and provides feedback onthe use of the website as well as their interpretation ofthe passage. Eventually, students wUl identify words andphrases, decide on the best source, and use that source tocomprehend their reading independently.

Think AloudsThink alouds (e.g.. Brown, Pressley, Van Meter, 6cSchuder, 1996) are another tool that can be used to ad-dress all of the CCSSs related to technology. Duringthink alouds, teachers verbalize their thought processes.For example, whUe addressing RI.5. (use text featuressuch as headings, glossaries, electronic menus, and hy-perlinks to locate information in a text), a teacher maythink through how she navigates a website to find in-formation on what a panda eats, saying something like,"I want to know what a panda eats. I can use the web-site's menu to help me find that. I wonder if there is onethat says 'food'. The first tab Where do they live? probablywon't tell me what they eat. Enemies might tell me whateats them, but won't answer my question. Ahh... eat-ing habits sounds good, though it might tell me howthey eat. I'll skim down to see if there is anything else.Nope... I'll look there." Because many ofthe processesthat skilled readers use happen quickly and only in themind of the reader, less experienced readers are oftenunaware of the decision making and logistical process-es used. The use of think alouds makes such activities,whieh are usually covert, overt (Pressley et al., 1992).

Self-Regulated Strategy DevelopmentAnother way of supporting your students through thereading and writing processes is by using S elf-RegulatedStrategy Development (SRSD, e.g., Graham, Harris, 6cMason, 2005). During SRSD, the teachers teach stu-dents to accomplish their writing goals through specificstrategies, such as PLANS—Pick goals; List ways tomeet goals; And make Notes: and Sequence notes (Ma-son, Snyder, Sukhram, 6c Kedem, 2006). The teacherleads the students through six stages, gradually releasingthe control to the students. First, the teacher developsthe students' background knowledge and assesses whatskills they already have. Next, the teacher introduces thenew strategy and explains the steps. Then, the teachermodels the strategy, providing the students with a thinkaloud as they perform each step in the strategy. In thefourth stage, students memorize the steps ofthe strategy,often talking through the steps with a partner. Duringthe fifth stage, which takes the most time, the teachersupports the students as they try the strategy on theirown. Here the teacher provides scaffolds and guidanceas the students need it, including reminding them to re-peat the steps ofthe strategy that they have learned andcheck them against their actual performances. Finally,the students use the strategy independently.

SRSD can address many CCSSs, depending onwhich strategies the teacher chooses to introduce (seeReid 6cOrtiz-Lienemann, 2006, for possible strategies).For example, when using the PLANS strategy, the finaltwo steps have students make and sequence notes. Thisdirectly addresses CCSS W.8 for grades 3-5 in whiehstudents are expected to take and organize notes fromdigital and print resources.

Questioning the Text/AuthorQuestioning the Text/Author (QtA, Beck, McKeown,Sandora, Kucan, 6c Worthy, 1996) is an instructionalstrategy designed to help students think more deeplyabout text. Instead of just reading and taking literalnotes, students are encouraged to focus on the author'smessage, link information, and negotiate tricky parts ofthe text by asking questions such as: What is the authortrying to say? How does that relate to what the author al-ready told us? And, Does that make sense? (p. 389). Studentswork together and discuss their questions as they makemeaning. While the research behind QtA has occurredwith print-based texts, these questions would help stu-dents negotiate digital media, such as websites, podcasts,and blogs (for which the author's purpose is extremelyimportant), as well. For example, students might read ablog on how coal mining "leaves its mark on the envi-ronment." One question they could ask is "What doesthe author mean by 'leaves its mark'?" Students wouldthen discuss their interpretations and how they relate tothe rest of the blog. This emphasis on students askingquestions ofthe text and the author directly addresses

62 I Feature Artides

SL.2, (asking and answering questions about text). Italso addresses the summarizing part of this standard asthe students are expected to recap their conversationsabout one text segment before moving on to the next.

Instruction on Text StructureTeaching students to recognize and use the structure oftext has been shown to improve children's comprehensionof text (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, 6c Baker, 2001). Forexample, teaching students to identify clue words thatsignal compare-contrast structure (e.g., "alike," "similar,""in contrast") and answer questions about the text, suchas What two things is this paragraph about? (Williams,2005, p. 13), helps students to identify the organizationof the text, which in turn can help them to mentallyorganize what they have learned from the text. Teachingstudents to identify the structures of digital media mayalso assist comprehension. For example, websites areorganized by pages, but also contain navigational menus,advertisements, graphics, and links to other pages.Teaching the students the purpose of each of thesefeatures can help students understand what parts of thepage are relevant to their purposes as well as the overallmessage of the page. Instruction in text structure may beparticularly useful when addressing CCSSs RI.5 (usingtext features to locate information) and RI.7 (integratingvarious pieces of information and using that informationto answer questions or solve problems).Teachers can alsouse e-books to help teach story structure—characters,setting, problem/solution, events, theme—as in CCSSRL.7, which calls for students in grades 2 and 5 to useinformation from various sources, including digital texts,to demonstrate understanding of story elements.

DiscussionThe first research question guiding this study wasconcerned with the overlap in literacy and technologystandards between each state's document(s) and theCCSSs. The results suggest that in the six New Englandstates, whOe, for the most part, students are expectedto integrate technology as part of their reading andwriting development, these expectations are primarilyintroduced in the upper primary grades. In contrast,rigorous standards for the integration of technologyand literacy are present as early as kindergarten in theCCSSs. Also, it is interesting to note that, when CCSSsare addressed by individual states, despite geographicproximity, there is little overlap between states, save fourof the 20 CCSSs. This is particularly surprising in thecases of New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont,all of whom engage in the New England CommonAssessment Program (NECAP), resulting in similarstandardized assessment in these three states. However,only New Hampshire and Rliode Island share commonstandards document (though not all standards overlap aseach state uses more than one document).

Across all six states, we were not surprised to findthat there were not high rates of overlap with the CCSSsin most cases (i.e, individual states ranged from currentlyaddressing none of the CCSSs to addressing just over34%) given the datedness of the former (in most cases)and recency of the latter. Massachusetts' SSs were themost closely aligned; however 34% seems surprisinglylow considering that Massachusetts released their revisedstandards in 2011, «//er reviewing and agreeing to adoptthe CCSSs beginning in the 2012-2013 school year.

The transition from state technology documents tothe CCSSs is not limited to a shift in specific demandsplaced upon students and teachers, though thosecertainly exist in plentitude. In addition, this transitionalso represents a shift in theoretical perspectives ofthe places and spaces for literacy and technology inschooling. While many of the current state standardsposition literacy as technocentric (Papert, 1997) and viewtechnological literacy through a readiness lens, the newCCSSs view the intersection of technology and literacythrough both a constructivist and emergent lens.

The SSs that are currently in place could also belabeled as technocentric (Papert, 1997), in that studentsare often asked to use technology for the purpose oflearning about technology, with their literacy learningas a separate skill. For example, one state requires thatstudents learn to use the web to find information, whilestandards for the comprehension of that informationare found in other sections of the document (primarilyreading). Similarly, technology standards in other statesdemand that students learn to utilize technology tolocate information, but use ofthat information is foundin separate parts of the standards (primarily writing).In contrast, the focus of the CCSSs is overwhelminglyon using technology and literacy in coordination forpurposes other than specific learning about either one.For example, students are asked to use technology tofind information in response to a query, and then usetechnology to communicate their findings.

In addition, the SSs currently in place seem to takea readiness stance, in most instances—that many aspectsof technological literacy are best taught once other facetsof literacy are already in place. We can see evidence ofthis in the introduction of most technology standardsrather late in elementary school. The individual SSdocuments range from explicitly listing zero to fourCCSSs on technology for grades K-2 (for a combinedtotal of 10), as compared to ranging firom zero to sevenfor children in grades 3-5 (for a combined total of 14).In contrast, five of the eight CCSS strands begin beforethe third grade, inclusive of 11 individual grade-levelstandards. As the CCSSs integrate technology within,the content areas as tools rather than a discrete set ofskills, it supports the need for effective integration, oftechnology in meaningful ways even for our very youngstudents.

The NERA Joumal (2012), Volume 48{\) Feature Articles I 63

Implications for PracticeThe Hteracy demands placed upon our students by the"real world" are changing as rapidly as the technologythat supports them. It is, indeed, encouraging that theauthors of the CCSSs took this into account whenconstructing the literacy standards as doing so will helpensure that technology is integrated into classroominstruction, broadening accessibility and extendingopportunities to learn about and through digital media tochildren who may not receive such opportunities outsideof the school setting. The expansion of technology,especially the internet, has presented our students and uswith unprecedented levels of access to information, butthe raw information is not enough. The importance ofpreparing our teachers to support children in learning tostrategically access (and create) that information and useit in informative and ethical ways cannot be understatedor ignored. The tendency for technology to evolvefaster than we can carefully research it is, admittedly,problematic. However, the distillation of study resultsto determine not only the effectiveness of particularstrategies or interventions, but also general guidelinesfor best practices that are widely applicable (i.e., not tiedto specific technologies), is one way in which we canlessen the impact of the inherent difficultly of movingresearch to practice in an area in which what is cuttingedge today may be irrelevant tomorrow.

ConclusionThe expansion of educational technology has reaehed anunpreeedented high with the advent of tablet eomputers,more eost-efficient laptops, smart phones, and expansionof internet access. This has left many fields in educationwide open for research, but perhaps none so much as lit-eracy and the language arts. In the past decade, dassroomreplication of research-proven practices has been the goldstandard (Shavelson 6c Towne, 2002); the constantlychanging nature of digital literades, however, calls thisstandard into question. In order to provide teachers withusable best practices that can be applied to current and fu-ture technology, it is necessary for us to look at the resultsof research and determine both study-spedfic and moregeneraHzable findings. Our intention in this article was todo just that—we first identified standards that would benew to most or all New England teachers at the elementa-ry level, and then presented relevant, research-based prac-tices to aid in their implementation, extrapolating firominstructional techniques used with print-based media,when necessary. Thinking back to the teachers we haveworked with and their concerns about implementing whatcan seem to be a daunting new curricula, we hope that themethods and suggestions that we have included in thisarticle give some concrete suggestions for how to proceed.We also hope that this article inspires teachers to be ac-tion researchers, using what they know about good teach-ing to inform and evaluate innovative, new practices.

ReferencesBeck, I., McKeown, M.G., Sandora, C , Kucan, L., 6c

Worthy, J. (1996). Questioning the author: A year-long dassroom implementation. The ElementarySchool Journal, 96, 385-414.

Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P , 6c Schuder, T.(1996). A quasi-experimental validation of trans-actional strategies instruction with low-achiev-ing second grade readers. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 88, 18-37. doi: 10.1037//0022-0663-.88.1.18

Connecticut State Department of Education. (2006).Information and technology literacy framework: PreK-12. Hartford, CT: Author.

Connecticut State Department of Education. (2006).Connecticut English language arts curriculum frame-work: A guide for the development of prekindergar-ten-grade 12 literacy. Hartford, CT: Author.

DeVries, R., Zan, B., HÜdebrandt, C , Edmiaston, R.,6c Sales, C. (2002). Developing constructivist earlychildhood curriculum: Practical principles and activi-ties. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York:Free Press.

Duke, N.K., Caughlan, S., Juzwik, M.M., 6c Martin,N.M. (2011). Reading and writing genre with pur-pose in k-8 classrooms. Portsmouth, NH: Heine-

mann.Gersten, R., Fuchs, L.S.,Williams, J.P, 6c Baker, S.

(2001). Teaching reading comprehension strate-gies to students with learning disabilities: A reviewof research. Review of Educational Research, 71,279-320.

Graham, S., Harris, K.R., 6c Mason, L.H. (2005). Im-proving the writing performance, knowledge, andself-efficacy of struggling young writers: The ef-fects of self-regulated strategy development. Con-temporary Educational Psychology, 30, 207-241.

Harris, J., 6c Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planningactivity types at vehides for curriculum-basedTPACK devdopment. In C D . Maddux (Ed.),Research highlights in technology and teacher educa-tion 2009 (pp. 99-108). Chesapeake, VA: Societyfor Information TEchnoIgoy in Teacher Education(SITE).

Kaiser FamUy Foundation. (2010). Generation M2: Me-dia in the lives of 8- to 18-year- olds. Retrieved fromhttp://www.kff org/entmedia/upload/8010.pdf

Kist, W., Doyle, K., Hayes, J., Horwitz, J., 6cKuzior, J.T.(2010). Web 2.0 in the elementary classroon: Por-traits of possibilities. Language Arts, 88, 62-68.

Leu, D.J. (1997). Caity's question: Literacy as deixis onthe internet. Reading Teacher, 51, 62-67.

Leu, D.J., Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J.L., 6cCammack, D.W.(2006). Toward a theory of new literacies emerg-ing from the internet and other information and

64 I Feature Artides

communication technologies. In R.B. Ruddell ScN.J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes ofreading (Fifth ed.) (pp. 1570-1613). Newark, DE:International Reading Association.

Maine Department of Education. (2007). Learning re-sults parameters for essential instruction. Augusta:Author.

Mason, L., Snyder, K., Sukhram, D., Sc Kedem, Y,(2006). TWA -̂ PLANS strategies for expositoryreading and writing: Effects for nine fourth-gradestudents. Exceptional Children, 73, 69-89.

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Second-ary Education. (2008). Massachusetts technology lit-eracy standards and expectations. Maiden, MA: Au-thor.

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Second-ary Education. (2011). Massachusetts Curriculumframework for English language arts and literacy.Maiden, MA: Author.

Mishra, R, ScKoehler, M. J. (2006). Technological ped-agogical content knowledge: A new framework forteacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108{6),1017-1054.

National Governors Association for Best Practices(NGABP) and Council of Chief State School Of-ficers (CCSSO). (2010). The common core standardsfor English language arts fsf literacy in history/socialstudies, science, and technical subjects. ^Vashington,DC: Authors.

New Hampshire Department of Education. (2006).New Hampshire and Rhode Island grade level expec-tations (GLEs) for grades K-5 including New Eng-land common assessment program (NECAP-STATE)GLEs for reading in grades 2-5. Concord, NH: Au-thor.

Papert, S. (1987)....4 critique of technocentrism in thinkingabout the school of the future. Retrieved January 18,2012 from http://www.papert.org/artides/ACri-tiqueofTechnocentrism.html

Pearson, P.D., Sc Gallagher, M.C. (1983). The instruc-tion of reading comprehension. Contemporary Edu-cational Psychology, 8,317-344.

Pressley, M., El-Dinary, PB., Gaskins, I.W., Schuder,T., Bergman, J., Almasi, J., Sc Brown, R. (1992).Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruc-tion of reading comprehension strategies. Elemen-tary School Journal, 92, 513-555.

PurceU-Gates, V., Sc Duke, N.K. (2004). Learning to .„

read and write genre-specific text: The roles of au-thentic experience and explicit teaching. Unpublishedmanuscript. University of British Columbia, Van-couver.

Reid, R., Sc Ortiz-Lienemann, T. (2006). Strategy in-struction for students with learning disabilities: Whatworks for special-needs learners. New York: Guil-ford.

Reinking, D. (1998). Synthesizing technological trans-formations of literacy in a post-typographic world.In D. Reinking, M.C. McKenna, L.D. Labbo, ScR.D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and tech-nology: Transformations in a post-typographic world(pp. xi-xxx). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rhode Island Department of Education. (2006). RhodeIsland and New Hampshire grade level expectations(GLEs) for grades K-5 including New England com-mon assessment program (NECAP-STATE) GLEs

for reading in grades 2-5. Providence: Author.Rhode Island Department of Education. (2011). Rhode

Island K-12 grade span expectations in engineeringand technology. Providence, Author.

Rideout, V.J., Foehr, U.G., Sc Roberts, D.F (2010).GENERATION M2: Media in the lives of 8- to18-year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. KaiserFamily Foundation. Retrieved March 4,2011, fromhttp://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/8010.pdf

Shavelson, R.J., Sc Towne, L. (Eds.). (2002). Scientificresearch in education. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

Shulman, L. (1986).Those who understand: Knowledgegrowth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15{2),4-14.

Vermont Department of Education. (2006). Grade ex-pectations for Vermont's framework of standards andlearning opportunities. Montpelier, VT: Author.

Vermont Department of Education. (2009). Learningwith 21st century tools: The 2009-2012 Vermont edu-cational technology plan. Montpelier, VT: Author.

Williams, J.P. (2005). Instruction in reading compre-hension for primary-grade students: A focus ontext structure. The Journal of Special Education, 39,6-18.

Zhang, S., Duke, N.K., Sc Jiménez, L.J. (2011). TheW W W D O T approach to improving students'critical evaluation ofwebsites. The Reading Teacher,65,150-158.

The NERA Journal (2012), Volume 48{1) Feature Articles I 65

Copyright of New England Reading Association Journal is the property of New England Reading Association

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.