Literature Review: Teaching and Learning for L(IT)eracy: the use of Information Communication Technologies to support achievement of literacy outcomes for students with learning difficulties
Literature Review
Teaching and Learning for L(IT)eracy:
the use of Information Communication Technologies
to support achievement of literacy outcomes for students with learning difficulties
Penelope Coutas
June 4, 2004
Literature Review:
Teaching and Learning for L(IT)eracy: the use of Information Communication Technologies to support achievement of literacy outcomes for students with learning difficulties*
Introduction
Recently, there has been increasing pressure by the Commonwealth and State governments for educators to focus on and improve the literacy skills of Australian children (see DEST, 2004; DEYTA, 2000; EDWA, 1999). By the end of their compulsory years of schooling, students must be sufficiently literate to function and communicate in everyday society. The ways in which we function and communicate in society, however, have been transformed in the past decade by advances in Information Communication Technologies or ICTs. ICTs are not just computers and peripherals, but include any technology that allows for communication and dissemination of information (EDWA, 1999). Hence, there has been increasing emphasis for all students not only to be literate, but also what some have dubbed 'l(IT)erate' (van Kraayenoord, 2002; Paveley 1999). In the following, I will review recent literature on the topic of using ICTs to support literacy for students with learning difficulties in order to summarise and synthesise the arguments and ideas of leading educators and theorists in the field. I became interested in this topic after seeing time and time again students who were identified as being 'at risk' totally engaged with computer tasks and producing much higher level work with the aid of a desktop computer than they did with pen and paper. Why is this the case? What can we as teachers do to better facilitate achievement of fundamental literacy outcomes with ICTs? What is 'best practice'? What are the disadvantages and issues that arise? How do we facilitate inclusive literacy learning with the aid of ICT? There is an vast amount of information available on these topics, and so this review cannot hope to cover the available literature in great depth. The following will instead provide a starting point for investigating this topic, and an overview to encourage reflective practice. Although contemporary literacy programs in Australia have not yet begun to creatively explore the full potential of ICTs, this is slowly changing. We should facilitate and implement ICTs into 'everyday' learning and teaching processes, assessment and programming so that all students are not only literate, but l(IT)erate, and so be able to fully participate in our technological age of information.
Who are Students with Learning Difficulties?
In 1998, the then Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA) introduced policies and guidelines for identifying 'students at educational risk' (SAER) of not achieving the 'major outcomes of schooling' (DEYTA, 1998). However, as Holt (1999) and others (Nicholls & Rennie, 2001; Herring, 1999; Rother, 2003) have argued, the labels 'students at educational risk' and 'students with learning difficulties' are problematic because there are no unique identifying features, and all students may be 'at risk' at some time during their schooling. Generally, SAER are those who struggle with fundamental academic tasks such as reading, writing, spelling, maths and language and have difficulties in meeting school expectations of behaviour.(Holt, 1999, p. 3). Recent literature now suggests that SAER may never achieve the outcomes of schooling in the same way as other 'mainstream' students, and this is completely acceptable (van Kraayenoord et al., 2000). Instead, teachers should adapt learning and teaching strategies that cater for their different types of intelligences, learning styles and individual needs in order for them to achieve the best possible outcomes, particularly in the area of literacy (Elkins, 1999; Blamires, 1999c; Holt, 1999). The use of ICTs to facilitate literacy learning has been effective in many different situations and with many different students of diverse abilities, for many different reasons. Integrating and facilitating ICTs to support achievement of literacy outcomes, then, should not be denied for students with learning difficulties, and the benefits explored (Blamires, 1999a; van Kraayenoord et al., 2000).
Defining Literacy
If identifying who students with learning difficulties are is problematic, defining literacy is even more so. As de Lemos (2003, p. 3) argues, how one conceptualises and defines literacy influences the prevalence of literacy difficulties. Van Kraayenoord (2002) has summed up the two dominant views of literacy as 'learning to read and write' versus 'reading and writing to learn' - one focusing on phonics and word recognition, the other on situated word use. Australian works on the topic of literacy often cite Freebody and Luke's (1990) 'Four Resource Model' as a favourite model of literacy learning (Wray, 2001; van Kraayenoord, 2002; Louden et al., 2000). I feel, however, that the definition of literacy given by Blamires (1999a, p. 27) is the most straight-forward and summative conceptualisation: 'that being literate essentially means being able to respond successfully to the information demands of the society you are a part of.' Being literate is of vital importance, and so any strategy or process that can be used to improve or better facilitate literacy learning should be implemented, including the use of ICTs.
In the more recent literature, there is also an emphasis on 'new literacies' and 'multiliteracies' (van Kraayenoord, 2002; Chalk, 2004; Snyder, 1999). Literacy today does not only concern print media. We live in a society saturated with the mass medias of computer texts, magazines, television programs, multimedia advertising, mobile phones and radio. Life and work are now requiring new blends of skills and practices, and new ways of thinking (Blamires, 1999c). Students must be l(IT)erate in order to have the best possible life chances and to interact fully in society (Morgan, 1998). Students with learning difficulties are said to have more restricted life chances than 'mainstream' students due to their generally low literacy levels (DEYTA, 1998). Using ICTs to support both literacy, and so also facilitate l(IT)eracy, is just one way of ensuring students with learning difficulties have more options and life chances (Blamires 1999c; Davidson & Koppenhaver, 1999; Goldsworthy et al., 2000).
Children of the ICT Revolution
ICTs, especially personal computers, are often cited by educators and policymakers as magic-workers in literacy programs, providing great access to all students. They are seen as being 'nonthreatening,' 'individualised,' 'self-paced,' 'high-interest,' and 'cost-effective' (Davidson & Koppenhaver, 1993 p. 234). Some writers have gone so far as to claim that they can replace the classroom teacher (West, 1997), and in some cases of distance learning, they already have (Nicholls & Rennie, 2001). Blamires (1999a) claims that ICTs can help overcome skill-level barriers to learning, diSessa (2001) says computers can make us smarter, if not wiser, and other researchers dedicate pages to the motivational qualities of learning with ICTs.
Motivation and engagement are frequently identified as the major benefits of using ICTs to support literacy learning (Hardy, 1999; Kingham & Blackmore, 2003; Andrews, 2003). A common view is that in using computers, students are so engaged and motivated by a viewing text that they hardly realise that they are accessing, reading, decoding and analysing information (Andrews, 2003). Why is it so engaging? As outlined earlier, ICTs are everywhere in society, and part of our everyday lives. Hence, the use of ICTs in teaching and learning experiences relates to the real lives of students. Van Kraayenoord (2002, p. ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Motivation and engagement are frequently identified as the major benefits of using ICTs to support literacy learning (Hardy, 1999; Kingham & Blackmore, 2003; Andrews, 2003). A common view is that in using computers, students are so engaged and motivated by a viewing text that they hardly realise that they are accessing, reading, decoding and analysing information (Andrews, 2003). Why is it so engaging? As outlined earlier, ICTs are everywhere in society, and part of our everyday lives. Hence, the use of ICTs in teaching and learning experiences relates to the real lives of students. Van Kraayenoord (2002, p. 398) tells us that students with learning difficulties in particular will quickly become disengaged if classroom teaching does not connect with their lives, and if it does not engage them as learners with topics and issues that have interest and meaning for them. Reading information on a website advertised in a favourite skating magazine, downloading the latest hits from a radio website, and reading the latest gossip about film stars are just some examples that connect with students' real lives and yet require active practice and development of literacy skills.
Others have suggested that using computers for literacy building and literacy practice also allows students to take more risks with their language because of less fear of embarrassing mistakes (Blamires, 1999a; Andrews 1999). This is similar point to that made by Hardy (1999) in referring to the computer as a non-threatening centre of attention. Perhaps the highest indication of motivation and engagement is that in studies comparing literacy classes using ICT to those that did not, researchers found that truancy levels were much lower in the ICT-focused classes (Howell et al., 2000). This is especially significant when discussing students identified as being 'at risk' because one of the major focuses of SAER programs is reducing truancy rates (EDWA, 2002). However, since ICTs, especially personal computers and internet access, are becoming more and more a part of students' everyday lives, using a computer is often no longer motivational in itself, as Boreen (2000) discovered. Since computers are everyday and ordinary, her students approach them as simply another tool, like a pen or pencil, and not a extrinsic motivational reward.
The Use of ICTs to Support Reading Skill Development
Many authors relate their experiences in researching the effectiveness of 'talking books' as a specific ICT example of supporting reading skill development (Labbo & Kuhn, 2000; Paveley, 1999; Domran, 1999; Goodison, 2002; Howell, 2000; Trushell, 2001). In using 'talking books', learners do not need to be able to read well in order to access a text. The text of the story is highlighted from left to right while a narrator reads expressively and animations aid understanding. Labbo and Kuhn (2000) found that talking books aided in developing children's skills in decoding print media in a similar way to traditional adult-print child interactions, with the talking book taking the place of the skilled reader. Paveley (1999) and Dorman (1999) suggest that for children with learning difficulties, talking books stimulate because of sound, animation and the opportunity for children to be in control, a key issue for these authors. Trushell et al. (2001), Goodison (2002) and Howell et al. (2002) would argue against this to some degree as, in their research, they found that students who chose to select animations and effects in talking books more often gained lower scores in comprehension work on the text, although they admit more research is needed. Trushell et al. (2001) go on to suggest that because of this, talking books may just be entertainment. This would fit with Paveley's (1999) example of a child who was using talking books successfully but became obsessed with one story and repeating phrases from it. So, as Paveley (1999) notes, whilst the computer can be motivating to a child, it might not be encouraging the educational and literacy processes.
As well as examining how students interact individually with the support features provided on electronic texts, there is a need for further research into the incorporation of electronic texts into specific classroom contexts. Many of the studies on the effectiveness of talking books have been conducted out of the classroom, for example in a reading clinic, or without considering the influence of the wider context on students' learning. The importance of context has been noted by many researchers working in this area (van Kraayenoord, 2002; Goodison, 2002; Rother, 2003), and yet there is little literature available on research by 'regular' classroom teachers in 'regular' situations on ICTs to support reading. I also question how these researchers measured 'motivation' and 'engagement' and what talking books they used, as most of the programs available (see Kennedy's [2003] reviews) are aimed at the primary school level, and are culturally biased. Although the content level may be appropriate for adolescents with low literacy skills, the story may not be.
Writing and ICTs
Although research has shown that talking books, other computer programs and ICT texts support learning of reading skills with positive results, both Dorman (1999) and Murray (1999) suggest that this is not enough. They explain that there are a great number of ICT tools available to move students with learning difficulties from being mere consumers of predetermined reading packages to actual producers of texts. According to Dorman (1999), the introduction of simple multimedia authoring packages, such as Microsoft PowerPoint or Apple's Keynote, move children from the passivity of readers and responders to the activity of writers and authors. After all, reading instruction is most effective when combined with writing instruction (de Lemos, 2002, p. 21), and the power to create gives authority and ownership to work which also aids engagement and motivation (Chalk, 2004). Morgan (1998) gives an example of this by describing the successes of a year four teacher named 'Ken' and his Aboriginal 'at risk' students who created their own talking books as part of an Australian Language and Literacy Project funded by DETYA. They created shared resources for their community, inviting elders to participate in the 'talking' which they would then also 'translate' into written standard Australian English so that it could be shared with urban schools. This is a great example of ICT facilitating development of literacy skills for students with learning difficulties in a remote setting, and yet inclusive of local and distant communities.
Education Queensland (2000), however, found in their review of Queensland state schools that the only consistent use of technology to support literacy education was via increasing student access to word processing. Indeed, all of the literature concerning ICTs and literacy outcomes for students with learning difficulties discuss the applications, benefits and disadvantages of word processing. For many authors such as Hardy (1999), Blamires (1999a) and Davidson and Koppenhaver (1992), the word processor allows for more inclusive education, as it overcomes poor handwriting skills, short attention spans, poor spelling and other barriers students with learning difficulties may encounter when it comes to writing. Students are able to create professional looking documents, and so it can be a liberating tool for creative self-expression (Dorman, 1999, p. 25). Use of a word processor may mean that a student identified as being 'at risk' of failing major literacy outcomes can be included in more high-level activities, and can access and create texts they otherwise could not. In terms of programming and assessment, students and teachers are 'free' to focus on literacy tasks, and not lack of literacy skills. This is in line with the 'writing to learn' model of literacy rather than 'learning to write', however, and there are also dangers. Dorman (1999, p. 25) argues that if teachers use word processors simply to facilitate repetitive tasks of copy-typing, it 'becomes an educationally dehydrated means of child control.' Again, tasks must be engaging, purposeful and relate to the real lives of students because as Boreen (2000) relates, sitting in front of a computer doing word processing is not necessarily more interesting or constructive than using pen and paper.
Collaborative Literacy Learning with ICTs
As indicated with the above example from Morgan (1998), ICTs can facilitate collaborative and inclusive literacy learning activities. The telephone, email, Short Message Service (SMS), 'blogging' (online journals), web pages and other applications have revolutionised possibilities for communication with real audiences across distances. The example from Yea High School in Victoria, documented in Doing It Well: Case Studies of Innovation and Best Practice in Working with At Risk Young People (DETYA, 2001), tells of a successful SAER program using ICTs to facilitate distance learning. Students who could not attend school for various reasons and were 'at risk' were able to access education and be included in community schooling. However, the study admits that the students needed fairly high literacy and l(IT)eracy skills in order to access the program, although some 'units' of work were actually focused on literacy building (DETYA, 2001). Possibilities for long-distance communications via email and telephones through ICTs do exist, however, and encourage development of the necessary skills of shared attention, discussion and purposeful communication with people in different social settings (Walter, 1999). Hence, purposeful activities that facilitate literacy-practice and literacy-use with ICTs, especially to communicate online, allow for a range of possibilities for social interaction and social l(IT)eracy.
Use of ICTs can also facilitate and encourage social interaction within the classroom. For example, Hardy (1999) and Clark (1986) draw attention to how group work with ICTs can raise self-esteem, Blamires (1999a) describes how collaborative information-gathering tasks such as jigsaws can be better facilitated with ICTs, and Nettelbeck (2002) tells of literacy peer tutoring with ICTs as the text focus. Inclusive classrooms are collaborative classrooms, especially where ICT is concerned (de Lemos, 2002). It is also interesting to note that much of the recent literature regarding ICTs and literacy for students with learning difficulties are largely collaborative efforts, or refer to email communications and bulletin boards as sources of information. In researching the backgrounds of the collaborating authors, one finds that they may not even be in the same school, university, state or even country. Hence, ICTs are facilitating not only quick and accessible communication for students, but also for researchers and educators.
Pedagogy - it's not what you have, it's how you use it!
In much of the post 1990 literature, educators and researchers are relating their wariness in relying on ICTs to support literacy outcomes. The presence of computers in schools and SAER classrooms, nor the sheer volume of information they allow students to access are enough to guarantee success (diSessa, 2001; Paveley, 1999; Blamires 1999). Indeed, in the study carried out by Davidson and Koppenhaver (1993) on remedial literacy programs in high schools, they discovered that no effective literacy program relied exclusively on technology, teacher pedagogy was the critical factor for success.
Education Queensland (2000) in their review also discovered that many teachers were replicating old, print-based techniques such as multiple choice and fill-in-the-blank worksheets and online listings of lecture and study notes in teaching of literacy skills to students with learning difficulties. This is in direct contrast to what is described as 'best practice' by researchers concerned with SAER in WA - that learning must start from where the student is at, and build on individual strengths to address identified areas of weakness (EDWA, 2000). Paveley (1999), Blamires (1999a) and van Kraayenoord (2002) all despair of teachers using 'tradition' as an excuse, and not allowing for more real and relevant literacy learning opportunities with ICT. Dorman (1999, p. 19) proposes that the main cause of learning difficulties may be the reluctance of some educators to re-evaluate their understanding of teaching and explore the versatility that even simple technology may offer in enabling learning. Van Kraayenoord (2002, p. 410) agrees, and suggests that,
To ensure that instruction involving technology is effective, teachers must plan for its use, develop ways in which it can be integrated into everyday classroom practices, design activities that involve all the literacy strands, consider its use vis-à-vis classroom organization and management, and evaluate its effects.
Therefore, it is not enough to have computers in the classroom, but they must be used effectively to add value to learning experiences. The literature agrees that the need for teacher training and professional development both in using ICTs personally and using ICTs in the classroom is critical.
Inclusion = Access + Engagement
Inclusion, access and equity are also major issues in the literature concerning the use of ICTs to support literacy outcomes for students with learning difficulties. Wenglinsky (1998) asserts that although there is no denying a 'digital divide' which correlates highly with socio-economic status exists, effective use of technology is one way teachers can begin to narrow the gap between those who have easy access to computers in their homes, and those who do not. Access itself must also be equitable: selected applications and tools must be matched to students' needs and the goals of the curriculum (van Kraayenoord, 2002). Morgan (1998, p. 52), for example, is adamant that ICTs must be used to support literacy outcomes, and not just facilitate 'busy work' to 'keep kids off the street.'
Curriculum delivery is only one result of ICTs supporting literacy learning. Paveley (1999, pp. 38-39) tells us that learning with ICT is also about becoming a member of society, and 'advocacy and self-advocacy.' ICTs should always be used to add value to learning experiences, and to extend possibilities for all students. Paveley (1999, p. 39) continues to say that learning with ICTs is not just about the technology in front of them but, more importantly, the support behind them. Blamires (1999b, p. 1) argues that the support, however, must involve joint decision-making in order to be truly inclusive and enabling. Blamires (1999c) and Paverely (1999) agree that empowerment is about being, and feeling, in control of your life. ICTs can support this process by helping young people develop the skills they will need to take their place as adult citizens in their community and the wider world, that is, in aiding development of literacy and l(IT)eracy (Paveley, 1999, p. 39). With such an emphasis on joint decision making, perhaps then the topic for this review should be 'the use of Information Communication Technologies to support literacy learning with students with learning difficulties,' and not for them. Collaboration and negotiation with all stakeholders are vital keys to success in any teaching/learning context, and essential for creating inclusive leaning environments.
Finally, much of what the literature claim, and the many suggestions for inclusive 'best practice' are very idealistic. Many schools have only limited computer and other ICT resources, and they are often unreliable. Schools' Administration must also be supportive of any initiatives involving changes in pedagogy and implementation of new practice, and funding often becomes a limiting factor. Louden et al. (2000, p. 99) in their case studies of literacy programs in schools across Australia came to the conclusion that 'given the inadequacy of computer resources in many schools, it seems that the potential of computer technology in assisting students with learning difficulties has yet to be realised.' Although this study was conducted four years ago, this may still be a fair assessment. Initiatives such as the 100 Schools Project in Western Australia are proactive and will 'revolutionise' teaching and learning practices in those particular schools, but there is still much to hope for in coming years if the full potential of ICTs supporting learning with students with learning difficulties is to be realised in all schools, and for all students.
Conclusion
There is no denying that literacy is one of the most important outcomes of schooling. By the end of their compulsory education, students must be sufficiently literate to function and communicate in every day society. Society, though, is increasingly constructed by and constructing many different forms of literacy which require new literacies and l(IT)eracy. Students with learning difficulties are identified as being 'at risk' of failing the major outcomes of schooling. Lack of literacy skills seriously diminish opportunities and life chances, and so it is essential that all stake holders are prepared to support literacy learning for students with learning difficulties. There is great scope for ICTs to be used effectively to add value to the learning experiences of all students, especially in the area of literacy. They can lend motivation and encourage engagement, offer avenues for explicit learning, development and practice of skills, enable communication and collaborative learning in different environments, facilitate inclusive and equitable learning, and become very powerful tool in supporting the achievement of literacy outcomes. However, ICTs are tools, not 'miracle machines,' and effective teacher pedagogy and support is critical for success in creating inclusive and equitable learning experiences. Unfortunately, contemporary literacy programs in Australia have not yet begun to creatively explore the full potential of ICTs, but this is changing. In short time, no doubt new literature will reveal even more answers, questions, themes and issues about the use of ICTs to support literacy and l(IT)eracy for students with learning difficulties. Perhaps it will even get to the stage where literacy is synonymous with l(IT)eracy, and the use of ICTs to support literacy development as obvious as using a pen or pencil to practice handwriting. We shall see.
List of References
Andrews, R. (2003, February). ICT and Literacies: A New Kind of Research is Needed.
Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, 11(1), 9-13.
Avery, K.B., Avery, C.W., & Pace, D.P. (1999). Bridging the Gap: Integrating Video and
Audio Cassettes into Literature Programs. In National Council of Teachers of English, Trends and Issues in Secondary English (pp. 28-36). Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.
Blamires, M. (1999a). Developing Literacy. In M. Blamires (Ed.), Enabling Technologies
for Inclusion (pp. 27-34). London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Blamires, M. (1999b). Summary Themes. In M. Blamires (Ed.), Enabling Technologies
for Inclusion (pp. 113-117). London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Blamires, M. (1999c). What is Enabling Technology? In M. Blamires (Ed.), Enabling
Technology for Inclusion (pp. 1-16). London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Boreen, J. (2000). Surfing the Net: Getting Middle School Students Excited about
Research and Writing. In National Council of Teachers of English, Trends and Issues in Secondary English (pp. 15-25). Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.
Chalk, M. (2004). Emerging technologies - what is the most flexibility we can work into
teaching and learning? Newsletter of the Australian Council for Adult Literacy, 24(2), 6-7.
Clark, M.M. (1986, March). Educational Technology and Children with Moderate
Learning Difficulties. The Exceptional Child, 33(1), 28-34.
Davidson, J., & Koppenhaver, D. (1993). Adolescent Literacy: What Works and Why,
2nd ed. New York: Garland Publishing Inc.
de Lemos, M. (2002). Closing the gap between research and practice: Foundations for
the acquisition of literacy. Camberwell, VIC: the Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd.
Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. (2000). Successful programs and
Strategies for Children with Learning Difficulties. Retrieved May 12, 2004, from http://www.dest.gov.au/schools/literacyandnumeracy/publications/mapping/brochure
Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. (2001). Doing It Well: Case
Studies of Innovation and Best Practice in Working with At Risk Young People. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
diSessa, A. (2001). Changing Minds: Computers, Learning, and Literacy. Cambridge:
The MIT Press.
Dorman, P. (1999). Enabling Learning: The Vital Role of Theory. In M. Blamires (Ed.),
Enabling Technologies for Inclusion (pp. 19-26). London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Education Department of Western Australia. (1999). CIP: Learning Technologies.
Retrieved May 13, 2004, from http://www.eddept.wa.edu.au/cip/learntech/
Education Department of Western Australia. (2000). Research on Students For
Educational Risk. Retrieved May 13, 2004, from http://www.eddept.wa.edu.au/SAER/resource/key2.htm
Education Department of Western Australia. (2002). About Students at Educational Risk.
Retrieved May 12, 2004, from http://www.eddept.wa.edu.au/saer/about/content.htm
Education Queensland. (2000). Literate Futures: The Teacher Summary Version: Report
of the literacy review for Queensland state schools. Brisbane: Queensland Government, Education Queensland.
Elkins, J. (2002). The school context. In A. Ashman & J. Elkins (Eds.), Educating
Children with Diverse Abilities, (pp. 73-113). NSW: Prentice Hall.
Freebody, P. & Luke, A. (1990). Literacies programs: debates and demands in cultural
context. Prospect: Australian Journal of TESOL, 5(7), 7-16.
Goldsworthy, R.C., Barab, S.A., & Goldsworthy, E.L. (2000, Spring). The STAR Project:
Enhancing Adolescents' Social Understanding Through Video-based, Multimedia Scenarios. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(2), 13-25.
Goodison, T. (2002). Enhancing learning with ICT at primary level. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 33(2), 215-228.
Hardy, C. (1999). Raising Self-Esteem. In M. Blamires (Ed.), Enabling Technologies for
Inclusion (pp. 53-60). London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Herring, J. (1999). Exploiting the Internet as an Information Resource in Schools.
London: Library Association Publishing.
Holt, S. (1999). Supporting Students at Educational Risk: resource information for
teachers and schools. Fremantle: Education Department of Western Australia, Fremantle District Education Office.
Howell, R.D., Erickson, K., & Wheaton, J.E. (2000, Fall). Evaluation of a Computer-
based Program on the Reading Performance of First Grade Students with Potential for Reading Failure. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(4), pp. 5-13.
Kennedy, G. (2003b, September). Benefits of Text to Speech Software. Australian
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8(3), 31-33.
Kennedy, G. (2003b, September). Benefits of Text to Speech Software. Australian
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8(3), 31-33.
Kennedy, G. (2003c, September). Draft:Builder. Australian Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 8(3), 27-32.
Kingham, P.H., & Blackmore, A.M. (2003, March). Computer Based Instruction in
Blending is Effective for Year 2 Children with Reading Difficulties. Australian
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8(1), 30-39.
Kuhn, M.R., & Stahl, S.A. (2000, March). Fluency: A review of developmental and
remedial practices (rep. No. 2-008). Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement. Available (PDF file): http://www.ciera.org/ciera/publications/report-series/inquiry-2/2-008.pdf
Labbo, L., & Kuhn, M. (2000). Weaving chains of affect and cognition: A young child's
understanding of CD-ROM talking books. Journal of Literacy Research, 32, 187-210.
Louden, W., Chan, L., Elkins, J., Greaves, D., Milton, M., Nichols, S., Rivalland, J.,
Rohl, M., & van Kraayenoord, C. (2000). Mapping the Territory: Primary students with learning difficulties: Literacy and numeracy. Retrieved May 15, 2004 from http://www.dest.gov.au/schools/literacyandnumeracy/publications/
mapping/v3contents.rtf
Morgan, W. (1998). Old literacy or new literacy: reading and writing the wor(l)d online.
In F. Christie & R. Misson, Literacy and Schooling, pp. 129-154. London: Routledge.
Murray, J. (1999, October). New technology new literacy: What is it, who's doing it and
where is it going? Literacy Learning: Secondary Thoughts, 7(2), 32-39.
Nettelbeck, D. (2002, October). ICT, Literacy and Transformation: A Toe in the Water
by a Classroom Risk-taker. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, 10(2), 19-27.
Nicholls, B. & Rennie, L.J. (2001). Online Curriculum Delivery as a Means of Assisting
At-Risk Students to Complete Subjects at Senior Secondary School Level. Perth: Curtin University of Technology. Accessed May 13, 2004, from http://www.aare.edu.au/03pap/ren03387.pdf
Paveley, S. (1999). Advocacy and Self-Advocacy. In M. Blamires (Ed.), Enabling
Technologies for Inclusion (pp. 37-51). London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Rother, L. (2003). The Impact of Media Literacy Curriculum on the Literate Behaviour of
At-risk Adolescents. Literacy Learning: the Middle Years, 11(1), 17-21.
Snyder, I. (1999). Packaging literacy, new technologies and 'enhanced' learning.
Australian Journal of Education, 3, vol. 43, 285-299.
van Kraayenoord, C.E. (2002). Focus on literacy. In A. Ashman & J. Elkins (Eds.),
Educating Children with Diverse Abilities (pp. 388-435). NSW: Prentice Hall.
van Kraayenoord, C., Elkins, J., Palmer, C., Rickards, F., & Colbert, P. (2000). Literacy,
Numeracy and Students with Disabilities. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Walter, R. (1999). Developing Social Communnication. In M. Blamires (Ed.), Enabling
Technologies for Inclusion (pp. 61-72). London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational
technology and student achievement in mathematics [policy information report]. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Available: www.ets.org/research/pic/technolog.html
West, T. (1997). In the Mind's Eye: Visual thinkers, gifted people with dyslexia and other
learning difficulties, computer images and the ironies of creativity. New York: Prometheus Books.
Wray, D. (2001). A dialogue on literacy. Literacy Today. Retrieved May 4, 2004, from
http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/Pubs/wray.html
2