Interactive Creative Technologies: Changing learning practices and ...

■ Christine Edwards-Groves Charles Sturt University

Abstract Technology use in society has paved a changing landscape for producing texts in classrooms. This paper presents one way to understand how the changed nature of learning has changed writing practices and pedagogies. It draws on an empirical study investigating how the pedagogy of writing as creativity and technology converge in practice to change the face of classroom learning and interactions around text production. Furthermore, orienting teachers to the interactive nature of technoliteracy pedagogies in contemporary writing classrooms, challenges traditional notions that information and communication are the central tenets of technology use. The research explores how five teachers from one primary school in NSW, Australia, developed understandings of changing literacy and learning practices and pedagogies through focused collaborative dialogues.

Introduction Writing practices in contemporary society have changed dramatically over the past 20 years. For many, writing is a dynamic multimodal process (EdwardsGroves, 2011) which provides a broad scope of possibilities for new social, new literacy and new pedagogical practices. These practices have enabled students in their everyday life and in their classrooms to become multimodal designers of text, as writing now requires multimodality, creativity, technological and technical complexity. In fact, ‘we can no longer call it exclusively “writing” as this is too simple for what text has become’ (Healy, 2008, p. 26) since technologies have generated capacities for producing different kinds of texts and literacy practices, both of which challenge traditional pedagogical practices and understandings of meaning making and communication. More broadly, digital technologies are fundamentally shifting learning. Students are learning new literacies, new socialities and new technological competencies. In their technoliterate world, and in classroom learning situations, today’s students thrive on the interconnected utility of technology,

EDWARDS-GROVESrAUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY, Vol. 35, No. 1, 2012, pp. 99–113

Interactive Creative Technologies: Changing learning practices and pedagogies in the writing classroom

99 Australian Journal of Language and Literacy


100 Volume 35 Number 1 February 2012

creativity, social interaction and connections with community (Nichols, 2007) as they are actively engaged in what has been described as a participatory culture (Jenkins, Clinton, Purushotma, Robison & Weigel, 2006). And so for teachers, developing explicit understandings of these shifts in learning and literacy practices is a critical dimension to changing pedagogical practices. In one sense it is not the new kinds of texts or the technologies that need to be addressed per se, but rather how new literacy practices are understood, planned for and taken up in real classrooms (Walsh, 2010b). What is at stake is the necessity for addressing the perennial question of how systems and schools engage teachers in different conversations about learning, literacy and pedagogy. Over the past two decades, there have been various attempts at re-describing and reconceptualising changing literacy practices (Andrews, 2000; Edwards-Groves, 2011; Green, 2000; Kress, 1995; Sharples & Bruce, 1996; Walsh, 2010b). However, how teachers actually understand changing literacies, and adjust their practices to account for the challenges and the opportunities that technology presents for pedagogy, remains an ongoing issue. What now is called for is specificity in the descriptions of both the changed nature of the reading and writing processes occurring with digital technologies, and the appropriateness of the pedagogical practices which account for changing literacies (Walsh, 2010b). In one way, teachers need to understand what specifically is happening – and can happen – in multimodal literate practices, what digital technologies do for students and how they can use it in their lives (and in the classroom) to be literate in how the digital world communicates ideas. To address these concerns, this paper offers a description of how changing learning practices in a multimodal, digital world influences classroom writing practices and pedagogies. It describes how professional dialogues assist teachers shift pedagogical practices in light of contemporary literacy practices. In the study presented in this paper, teachers engaged in both focused collaborative and analytic dialogues with colleagues and practising new practices in their own classroom context. The dialogues were centred on making the pedagogical shifts required for understanding, planning for and using contemporary digital literacies in their teaching.

Changing practices: The multimodal writing process Writing is both a technical and creative endeavour which has moved beyond the linguistic and linearity proposed by early theorists (e.g. Calkins, 1986). It now encompasses a multidimensionality which harnesses design and multimodality and has the potential to liberate the creative energy of today’s students (Florida, 2005). It necessitates an explicit understanding of writing for the screen (Sharples & Bruce, 1996; Walsh, 2010a), multiliteracies (New London Group, 2000; Anstey & Bull, 2006), multimodal literacies (Walsh, 2010a), the elements of design, including linguistic, visual, spatial, gestural

Interactivity, creativity and technologies in practice The perennial recurrence of debates surrounding technology and new literacy practices suggests that perhaps these dimensions of contemporary life have not been taken as an interconnected issue for pedagogy. Okojie, Olinzock and Okojie-Boulder (2006) cautioned that the classroom reality for many is that ‘technology integration remains narrowly perceived, often taken as an object exclusive to itself restricted to the mechanical application of various hardware and software devices during the process of instruction, rather than taken as an integral part of instruction’ (p. 1).However, the significance of technology use in classrooms lies not in what a device or text ‘is’, nor in what it specifically does. Its significance lies in what it enables as it mediates the relationship between its user and other individuals (Hutchby & Moran-Ellis, 2001). Since, contemporary literacies almost all involve social skills developed through interaction, participation, collaboration and networking (Jenkins, et al., 2006), understanding the scope of what digital technologies entail in classroom literacy practices requires a closer examination of what it enables or affords interactively. On this view, this paper takes the notion of interactivity to centre mainly on interpersonal interactions around technology use, rather than simply locating the term with the interactive capacities of the media (Apperley, 2010). For example, in research by Edwards-Groves (2011), it was found that the extent to which creativity and a critical awareness of design was demonstrated in students’ writing, actually hinged on the interpersonal interactions they encountered with their peers around both technology use and elements of design; that is, working collaboratively to produce texts influenced the nature of the texts produced. Therefore in this vein, writing multimodally necessitates a more interactive, participatory and collaborative approach around literacy or textual practices in the classroom (Sharples & Bruce, 1996; Jenkins, et al., 2006; Matthewman, 2003; Walsh, 2010a, 2010b). This view shifts the focus to be about pedagogy practices rather than simply about the technology itself. In their social lives, students are engaging in new creativities. In one


and audio characteristics (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000) and the multimodal writing process (Edwards-Groves, 2011). In this changing literacy landscape, therefore, constructing texts requires a ‘multimodal ‘constellation of valuing, knowing and utilising a blend of multimodal features (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996, 2001). Creating dynamic multidimensional texts requires understanding the multimodal writing process which enables recursive movement from planning to presenting, from drafting to designing. As acknowledged by Jenkins, et al. (2006) and EdwardsGroves (2011), the critical view here is that fundamental writing skills are not replaced but are extended to account for the shift in learning practices that technology demands.




way they are creating content at an ever-increasing rate as they create texts, for example for Twitter, Blogs, Flickr, Facebook or YouTube. Ultimately, creating content is about creating text; that is, it is about writing. In another way students are engaging with multimodal design requiring increasing technical complexity. Aligned with this is stimulating and augmenting students’ creative abilities through a range of technological resources (Lewis, 2005) and providing opportunities for interacting with others, with technology and within on-line environments (Nichols, 2007). Contemporary society and education systems expect that classroom practices align with current and up-to-date technological practices in order for education to prepare young people ‘to participate fully in public, community, creative and economic life’ (New London Group, 2000, p. 9). To face this challenge, the explicit use of creativity-oriented teaching is necessary to extend students’ range of understandings, skills and knowledge about reading and writing semiotically and to develop, share and access multiple textual meanings (Hall, 2010). Therefore, a renewed focus on writing practices is necessary if teachers are to harness the creativity inherent in contemporary sociality and text construction practices.

Background to the study The empirical research presented is drawn from a 12 month participatory action research project (Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000) conducted in one rural primary school in NSW, Australia. The whole school professional development project focused on: (1) developing understandings of multimodality, digital literacies and contemporary writing practices; and (2) changing classroom technology practices within the context of pedagogy. It involved each of the five classroom teachers (including the teaching principal) and a system consultant. Prior to the project, system consultants had provided hardware and network professional development (PD) with the aim of assisting teachers to embed technology into day-to-day teaching. However, a lack of change to pedagogy prompted the design of more focused, customised and site-based professional development. The system focus was to ‘de-privatise practice’ so that sharing practices through focused professional conversations, practise and inter-classroom visits would open up both profession learning spaces and collegial conversations. As a form of collegial inquiry and reflection, it was aimed that this dialogic approach (also described as collaborative analytic dialogues, Edwards-Groves, 2003) would enable teachers to become facilitators of pedagogical shift in their own school contexts. The study Presented in this paper are findings drawn from the research. Teacher participants varied in teaching experience (from three to 24 years), and although

1.

2.

3.

4.

an introductory situational analysis (aiming to gauge the level of comfort, expertise and interest and to generate professional learning plans); a full day professional learning session led by the consultant (included software demonstrations, guided practice and critique, understanding elements of design and multiliteracies); at least three two hour in-class sessions (co-teaching and/or demonstrations) with follow-up debrief and mentoring conversations ( as negotiated); and, one teacher (the least confident) worked more closely with the researcher for an additional six in-class sessions of two hours and two one day sessions.

Throughout the project teachers met at least fortnightly to discuss their learning in staff meetings previously held for ‘general business’. Staff meetings were handed over to professional dialogues concerning multimodality, digital literacies and technology practices and to what they were trialling in their own teaching. Data were gathered using a range of qualitative methods including participant observation of teaching and professional learning sessions, and conducting teacher and consultant interviews and a student focus group interview (recorded and transcribed).

Findings and discussion Throughout the duration of the study it emerged that as teachers were implementing lessons focused on students reading and writing multimodally utilising technologies as tools, there were shifts in the ways they arranged students interactively. These criteria were examined. Interrogation of empirical data describing professional dialogues and lessons revealed three main themes concerning professional learning, text/writing and technology practices. These themes were cross-referenced with close examination of participant accounts (in transcripts) at three levels of practice; i.e., how students, teachers and consultants accounted for the practices they were experiencing in this site. These recurring themes were identified as follows: 1. 2. 3.

Changing pedagogies; Changing writing practices; and New learning as encompassing Interactive Creative Technologies.


each of the teachers indicated their interest in integrating technology, and had participated in systemic PD sessions, they had made little shift in their pedagogical practices. Teachers met with the system consultant and/or the researcher (as mentor) for:




Empirically, changes were demonstrated in how teachers collaborated with colleagues to learn about new technologies and how their lessons unfolded interactively. For these teachers, what emerged as a critical factor for the observed changes was the role of in-situ professional dialogues; that is, their learning practices too were changing. Accounts drawn from participant teachers, system consultant and students will form the basis of the empirical discussion. (Note: all names are pseudonyms).

Changing pedagogies In this school it was observed that technologies created new and emergent learning practices that changed professional development practices in particular ways. For these teachers professional dialogues not only provoked changed classroom practices but simultaneously raised new issues. This was recognised in the following interview extract from a system consultant. Technology is challenging the way we need to deliver professional learning to people; it’s the way we engage people with professional dialogue and building new understandings about pedagogy from that … It has to do with the dialogue, in some ways I probably place more emphasis on that, it is about the quality of the conversations with teachers, for me it is about how to enter into those conversations with people in their classrooms about their own practice, work with them at their own pace, then we’re going to have more effective change … It is also about legitimising de-privatised practice where teachers work with other teachers, or someone from system, they open up their doors to focus on understanding effective teaching with technologies and improving student learning. Through these focused conversations … you move to challenge and change but within supportive relationships. (System consultant)

The comments signal the changing responsibilities and accountabilities of professional practitioners (both teachers and consultants) as they enter new forms of practice. Two important factors are highlighted as new contestations over the legitimation and development of changed forms of professional learning practice are suggested. First, recognising that customising professional development, so teachers are working ‘at their own pace’, is an important factor for development (especially if a change in the pedagogy of technology is to be demonstrated). Secondly, the remarks identify how ‘de-privatising’ practice, through collegial sharing and collaboration, can function as a springboard for change. As highlighted by O’Mara and Gutierrez (2010), the process of sharing experiences through professional dialogues appears to enable teachers to re-think their own practices in light of colleagues’ understandings and practices. There appears to be a strategic emphasis on the role and benefits of engaging in professional learning conversations as a critical and influential feature of professional development. Interestingly, the principal also identified how collegial collaborations and dialogues influences change.

From these accounts, it seems that technologies do not simply extend the reach and possibilities of professional practices, they also re-shape the forms of professional learning practices required to support teachers. Comments orient to the notion of agency in professional learning as teachers negotiated this transforming pedagogic terrain with colleagues out from ‘behind closed doors’.

Changing writing practices Initially, technology was predominantly used for word processing, Intranet research browsing or gaming. In some classrooms technology was not used at all. Additionally, writing practices were visibly teacher directed and students engaged in more traditional ‘writing process’ approaches, with genre-based texts published on ‘posters’ or typed up and archived in ‘writing folders’. With support from colleagues, the consultant and researcher, teachers gradually made shifts to classroom pedagogies. It was observed that over time teachers shifted their more linear writing practices to produce multimodal texts: this occurred in each of the four classrooms (Kindergarten, Year1/2, Year 3/4 and Year 5/6). In particular, it was noticeable that teachers began to incorporate explicit instruction about ways of ‘reading’ and ‘writing’ in digital contexts. In the Year 5/6 classroom, for example, students engaged in a range of literacy and technology-based activities to produce a video ‘tour’ of their local community using hand-puppets to tell the story of their town’s history. Students identified the technologies required, planned the process, researched local history [through oral, textual and technological practices], wrote scripts, collated, discussed and summarised information, justified and expressed opinions, and organised information. For this class producing the ‘final’ video text could be described as a constellation of multiple texts as students ‘wrote the video’ (see Mikey below). They were reading, writing and learning multimodally. Explicit lessons centred on what could be described as the linguistics of the multimodal world of digital texts (ie, visual literacy, design elements, the metalanguage of multimodality and expanding technology use – video use, taking and uploading digital photos, website design, editing videos) shifted students towards the multimodality of text production. The following excerpt draws attention to the ways changing technology practices gave students opportunities to work creatively and collaboratively in different multimedia


Effective technology use in our school is about working together at all levels, I think things are changing a bit; teachers are opening up and beginning to see that we can learn from each other and the staff conversations seem to be changing that … I’ve found that having set times for talking with each other has helped,… but working together with them, so it’s not just all top down, sort of collaborating as we learn these new things together, so we are sharing, really sharing what we have been working on, the good and the bad. (Principal)




forms to produce texts. The segment, from the student focus group interview, demonstrates how students (aged 10/11 years) understood the interconnectivity between the literacies, technologies and the literacies of the technology (e.g. design elements). Mikey:

Nellie://

Lachlan:/

Jonno:

Well, you know, it was different than most other times, um we got to choose what bit we would like to do for the project and then from the beginning got to plan out how we would write the video with other kids in our group. We all got to have a say in the first bit of the plan and even how the video would be made. … we could talk about how to set it out on the video, the storyboards and that you know design it all, the scenes//. It [the technology] makes things easier, a good way to communicate and make our work more creative, like playing with the sounds in the digital poems we did, they had to match the words and the pictures to be able to produce the scenes./ We had to keep writing and re-writing our parts and it didn’t stop there. We had to design the scenes; you bring in the right music, voiceovers, colours and all that … All the bits had to make sense; you know if the music didn’t match it would be silly. You have to keep researching and drafting and editing until it’s the final project … the technology and the writing work together. Yeah, it was interesting to use photos, .. coz’ I can’t draw, but I take good photos …

A key point to consider here is that writing practices remained ‘textcentric’ as the students were focused firmly on writing texts, albeit increasingly dynamic and multimodal. Moreover, the complex multidimensional nature of creating more contemporary texts is highlighted. As these students constructed, produced, designed and collaborated around text, what had changed was the multilayered and multimodal nature of their writing. It seemed their text construction practices were inextricably bound up with technological and literacy skills; technologies as tools of new learning enabled changed writing practices to emerge.

New learning as encompassing ‘Interactive Creative Technologies’ Embedding technology is often treated from a technical perspective (centring on hardware and/or software) rather than as an interactive pedagogical concern. In this study, the role of talk and ‘designing-in’ opportunities for collaborative learning around text and technology was highlighted by both teachers and students. In the following interview extract, the teacher recognised the role interpersonal interactivity has for learning and for producing texts in contemporary classroom spaces:

This excerpt illustrates a strong connection between pedagogy, interaction and technology practices. The teacher’s comments suggest that through group interactions, the pedagogical change required to reconsider technology practices can be accomplished as it becomes invisible to the lesson (or not the dominant concern). In fact, this teacher (who expressed the least confidence with technology) also suggested contemporary practice now requires ‘more flexibility as students need to have more choice, more freedom and time to talk, collaborate and play around with the ideas and the technology’. As highlighted by Nichols (2007), comments also underline the value of providing time to ‘play’ with the technology and its creative possibilities [described by the consultant as sandpit time], such that exploration, discovery and ‘play’ emerged as new learning practices. For this teacher and his students it appears that these new learning practices emerged collectively through collaborations (Jenkins, et al., 2006). Importantly, students identified the role of interaction as a central dimension to technology practice. In the following excerpt, interactions with group members were pivotal. The students (aged 10/11 years) were discussing how the success of their work [to create a video tour of their local town] connected to the ways of interacting with others. Nellie:

Lucas: Sharnia: Nellie:

Jonno:

Lucas:/ Timothy://,

Well you can get more stuff done and if it’s just one person you usually just come up with 1 or 2 ideas but if you’ve got about 5 people they’ve all got different ideas and you can then work together and get a really good idea … … sometimes we have issues but you actually solve them together … Well, we had to be considerate and co-operate when making decisions … if we didn’t do our bit then the whole thing wouldn’t work. Yeah, working [in teams] like we were allowed to do, we get to talk about our ideas more so it’s actually more productive, that we can actually produce more research or more ideas than we would by ourself … We could show each other how to do some of the things with the computer and learn about it together if we weren’t sure. Yep better quality … because we have to discuss it and work it out together, the ideas get even better, you know, we sort of have to listen to each other and we can even get their point of view, so its got to be better. …/ more efficient too, we get twice the amount of work done in half the time// …, we had lots of good ideas together..


I was astounded at what the kids came up with in their groups, and how they kept to the task. The technology was there, the computers, cameras and videos and so on, but it was the way kids really got into their project through their talk with each other, that seemed to be the difference of getting them, and me, to use the technology and come up with a great project … it was like the technology was invisible … (5/6 Teacher)



This transcript offers important insights into the value of interactive (group) practices for learning and producing texts. Here, for example, students drew out aspects of quality, co-operation, consideration, productivity, efficiency and problem solving, as they validated teamwork and sociality as influential factors for the process and production of text. These students acknowledged working collaboratively generated valuable ‘ideas time’. For them, there is a close connectivity between the sociality of group work and productive classroom learning, identified by Matthewman (2003) as a key feature of constructing multimodal texts. Working in teams enabled access to the collective capital (Bourdieu, 1986) and creativity of all group members, a feature of learning recognised by teachers and students alike. Their comments signal ‘that interacting with others holds them accountable as knowing certain things’ (Freebody & Herschell, 2000, p. 47), suggesting that writing as multimodal technoliterate practice should be considered by what is afforded interactively. It seems feasible to suggest, therefore, interpersonal interactivity (or group collaborations) plays a significant part of the successful use of technology in classroom learning. On this we are moved away from simply focusing on changes to writing and technology; what is highlighted causes us to consider shifts in learning practices as a primary understanding of contemporary pedagogies.

In this school, creativity-oriented teaching emerged as an integral feature of technology practices. Teachers generally acknowledged the importance of revaluing creativity as it seems to have ‘got lost in the busyness of administration and testing, getting through the curriculum’ (Year 3/4 Teacher). Creativity is identified as a welcomed shift back to a resourceful and creative profession, as one teacher states ‘just as it [technology] enables the kids to be creative, it lets me be creative again with my teaching, it’s almost like I have permission to try different things’ (Year 1/2). Another teacher acknowledged that there was an ‘important transformative influence of technology which has created new avenues for creative teaching and creative writing in the classroom’ (Kindergarten Teacher. Please note: Kindergarten in NSW is the first formal year of school, and does not refer to preschool as in most other States and Territories in Australia). Students also articulated the role creativity played in their writing as design, production and presentation entered their discourse. Lachlan:


Renee: Timothy:

It was still like writing a report or something like that we still had to draft and edit, but you know; we got to present it in a creative way. We get to create interesting stuff … … ‘It [technology] lets you use your imagination more … with the ideas, colours, fonts, the effects and moving objects, we get to play with designing the scenes for the story and all this made us think hard coz it had to be good for the audience and that is cool.

Reframing ICT as ‘Interactive Creative Technologies’ as a pedagogy for contemporary times Writing and learning practices in this school had changed. Multimodal text construction required writing and producing a constellation of multiple texts, collaboration and interaction with peers, and new creativities afforded by expanding technological resources. It was found changing technology practices simultaneously changed learning practices and writing practices; there was reciprocity between them. The research highlights how interactivity, creativity and technology together enter changed pedagogic spaces which changed learning practices for teachers and for students. In contemporary times understanding these ‘learning shifts’ moves us beyond simple descriptions about new text forms and technologies to consider the how; that is, the processes for text construction. Understanding this leads us to re-think pedagogy. The empirical data illustrates that contemporary ‘technoliterate practices’ require account of: 1.

Interactivity – between school colleagues, students, students and teachers, students and local community, on-line and/or technological spaces using a wide range of interpersonal, interactive strategies and arrangements.

2.

Creativity – multimodal and creativity-oriented teaching providing a flexible and rich multiplicity of classroom opportunities which enable discovery, exploration and imagination; the creation of content and the creative representations of learning through explicit knowledge of and utility of ‘design elements’ (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000).

3.

Technologies – the technical, textual and social dimensions of a range of technologies are explicated; considering ‘technology-as-text’ to be interrogated, interpreted and constructed; creating textual bridges between the known and new social, learning and technoliterate practices.


Classroom writing practices had changed for these students; and importantly they were able to recognise it, account for it and evaluate it. Threaded through their comments is the connectivity between creativity, technology and its influences on learning. For teachers and students it seemed technology enabled renewed place for creativity which offered them a broader scope of action. For them it was not the technology alone, but rather what new possibilities it enabled. If we consider the political drive for improving literacy competencies (whether implicitly or explicitly) these comments attest to a desire to at least balance this with practices which ‘enable’ both students and teachers creatively, leading learning to be at its best (Claxton, 2003).




In a practical sense, the focus of this research was on investigating both collegial and classroom interactions and reconsidering practices around text production. Viewing technology in terms of pedagogy offers teachers a scope for expanding the repertoire of literacy practices and the social interactions among students (Van Scoter, Ellis & Railsback, 2001). It also enables critical engagement with multimodal discourses (The New London Group, 1996) as students develop new learning and textual resources. Opportunities for interaction and collaboration around text production need to be ‘designed-in’ to lessons to be relevant in contemporary teaching. In one sense, technology represents for the field of writing education changing pedagogies and changing learning practices which transform the face of classroom planning and curriculum.

Conclusion The paper is but one chapter in the developing story describing contemporary technologies, literacies and pedagogies. With the ubiquitous presence of technology, generating meaning in contemporary times harnesses influential technological capacities which have not only created a changed textual landscape (Beavis, 2001; Carrington, 2005), but has shifted the nature of interactions between people in their interpersonal, virtual, digital and textual spaces. These should not be ignored in classroom planning (Beavis & O’Mara, 2010). Not only is it time for the writing process to be reconceptualised as the ‘multimodal writing process’ (Edwards-Groves, 2011), it is time to represent the rich, multi-faceted nature of contemporary technoliterate practices as practices which move beyond technological devices. The paper presents a way to understand how changing learning practices, brought about through interacting or collaborating around technology not just with technology, are changing writing practices and pedagogies. The discussion and excerpts show that when technologies exist in classroom spaces as resources which promote interactivity and creativity, both writing as a process and the texts produced change. It was found that writing now requires creativity-oriented pedagogies which visibly and explicitly enable a seamless flow between the interactions and collaborations around technology and multimodal text production. And so, if we consider technologies to be necessary tools for learning, then it is prudent to promote pedagogies which account for the exploration, interaction and creativity that technologies make possible. For the teachers in this study, pedagogy was influenced by changing the nature of collegial conversations. The study illustrated how situating and customising professional learning within teachers’ own contexts provides a supportive climate for understanding and practising new practices. Orienting to ICT as Interactive Creative Technologies emerged as a way to understand ‘a pedagogy of writing’ which assists teachers focus on understanding what

References Andrews, R. (2000). Framing and Design in ICT in English: Towards a New Subject and New Practices in the Classroom. In A. Goodwyn (Ed.), English in the Digital Age: Information and Communications Technology and the Teaching of English (pp. 22–33). New York: Cassell. Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and Learning Multiliteracies: Changing times, Changing literacies. Delaware, USA: International Reading Association. Apperley, T. (2010). What games studies can teach us about videogames in the English and Literacy Classroom. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 33(1), 13–23. Beavis, C. (2001). Digital Culture, Digital Literacies: Expanding Notions of Text. In C. Durrant and C. Beavis (Eds.), P(ICT)ures of English: Teachers Learning and Technology (pp. 145–161). Adelaide, Australia: AATE/Wakefield Press. Beavis, C., & O’Mara, J. (2010). Computer Games – Pushing at the boundaries of literacy. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 33(1), 65–76. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood. Calkins, L. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Carrington, V. (2005). New Textual landscapes, information and early literacy. In J. March (Ed.), Popular Culture, New Media and Digital Literacy in Early Childhood. London: Routledge Falmer. Claxton, G. (2005). Creativity: A guide for the advanced learner. Journey: A handbook to support the exploration of creativity in schools through 28 activities. Leeds, UK: Creative Partnerships CAPE. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. South Yarra: Macmillan. Edwards-Groves, C. (2003). On Task: Focused Literacy Learning. Sydney, Aus: Primary English Teachers Association (PETA). Edwards-Groves, C. (2011). The multimodal writing process: Changing practices in contemporary classrooms. Language and Education, 25(1), 49–64. Florida, R. (2005). The Flight of the Creative Class. Proceedings from ‘A Policy Forum on the Intangible Economy’. Washington: Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars.


students do with technologies – interactively and creatively – and how these are relevant in the participatory culture permeating the lives of students. The findings suggest that if systems are committed to supporting teachers understand new literacy practices and utilise technologies effectively in these new times, then it is time for a substantial investment in providing site-based professional learning projects conducted over time. This, coupled with focused collaborative dialogues, enables teachers and students to enter the discourse and practices of contemporary times in a way which scaffolds learning and shapes interactions around technology.




Freebody, P., & Herschell, P. (2000). The interactive assembly of social identity: The case of latitude in classroom talk. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 4(1), 43–61. Green, B. (2000). English Teaching, ‘Literacy’ and the Post-Age: On Compos(IT)ing and Other New Times Metaphors. In C. Durrant & C. Beavis (Eds.), P(ICT)ures of English: Teachers, Learners and Technology (pp. 249–271). Adelaide, Aus: Wakefield Press. Hall, N. (2010). English Literature: Developing Readers and Writers. In S. Clarke, P. Dickinson & J. Westbrook (Eds.), Becoming an English Teacher (pp. 288–300). London: Sage Publications Inc. Healy, A. (2008). Multiliteracies and Diversity in Education, Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Hutchby, I., & Moran-Ellis, J. (eds) (2001). Children, Technology and Culture: The impacts of technologies in children’s everyday lives. London: Routledge Falmer. Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A.J. & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Occasional Paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chicago, Illinios: The Macarthur Foundation. Retrieved from http://newmedialiteracies.org/files/working/NMLWhitePaper.pdf Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd Ed., pp. 567–605). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kress, G. (1995). Writing the Future: English and the Making of a Culture of Innovation, Sheffield: NATE. Kress, G.R., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar of Graphic Design. London: Routledge. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse. London: Routledge. Lewis, T. (2005). Creativity – A Framework for the Design/Problem solving Discourse in Technology Education. Journal of Technology Education, 17(1), 35–52. Matthewman, S. (2003). What does multimodality mean for English? Creative tensions in teaching new texts and new literacies. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 11(1), 31–36. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. New London Group. (2000). A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures (pp. 9–38). London: Routledge. Nichols, S. (2007). Exploring creativity support systems for the ne’x’t generation. Proceedings of the Intelligent Systems and Agents 2007. Lisbon, Portugal: IADIS Press (67–74). Okojie, M., Olinzock, A., & Okojie-Boulder, Tinukwa C. (2006). The Pedagogy of Technology Integration. The Journal of Technology Studies. 32(2), 66–71. O’Mara, J., & Gutierrez, A. (2010). Classroom teachers as co-researchers: The affordances and challenges of collaboration. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 33(1), 44–53. Sharples, M., & Bruce, B. (1996). Collaborative Writing and Technological Change: Implications for Writing Practice and System Design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 3(3–4), 225–228.


Van Scoter, J., Ellis, D., & Railsback, J. (2001). Technology in early childhood education: finding the balance. Portland, Oregon: Northwest Regional Education Laboratory. Walsh, M. (2010a). Multimodal Literacies: Researching Classroom Practice. Sydney, Australia: Primary English Teaching Association (e:lit). Walsh, M. (2010b). Multimodal literacy: What does it mean for classroom practice? Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 33(3), 211–229.


Interactive Creative Technologies: Changing learning practices and ...

Interactive Creative Technologies: Changing learning practices and ...

Suggest Documents

Enabling creative learning design through semantic technologies

Enabling creative learning design through semantic technologies

1 CHANGING VISIONS AND CHANGING PRACTICES

Creative Learning and Technologies Strategy 2017-22 - Forth Valley ...

Changing demographics, changing practices: teacher

digital technologies, learning and school: practices and perceptions of ...

Changing student use and perceptions of learning technologies, 2002 ...

Extensive Reading and Creative Practices

new teaching and learning technologies for interactive ... - CiteSeerX

Modern Tools and Technologies for Interactive Learning - CiteSeerX

Changing views and practices? - Matematikksenteret

Bachelorthesis - Creative Technologies

changing technologies

Changing Technologies of HPC

Changing practices of journalism

617 Changing Delivery Methods, Changing Practices: Exploring ...

INTERACTIVE STORYTELLING FOR PROMOTING CREATIVE

INTERACTIVE STORYTELLING FOR PROMOTING CREATIVE ...

a role for emerging interactive technologies in work-integrated learning

Transformative Learning and Creative Learning - American ...

Transformative Learning and Creative Learning - American ...

Parasite Technologies and Non- Creative Destruction

IORelator - Institute for Creative Technologies

Creative Accounting Practices and Measurement Methods: Evidence ...