1. Sue Caudery
Student Number: 0050100302



3. Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2006). Developing pedagogies for multiliteracies. In
M. Anstey, & G. Bull (Eds.), Teaching and learning multiliteracies (pp.
56-81). Newark, USA: International Reading Association.
Anstey and Bull provide many useful strategies for educators in developing
theory into practice and applying dynamic multiliteracy pedagogies within the
learning environment. Importance is placed on the educator’s relationship with
the students and desired learning outcomes. The authors provide ideas on how
to make decisions and provide opportunities for students to explore and engage
with literacy. However, Anstey and Bull indicate through research, that for this
learning to be successful the educator must provide a multiliterate environment
that is flexible to the students and cohesive in the way classroom talk and
lessons are planned. The authors believe that this will provide a social
environment in which diversity in the classroom is addressed in making students
become multiliterate citizens.

4. Bennett, R. (2006). Mathematics and ICT in the early years.In M. Hayes,
& D. Whitebread (Eds.), ICT in the early years (pp. 55-71).
England: Open University Press.
In this chapter, Bennett discusses the theoretical underpinning of the ways
in which children learn mathematical concepts based on contemporary
constructivist views of theorists such as Vygostsky. He argues as to
whether computer software is best suited to the teaching and learning of
mathematics in the early years. Research indicates that if the software
produces visual and symbolic information, then this could provide an
environment ideal to mathematical learning. However, provided the
teacher’s pedagogical practice is linked effectively to the use of ICT’s, then
this would contribute to the child’s learning. He stresses that the role of
the teacher in understanding databases and tools to navigate this software
was of utmost importance.

5. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). Multiliteracies: New literacies new
learning, pedagogies: an International Journal, 4(3), 164-195.
Retrieved from
https://usqdirect.usq.edu.au/usq/file/868a8bb9-2364-d7cd-e285-
d97d505db344/1/Cope_2009_164.pdf
In this journal article, Cope and Kalantzis discuss the New London Group
of 1996 and their efforts in forming a Pedagogy of Multiliteracies
approach to the teaching and learning of literacy. It is their belief that
due to the changing world of technology, old literacies would no longer
be adequate in the future of education. The authors discuss in length
the why, what and how of multiliteracies through exploring diversity and
social factors in belief that their new approach would transform into a
pedagogy that would allow for change and diversity. Cope and Kalantzis
conclude that in the last ten years or more, these changes have made an
impact on the development of a multiliteracies pedagogy.

6. Healy, A. (2006). Multiliteracies: teachers and students at work in new ways
with literacy. In R. Campbell, & D. Green (Eds.), Literacies and learners
current perspectives (pp. 191-207). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson
Education Australia
Healy’s chapter suggests that it is vital for educators to acknowledge the
changes in text/teacher/student relationships and to incorporate a variety of
technologies with a multiliteracies approach in the classroom. The author
highlights that as society changes, children gain experiences that allow them to
negotiate multimedia digital texts. Computers are becoming more noticeable in
the early childhood classroom, thus allowing children to be more visual with the
information they receive at an earlier age. Various snapshots in research were
recorded throughout this chapter, revealing that children appear to be more
responsive to visual images as opposed to text. Healy believes that teachers
need to cater for the diverse textual experiences that children bring to the
learning environment.

7. Hesterman, S. (2011). A contested space: the dialogic intersection of ICT,
multiliteracies, and early childhood. Contemporary Issues in Early
Childhood, 12(4), 349-361. Retrieved from http://www.wwwords.co.uk/
rss/abstract.asp?j=cie&aid=4824
Hesterman’s article discusses the Pedagogy of Multiliteracies developed by the
New London Group (1996) and how this approach can improve the quality of
education in the early years context through the integration of ICT. The author
conducted research in two early childhood classrooms in order to determine
how these teachers integrated ICT to support children in a multiliteracies
learning environment. She reported that whilst the teachers were motivated to
do this, it was evident that their approach was not secure in implementing ICT
due to lack of resources and support to cultivate this approach.

8. Martello, J. (2007). Many roads through many modes: becoming literate in
childhood. In L. Makin, C. Jones Diaz, & C. McLachlan (Eds.), Literacies in
childhood. Changing views, challenging practice (pp. 89-103). Marickville,
NSW: Elsevier Australia.
Martello’s chapter suggests that the early childhood educator can help children
develop an understanding of multiliteracies through linking curriculum and
experiences from the home environment. She highlights the importance that a
young child’s first experiences of literacy begin in the early years of their life and
continues through to adulthood. Young children become familiar with
television, computers, and many images that allow them to understand
multimodal texts. Discussing at length, her main focus suggests that in the
home environment a wide range of social practices can be gained and brought
to the learning environment as multimodal literacy experiences, allowing the
early childhood educator to accommodate for diversity in inclusive literacy
practices.

9. O’Brien, J., & Comber, B. (2000). Negotiating critical literacies with young
children. In C. Barratt-Pugh, & M. Rohl (Eds.), Literacy learning in the early
years (pp. 152-171). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Throughout this chapter, O’Brien suggests that many educators should engage in
critical literacies with young children through questioning texts that are used in
their daily lives, and challenging the way they use these texts in reading and
writing. In one of her research examples in this chapter, she explores ways of
teaching children how to be a text analyst by reading a story then through
discussion of characters and events she asks the children to reflect on their own
experiences by drawing pictures. According to O’Brien, when educators use this
negotiated approach, children will respond to constructed texts, which are
integral to their everyday learning.

10. Vasquez, V. M., & Branigan Felderman, C. (2013). Yes we can! Using technology
as a tool for social action. In V. M. Vasques, & C. Branigan Felderman
(Eds.), Technology and critical literacy in early childhood (pp. 27-36).
New York, NY: Routledge
In this chapter, Vasquez highlights the importance of creating spaces for children
in classrooms and using resources and technology as a mean for social action.
She conducted a “social action project” with the children whereby they
brainstormed a particular topic, formed discussion groups, then followed up
their findings through internet research. Children from other classes were
invited to attend the discussion on their findings. Vasquez believes that through
conducting internet research, young children learn social practices and how to
communicate with resources such as computers as a learning tool.

11. Whitebread, A. (2006). Creativity, problem solving and playful uses of
technology: Games and simulations in the early years. In M. Hayes, & D.
Whitebread (Eds.), ICT in the early years (pp. 87-106). England: Open
University Press.
Whitebread argues that young children can be motivated to develop the
necessary skills to gather information and problem solve when playing computer
games and simulations, just as much as conventional play does. It is his belief
that computer games incorporate problem solving skills that allow the young
child to see and understand the meaning of problems through making mistakes
and being able to go back and correct them, thus allowing higher order thinking
to take place. The writer concludes that computer based tasks promote
development in a child’s ability to be independent thinking and a problem
solver.

12. Yelland, N. (2007). Making meaning: technology as play. In N. Yelland (Ed.).
Shift to the future (pp. 49-63). New York, NY: Routlage Taylor & Francis
Group.
Yelland’s chapter discusses the challenges and balances that parents and early
childhood educators face when exposing children to technology in the real world
of play. She states that theorists such as Montessori and Froebel believe children
learn through constructing meaning through play. Research was conducted into
new technologies such as educational toys and story telling software in the early
learning environment, and this was proved to be just as effective as concrete
material play. The author believes it is vital for guided interaction by the
educator to help build concepts utilizing the program to the benefit of the
students.

13. Literacy is imbedded into our daily lives, and involves a range of practices that
shape our society and culture (Wing Jan, 2009). The theme of this assessment
focuses on the use of ICT’s within an early childhood context.
Most of the authors believe that due to the changing world of technology, it is
vital for young children to become immersed in a multiliterate learning
environment that caters to the many multimodal texts that they are exposed to.
A common theme that has emerged from reading the various chapters and
articles was the importance that young children’s first experiences of literacy
begin in the home. It was noted by Martello (2007) that children bring these
literacy experiences to the learning environment, and impacts on what is
experienced in the classroom. Statistics report that most young children have
access to a range of technologies in the home everyday, and indicate that
classroom computers play a significant role in a child’s social world through
access to a variety of information and cultural texts (Arthur, Beecher, Death,
Dockett & Farmer, 2007).

14. Hesterman (2011) suggests that to improve the quality of education in the early
years, it is vital to follow a framework such as The New London Group’s
Pedagogy of Multiliteracies. However in contrast, The Early Years Learning
Framework (2010) suggests that early childhood educators can promote
technology learning within the environment through play, exploring new
information, and provision of a wide range of technologies.
One author, Yelland (2007) discusses how play and technology can be linked to
the early learning environment through the use of computer software and
educational toys and how this is just as effective as traditional play. According to
Van Hoorn, Nourot, Scales & Alward (2011) the use of computers in an early
childhood classroom has not harmed the development of young children and
state if it is to be a part of play, then the computers need to be a part of the
learning environment where children can work in small groups, allowing for
social interaction to take place.

15. It is important to note that Bennett (2006) argues whether computer software is
suited to the learning and teaching of early years mathematics and comes to the
conclusion that it is the teacher’s pedagogical practices in linking ICT’s to the
curriculum that would contribute to the young child’s learning. This produces
problem solving and higher order thinking, vital to mathematical learning.
In correlation with this, some of the authors suggest that the educators own
understanding of technology and how to use the software is imperative. As Van
Hoorn, Nourot, Scales & Alward (2011) state, educators need to frequently
upgrade their knowledge of software and to consider the ways they use it to
promote individual needs. According to Finger, Russell, Jamieson-Proctor &
Russell (2007) it is essential for all educators to develop competency in
developing skills in ICT in order to gain knowledge and be able to integrate into
the learning environment.
In summary, the annotated articles highlight vital information for early
childhood educators to consider when implementing ICT’s into their pedagogical
practice and how best young children’s literacy learning can be enhanced
through the use of technology.

16. Throughout my university degree, I have been required to use technology to
present some assessment pieces, these being:
Wiki
Webquest
Mahara E.Portfolio
Number of PowerPoint Presentations
Some presentations consisted of group work and younger members of the group
preferred to take control of the technology side of things. I was happy for them
to take on this role, as I felt I lacked that knowledge. For the assessments I did
on my own, I utilized the help of my son asking for guidance and assistance.
However for this assessment, I chose to do a PowerPoint presentation entirely
on my own. The first step was to create the slides, choose background
colour, font colour and where I was going to place my text on the slides.
Immediately this became a learning curve. Text boxes provided allowed me to
navigate my way around the slides. Further to this, I accessed images and
although this was frustrating at first to insert an image in the correct
place, through practice and prior knowledge this was achieved.

17. I was challenged in uploading the PowerPoint presentation to the internet, as this is
something I have not attempted before.
As an educator of the future, I believe it is vital to implement digital literacies
into my pedagogical practices. I believe that in creating this PowerPoint
presentation, I have developed skills and knowledge that I know will remain
equally important as I strive to implement appropriate forms of ICT to my
students.

18. Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2006). Developing pedagogies for multiliteracies. In M. Anstey, & G. Bull (Eds.), Teaching and learning
multiliteracies (pp. 56-81). Newark, USA: International Reading Association.
Arthur, L., Beecher, B., Death, E., Dockett, S., & Farmer, S. (2007). Programming & planning in early childhood settings. (4th
ed.). South Melbourne, VIC: Cengage Learning Australia.
Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations for the Council of Australian
Governments. (2009). Belonging, being & becoming. The early years learning framework for Australia. Commonwealth
of Australia.
Bennett, R. (2006). Mathematics and ICT in the early years. In M. Hayes, & D. Whitebread (Eds.), ICT in the early years (pp.
55-71). England: Open University Press.
Children and teacher gathered at computer [Image]. (2012). Retrieved from
http://marcplamondon.nipissingu.ca/wiki/2011_Education.Print.aspx?Page=2011_Education.Advantages-and-
Disadvantages-of-Digital-Technology-in-Education
Children using laptop at home [Image]. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.treehugger.com/clean-
technology/surprisingly-persistent-gender-gap-in-computer-technology-short-circuits-our-future.html
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). Multiliteracies: New literacies new learning, pedagogies: an International Journal, 4(3), 164-
195. Retrieved from https://usqdirect.usq.edu.au/usq/file/868a8bb9-2364-d7cd-e285-
d97d505db344/1/Cope_2009_164.pdf

19. Finger, G., Russell, G., Jamieson-Proctor, R., & Russell, N. (2007). Transforming learning with ICT: Making it happen. Frenchs
Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Healy, A. (2006). Multiliteracies: teachers and students at work in new ways with literacy. In R. Campbell, & D. Green (Eds.),
Literacies and learners current perspectives (pp. 191-207). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia
Hesterman, S. (2011). A contested space: the dialogic intersection of ICT, multiliteracies, and early childhood. Contemporary
Issues in Early Childhood, 12(4), 349-361. Retrieved from http://www.wwwords.co.uk/rss/abstract.asp?j=cie&aid=4824
Martello, J. (2007). Many roads through many modes: becoming literate in childhood. In L. Makin, C. Jones Diaz, & C.
McLachlan (Eds.), Literacies in childhood. Changing views, challenging practice (pp. 89-103). Marickville, NSW:
Elsevier Australia.
O’Brien, J., & Comber, B. (2000). Negotiating critical literacies with young children. In C. Barratt-Pugh, & M. Rohl (Eds.),
Literacy learning in the early years. (pp. 152-171). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Teacher and young children at computers [Image]. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.tech-kidz.com/program.html
Van Hoorn, J., Nourot, P. M., Scales, B., & Alward, K. R. (2011). Play at the centre of the curriculum. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

20. Vasquez, V. M., & Branigan Felderman, C. (2013). Yes we can! Using technology as a tool for social action. In V. M. Vasques, &
C. Branigan Felderman (Eds.), Technology and critical literacy in early childhood (pp. 27-36). New York, NY: Routledge
Whitebread, A. (2006). Creativity, problem solving and playful uses of technology: Games and simulations in the early years. In
M. Hayes, & D. Whitebread (Eds.), ICT in the early years (pp. 87-106). England: Open University Press.
Wing Jan, L. (2009). Write ways. (3rd ed.). South Melbourne: VIC. Oxford University Press.
World globe multiliteracy [Image]. (2011). Retrieved from
http://evosessions.pbworks.com/w/page/33494462/Multiliteracies%202011
Yelland, N. (2007). Making meaning: technology as play. In Shift to the future (pp. 49-63). New York, NY: Routlage Taylor &
Francis Group.