2021_The use of digital technology to enhance language and literacy skills for Indigenous people

SAVE OFFLINE

Journal Pre-proof

The use of digital technology to enhance language and literacy skills for Indigenous people: A systematic literature review Jia Li , Amareen Brar , Novera Roihan PII: DOI: Reference:

S2666-5573(21)00006-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100035 CAEO 100035

To appear in:

Computers and Education Open

Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:

26 August 2020 27 March 2021 11 April 2021

Please cite this article as: Jia Li , Amareen Brar , Novera Roihan, The use of digital technology to enhance language and literacy skills for Indigenous people: A systematic literature review, Computers and Education Open (2021), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100035

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

The use of digital technology to enhance language and literacy skills for Indigenous people: A systematic literature review

Jia Li, Amareen Brar & Novera Roihan University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada

Jia Li is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Education at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, and a Canada-U.S. Fulbright Scholar at the Harvard Graduate School of Education (20112012) and John A. Sproul Research Fellow at the University of California, Berkeley (2018-2019). Her research focuses on data-driven innovative language and literacy instruction using emerging technologies for linguistically diverse students.

Contact information: Faculty of Education University of Ontario Institute of Technology EDU 513, 11 Simcoe Street North, P.O. Box 385 Oshawa, Ontario, Canada L1H7R7 [email protected] or [email protected]

Amareen Brar is a graduate student in the Faculty of Education at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. She has worked with Indigenous students on a mobile technology-supported literacy project. Her research interests include literacy development for disadvantaged student populations and writing for academic purposes.

Contact information: 33 Legendary Circle, Brampton, Ontario, Canada, L6Y 0S1 [email protected]

Novera Roihan is a graduate student in the Faculty of Education at University of Ontario Institute of Technology. Her research focuses on language and literacy development for students learning English as a second or additional language.

1

Contact information: 1003-180 Sackville Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5A 0C5 [email protected]

Highlights

  

 

A thorough literature review examines the research evidence for the efficacy of using digital technology to support Indigenous people’s learning of language and literacy skills. This research synthesis systematically documents and analyzes the comprehensive attributes of 25 empirical studies. An array of digital technologies used and aspects of language and literacy skills addressed are coded and analyzed. Indigenous people and literacy educators’ perspectives indicate an overall positive experience and attitude for using digital technology to support Indigenous people’s learning of language and literacy skills. Measurable learning outcomes of Indigenous students using technologysupported literacy interventions reported promising preliminary results.

1. Introduction 1.1. Background The Indigenous peoples are a fast-growing population in many countries (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018; Statistics Canada, 2017; Statistics New Zealand, 2016); however, most of them, particularly those living in remote areas, have experienced persistent academic underachievement due to diverse political and socio-economic circumstances. For instance, the First Nations people, who represent 60.8% of the total Indigenous population in Canada, have a high school graduation rate of only 36%, compared with the Canadian national graduation rate of

2

72% (Chiefs Assembly on Education, 2012). In Australia, only 16% of Aboriginal adults in the Northern Territory completed high school (Year 12) compared to 54% of the non-Indigenous population (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012-2013). According to United Nations (2017) ―Indigenous students tend to have lower enrolment rates, higher dropout rates, higher absenteeism rates, higher repetition rates, lower literacy rates and poorer educational outcomes than their non-indigenous counterparts‖ (p. 209). Results from large-scale standardized tests have shown that Indigenous students underperform in English reading and writing compared with their non-Indigenous counterparts, falling significantly below required benchmarks (Shalley & Stewart, 2017). Australia’s National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN, 2019) test results have shown that 24.9% of participating Year 9 Aboriginal students were below the national minimum standard (NMS) in English reading compared to 5.2% of their non-Indigenous peers, and 43.8% were below NMS in English writing compared to 13.9% of non-Indigenous students. The situation is more severe for Indigenous people living in areas classified as remote and very remote areas. The Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) results for Canada’s three remote territories reflect the educational disparity between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal adults aged 16 to 65 years by reporting large gaps in language and literacy skill scores: 242 versus 288 in Yukon, 229 versus 280 in the Northwest Territories, and 207 versus 290 in Nunavut (Government of Canada, 2016). Inequitable access to learning resources and opportunities for teachers’ professional development, along with poverty, historical issues and geographic isolation, have led to Indigenous people’s persistent academic failure for decades (Ball, 2009; Peterson, 2016). These complex constraints have further prohibited the development and implementation of effective

3

programs that support their literacy progress. Recent literature has reported that many Indigenous communities have embraced digital technologies. This holds great potential to develop innovative instructional strategies which are urgently needed to support Indigenous people, in particular Indigenous children and youth, who often reside in remote and rural areas, to overcome the persistent barriers in their language and literacy learning.

1.2. Digital technology and Indigenous people Recent advances in mobile technology have greatly contributed to the breakdown of the digital divide. A synthesis study points out that mobile technology has been rapidly adopted by Indigenous youth in Australia and Africa (Johnson, 2016), and a community-owned mobile phone service project reported a strong desire for using mobile technology to communicate in northern Ontario Indigenous communities (Beaton et al., 2015). Mobile phones have become more affordable and accessible for many Indigenous youth, therefore communication via mobile phones has become the norm (Kral, 2009; Kral, 2014). As a result, this has fostered interest, especially among Indigenous youth, in a wide range of digital technologies, and they have actively incorporated information and communication technology (ICT) in their daily lives. Indigenous people often communicate via text messaging and social media and use photography and video to produce content to self-represent and establish their own identity and create visibility within and beyond their communities. Facebook especially has been reported in several studies as becoming part of Indigenous youth’s everyday communications (Brady, Dyson & Asela, 2008; Virtanen, 2015). An earlier study by Singleton et al. (2009) reported that Indigenous elders believed that the use of digital technology opened doors for young people, who in turn play a crucial role in maintaining cultural traditions and bringing contemporary

4

innovations into the community and helps amplify Indigenous voices across time and distance. It is evident that digital technology has been well-received by many Indigenous communities. To help tackle the limited language and literacy skills among Indigenous people, efforts have been made to develop teaching and learning strategies by leveraging digital technology. A growing body of literature has shown that digital technology has enabled new forms of textual communications and linguistic creativity for Indigenous youth who have shown enhanced motivation to partake in literacy learning. Therefore, to examine the effectiveness of using digital technology to enhance language and literacy skills required at school and work for Indigenous people, we conducted a thorough literature review on empirical studies responding to five research questions. Please note, studies examining Indigenous language revitalization using digital technology are not included in this review, due to its scope and focus.

1.3. Research questions 1. What digital technologies have been used to support Indigenous people’s language and literacy learning and practice? 2. What key aspects of Indigenous people’s language and literacy learning and practice have been addressed using digital technology? 3. What are the measurable outcomes of Indigenous people’s language and literacy learning and practice as a result of using digital technology? 4. What are Indigenous people’s perspectives on using digital technology to support their language and literacy learning and practice? 5. What are educators’ perspectives on using digital technology to support Indigenous people’s language and literacy learning and practice?

5

2. Literature search 2.1. Selection criteria and procedures To examine the use and impact of digital technology to support Indigenous people’s learning of (second or additional) language and literacy skills required in school and workforce communication, we reviewed 25 articles reporting on empirical studies that were published in English, peer-reviewed journals between 2000 and 2020. These articles were located using academic search tools in various databases (see below). To be as inclusive as possible and upon consulting with a university librarian, three clusters of keywords were used for the search. The first cluster of keywords reflects the terminologies used to refer to the diverse Indigenous population over the years. The second intends to capture important aspects of language and literacy skills that have been addressed through instruction and self-initiated practice, and the teaching and learning contexts of languages required for Indigenous people at school and work, including but not limited to English. The third cluster includes diverse digital technologies used by the public and their applications in educational settings. To capture all empirical studies on the topic, some keywords were obtained from our pilot, preliminary literature review. These three keyword clusters include (―Indigenous‖) OR (―Indigeneity‖) OR (―Aboriginal‖) OR (―First Nations‖) OR (―Métis‖) OR (―Inuit‖) OR (―FNMI‖) OR (―American Indian‖) OR (―Alaska Native‖) OR (―AI/AN‖) OR (―Native American‖) OR (―Native Canadian‖) OR (―Torres Strait Islander‖) OR ― (Māori people) OR (―Pacific people‖) AND (―language‖) OR (―literacy‖) OR (―multiliteracy‖) OR (―multiliteracies‖) OR (―linguistic‖) OR (―reading skills‖) OR (―writing skills‖) OR (―English curriculum‖) OR (―English learners‖) OR (―L2‖) OR (―ESL‖) OR (―TESOL‖) OR (―TESL‖) OR (―translanguage‖) OR (―translanguaging‖), AND (―technology‖) OR (―ICT‖) OR (―digital media‖) OR (―new media‖) OR (―digital literacy‖) OR (―digital

6

storytelling‖) OR (―filmmaking‖) OR (―video-making‖) OR (―digital learning‖) OR (―eLearning‖) OR (―online learning‖) OR (―Internet learning‖) OR (―web-based learning‖) OR (―blended learning‖) OR (―asynchronous learning‖) OR (―synchronous learning‖) OR (―mobile learning‖) OR (―mLearning‖) OR (―mobile devices‖) OR (―app‖) OR (―social media‖) OR (―social networking‖) OR (―Facebook‖) OR (―Instagram‖) OR (―Snapchat‖) OR (―Twitter‖) OR (―YouTube‖) OR (―blog‖) OR (―texting‖) OR (―Tumblr‖) OR (―gaming‖). We conducted our literature searches using different types of databases; each contributes to specific aspects of relevant literature on the topic. First, we searched three Indigenous studies databases: Bibliography of Native North Americans, Informit Indigenous Collection, and Indigenous Studies Portal—where we looked for the Indigenous perspectives and found 20 articles. Second, we searched two education databases—ERIC, and Educational Source— focusing on this review's educational aspect. Third, we searched the Canadian Business & Current Affairs, and Canadian Reference Centre databases to ensure that we found Canadian focused studies. Fourth, given this review’s pertinence to digital technology, we searched the Communication & Mass Media Complete, and Computers & Applied Sciences Complete databases. These searches led to 236 relevant articles. To ensure our searches were exhaustive, we also conducted search using the Ontario Tech Library discovery layer, Omni Search. This allowed us to search most of the library’s subscription databases all at once. In addition, we searched multidisciplinary databases, Scholars Portal and Academic Search Premier. Finally, we did a large web-crawler search via Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic and Semantic Scholar. Through these searches, we located an additional 260 articles.

7

Through all the searches reported above, 516 articles were identified, capturing all relevant studies in the areas of computer-, mobile-, and technology-assisted language learning. After removing duplicate copies and manually screening each article for relevancy to our inclusion criteria, 22 were deemed as eligible for this review. At last, we hand-searched the reference lists of the 22 articles and found three additional articles. Therefore, a total of 25 articles are included in this review. __________________________________________________________________________ Insert Table 1. Literature inclusion criteria ___________________________________________________________________________

3. Methods 3.1 Key concepts for the review A few key terminologies are adopted for the review. These terms are instrumental as operational concepts for coding and analysis of the results of individual studies. Literacy in a broader sense, according to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (2018) refers to The ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate and compute, using printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning in enabling individuals to achieve their goals, to develop their knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in their community and wider society (p.1). Conventional literacy skills (a.k.a. literacy skills) is defined by the National Institute for Literacy (2008) as

8

Such skills as decoding, oral reading fluency, reading comprehension, writing, and spelling. The use of these skills is evident within all literacy practices, and they are readily recognizable as being necessary or useful components of literacy…Conventional skills can be thought of as being more sophisticated, mature, or later-developing manifestations of reading and writing… (p. vii). Basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) refers to communication that ―is strongly supported by contextual or interpersonal cues (such as gestures, facial expressions, and intonation present in face-to-face interaction)‖ (Cummins, 2000, p. 59). Early literacy skills are defined by the National Institute for Literacy (2008) as Both precursor skills and the conventional literacy skills of preschool and kindergarten children. Conventional reading and writing skills that are developed in the years from birth to age 5 have a clear and consistently strong relationship with later conventional literacy skills (p. vii). Multiliteracies, a term originally coined by the New London Group (1996), is a pedagogical approach that encapsulates two important arguments: multiplicity of communication channels and media and the increasing saliency of cultural and linguistic diversity (p. 63). Multiliteracies focuses on meaning-making, including not only language but also multimodal representations of cultural, linguistic, communicative, and technological diversity. Digital literacies are defined by the American Association of School Librarians (2016) as the ability to use ICT ―to find, evaluate, create, and communicate information, requiring both cognitive and technical skills‖ (Definitions section). Visual literacy is ―a set of abilities that enables an individual to effectively find, interpret, evaluate, use, and create images and visual media,‖ (Association of College and Research

9

Libraries, 2001, para. 2); visual processing is ―the ability to match or discriminate visually presented symbols" (National Institute for Literacy, 2008, p. viii).

3.2. Attributes of the studies 3.2.1. Indigenous participant identities and contexts The 25 studies included in this review were published between 2000 and 2019, and conducted mainly in Australia, Canada, Malaysia, the United States, and Taiwan, and one unspecified country in Latin America. More than half of the studies were conducted over the past 20 years in Australia (n = 14), particularly with Indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory (n = 8) and Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islanders in Queensland (n = 3), Western Australia (n = 1), or Central Australia (n = 1), and with language and literacy practitioners serving Indigenous communities across Australia. About one-fifth of the studies were conducted in Canada with First Nations and other Indigenous people (n = 5). The remaining studies were conducted in the United States with Indigenous Latino students from a South Texas Colonia and Indigenous people of rural south-central Appalachia (n = 2), in Peninsular Malaysia with English language teachers and experts (n = 2), and in Taiwan with Indigenous nursing college students (n = 1). Lastly, one study was conducted with Indigenous children, their parents, and other stakeholders from five villages in Latin America. Fig. 1 displays the identities and locations of the Indigenous participants and language and literacy stakeholders who may or may not be Indigenous themselves (e.g., literacy practitioners, principals, teachers, parents, community representatives, government officials, technology corporate leaders, experts from various related fields). ____________________________________________________________________________ Insert Fig. 1. Studies by Indigenous participant identities and geographical locations (n = 25). ____________________________________________________________________________

10

3.2.2. Participant age group and sample sizes There were a total of approximately 2,610 participants among the 19 studies that reported participant numbers; six studies did not record the number of participants (Auld, 2007; Doherty, 2002; Eady et al., 2010; Harper et al., 2012; Jacobs, 2019; Kral & Heath, 2013). Twelve studies focused on young children and adolescents. Among the studies, six were conducted with kindergarten and primary school children with relatively large sample sizes (e.g., McIntosh et al., 2011; Wolgemuth et al., 2013; Wolgemuth et al., 2011), for a total of at least 1,560 participants between 3-10 years old. The remaining six studies had adolescents or a combination of adolescents and children as participants, often with smaller sample sizes (e.g., Bussert-Webb & Diaz, 2013; Kim, 2009). Five studies included participants in their mid-teens and/or twenties (e.g., Begoray & Brown, 2018; Yu, 2018). Fourteen studies included a mix of youth and adults above 15 years old (e.g., Thanabalan et al., 2015; Wolgemuth, 2011), and of these studies, only three were focused exclusively on adults’ language and literacy development (e.g., Pfeifer, 2019). One study involved Kunibídji (Indigenous Australian) people of mixed ages (Auld et al., 2012). The age distribution of participants is displayed in Fig. 2. The World Health Organization (n.d., 2013) defines ―child‖ as under 18 years of age, ―adolescent‖ between 10 and 19, ―youth‖ between 15 and 24, ―young people‖ between 10 and 24, and ―adult‖ older than 19. For this review, we define ―child‖ as between 3 and 10 years of age, ―adolescent‖ between 10 and 15, ―young people‖ between 10 and 24, ―youth‖ between 15 and 24, and ―adults‖ over 24. Seven studies had participants across age-groups and are double-coded (Harper et al., 2012; Kim, 2009; Pirbhai-Illich, 2010; Pirbhai-Illich et al., 2009; Wolgemuth et al., 2014; Wolgemuth et al., 2013; Wolgemuth et al., 2011). 11

___________________________________________________________________________

Insert Fig. 2. Age distribution of participants (n = 19). ____________________________________________________________________________

3.2.3. Participants by Indigenous language backgrounds and target languages Most of the studies (n = 22) focused on teaching and learning English language skills for Indigenous people as a second or additional language. Among them, two had the goal of enhancing Aboriginal English—a dialect of English—or Indigenous languages in addition to standard English. One study (Kim, 2009) focused on the learning of Spanish by migrant Indigenous children in five Latin American villages who had no stable access to formal education and whose parents had no or limited communication skills in Spanish. The remaining studies, as mentioned above from a cross-linguistic perspective, aimed to improve Indigenous children’s learning of Ndjébbana (Auld, 2007) and Spanish (Bussert-Webb & Diaz, 2013) as a first language. Most studies generally indicated that Indigenous languages were participants’ first or heritage language, without specifying Indigenous language names (n = 13). Three studies provided no first or heritage language information of participants (n = 3). Two studies specified their Indigenous participants spoke Aboriginal English (Doherty, 2002; Kapitzke et al., 2000), and the participants of one study had Spanish as their first language (Bussert-Webb & Diaz, 2013). Participants in the remaining studies (n = 6) accumulatively spoke 14 Indigenous languages either as their first or heritage languages (see Appendix B).

3.2.4. Research objectives of the studies Six key objectives are identified among the 25 studies. They include: 1) investigating the effect (quantitative) and impact (qualitative) of digital technology-based interventions on Indigenous children’s early literacy skills in English (Auld, 2007; McIntosh et al., 2011;

12

Wolgemuth et al., 2014; Wolgemuth et al., 2013; Wolgemuth et al., 2011); 2) investigating the effect and impact of digital technology-based interventions on the digital literacy development of Indigenous people (Doherty, 2002; Kapitzke et al., 2000); 3) investigating the effect and impact of digital technology-based interventions on multiliteracies (Hartnell-Young & Vetere, 2008; Kim, 2009); 4) investigating participants’ digital technology use for their everyday language and literacy in English, digital literacy, and multiliteracies practices (Auld et al., 2012; Bussert-Webb & Diaz, 2013; Jacobs, 2019; Kral & Heath, 2013; Oliver & Nguyen, 2017); 5) investigating Indigenous people’s perspectives or feedback on digital technology-based interventions, including the perceived effects on a variety of language and literacy skills, as noted above (Pfeifer, 2019; Yu, 2018; Mills et al., 2016; Kavanaugh et al., 2013); and 6) investigating language and literacy educators’ perspectives or feedback on digital technology usage and interventions for the language and literacy development of Indigenous people (Eady et al., 2010; Harper et al., 2012; Thanabalan et al; 2015; Thanabalan et al., 2014; Begoray & Brown, 2018; Pirbhai-Illich, 2010; Pirbhai-Illich, 2009).

3.2.5. Research designs of the studies Two-thirds of the studies (n = 17) primarily employed qualitative approaches with 15 having research designs as (multiple-)case study (n = 5), participatory, action, or participatory action research (n = 7), ethnography and participatory action research (n = 1), ethnography and exploratory action research (n = 1), and ethnography and case study (n = 1). One of the two most-used qualitative research instruments was interviews (n = 14), including individual inperson, online and phone interviews, and in-person focus group interviews. Additionally, a few studies indicated collecting information from participants’ discussions, conversations, or

13

meetings (n = 5), similar to conducting focus groups. Observation with an array of multimodal documentation was the other most-used method for data collection (n = 10), including audio, photo, and video recordings of participants or communities, observational field notes, and diaries (see Appendix C). Fewer studies had a primarily quantitative research design (n = 8), such as survey studies, including pre- and post-training questionnaires (n = 4), quasi-experimental pre- and post-test control group design (n = 2), and multisite randomized controlled trial (n = 2). In addition to surveys and questionnaires, these studies collected data using language and literacy skill tests (n = 4) and structured and semi-structured observation measures assessing implementation fidelity, such as through literacy instruction quality (n = 3). Two studies used both qualitative and quantitative instruments for data collection (Kavanaugh et al., 2013; Wolgemuth et al., 2011).

3.3. Coding schemes and data analysis Our team of three authors coded the information from the studies with frequent discussions to reach consensus. To ensure accuracy, over 30% of coding was confirmed by the second and third coder alternatively. In the broad framework of literacy that encompasses conventional literacy and multiliteracies, the coding procedure had two purposes: first, to code the attributes of the studies, providing the readership with an overview of the literature, and second, to code the relevant information responding to the five proposed research questions. To capture the characteristics of the studies, we coded the studies in the five aspects presented above (see subheadings 4.1.1. – 4.1.5.). Then, we coded the digital technologies involved and language and literacy skills addressed in the studies to respond to Research Questions 1 and 2. To answer Research Question 3 regarding the measurable outcomes of using

14

digital technologies to support Indigenous people’s learning of language and literacy skills, we sorted and summarized the studies’ results using quantitative measures (McIntosh et al., 2011; Wolgemuth et al., 2014; Wolgemuth et al., 2013; Wolgemuth et al., 2011). To answer Research Questions 4 and 5 regarding Indigenous people and literacy educators’ perspectives on using digital technology to support Indigenous people’s learning of language and literacy skills, we applied thematic analysis to the findings of original qualitative studies that collected data, often using interviews, observations, and multimodal artifacts. First, we identified codes of participants’ key ideas, feedback (e.g., on interventions), and opinions, then the codes ―within and across data‖ (studies) were sorted for patterns ―in relation to participants’ lived experience, views and perspectives, and behavior and practices‖ (Clarke & Braun, 2017, p. 297). Lastly, we analyzed and interpreted the meaning of the patterns to generate main themes and provide an in-depth understanding of ―what participants think, feel, and do‖ when using digital technologies.

4. Results 4.1.1. Digital technologies used To answer Research Question 1, we coded five major categories of digital technology used for language and literacy tasks and practices, namely digital content creation, Internet practices, digital multimedia, social media, and ICT communication tools, each with 2-5 subcategories (see Appendix D). Two one-level categories were also coded: (online) gaming via phone, computer, and gaming consoles, and a web-based early literacy instruction tool called ABRACADABRA (ABRA). A total of 20 categories consisting of 52 usage counts of digital technology have been either utilized purposefully to support Indigenous people’s language and (multi)literacy

15

development (n = 37, covering 16 categories) or engaged with by Indigenous people, providing opportunities for their learning of language and (multi)literacy skills (n = 15, covering 10 categories). It appears that significantly more and diverse digital technologies were used in researcher- or educator-initiated instructional interventions, programs, projects, and training than participants’ self-initiated digital technology practices that potentially benefit their learning of language and literacy development. However, due to the nature of the studies and limited information, we were unable to code the frequency and duration of technology use across the categories that are critical to its impact on learning experiences and outcomes. Indigenous people’s self-initiated digital technology use was centered on socializing and communication. If online gaming can be considered as a means of socialization, then ―social media‖ had the highest count (n = 7) among the technology categories, particularly Facebook, followed by ―ICT communication‖ (n = 4), mainly text messaging. Internet use for searching information, downloading music, and viewing photos and videos was also mentioned (n = 2). Researcher- or educator-initiated efforts to improve Indigenous people’s language and literacy skills were mostly participatory projects of digital content creation (n = 13), specifically digital storytelling and graphic novel creation (n = 8), followed by computer and Internet training (n = 5). The web-based instruction tool, ABRA, for supporting early literacy development was used in four studies (n = 4).

4.1.2. Learning and practice of language and literacy skills To answer Research Question 2, we developed a coding scheme of 32 categories in an attempt to thoroughly capture the digital technology-supported language and literacy practices and instructional interventions and projects. There are four major categories, each consisting of

16

5-10 subcategories, plus four one-level categories (see Appendix E). The total number of codes applied to the categories (n = 70) reveals significantly more counts of researcher- and educatorinitiated efforts (n = 52) across more diverse categories (n = 24) than counts of Indigenous people’s digital technology-based language and literacy practices (n = 18) across the categories (n = 12). The first major category, ―ICT-based language & literacy practices,‖ depicts the most reported by Indigenous people (n = 11), mostly youth, who practice BICS in their first and English language (including translanguaging) during texting (n = 3) and on social media (n = 3). Most studies contributing to the ―Multiliteracies‖ category (n = 17) were those that used researcher- and educator-initiated digital storytelling projects (n = 10) and digital literacy training with reading and writing practice (e.g., webpage content writing) (n = 5). The ―Early literacy skills‖ category (n = 20) exclusively captures researcher-developed interventions addressing young Indigenous school children’s knowledge of phoneme and phonological awareness, phoneme-grapheme correspondence, and word reading, as reported in three studies using the web-based ABRA instructional tool (Wolgemuth et al., 2014; Wolgemuth et al., 2013; Wolgemuth et al., 2011). A related category is researchers’ interventions for improving Indigenous children and adolescents’ ―Listening comprehension‖ in Ndjébbana (L1), English or Spanish (TLs) using talking books and storytelling DVDs (n = 3). Similarly, five of the six subcategories in the ―Writing skills” category (n = 7) represent researcher- and educator-initiated efforts that support Indigenous people’s writing of narratives, and instructional, informational, and procedural text involving peer review, providing writing instruction via Facebook, and writing assessment using photo descriptors and text messaging.

17

The last subcategory represents Indigenous musicians’ independent song lyric writing, including the use of code-switching (Kral & Heath, 2013).

4.1.3. Effects of technology-based language and literacy interventions: Measurable outcomes To answer Research Question 3, four studies presented measurable outcomes exclusively examining the effect of interventions on young Indigenous and non-Indigenous K-2 children’s early literacy skills. Of the four studies, three used the same web-based instructional tool, ABRA, as noted above, focused on measuring its effect (Wolgemuth et al., 2013, 2011), and one focused on assessing its implementation fidelity (Wolgemuth et al., 2014). The study by McIntosh et al. (2011) investigated the effectiveness of a culturally responsive intervention on improving Indigenous kindergarten children’s early literacy skill development. The intervention included DVD videos of elders and other members of a First Nation community, Nuu-ChahNulth, who shared their songs and stories, and the videos were paired with activities, such as arts and crafts. Regarding the intervention effects, there were four major findings. First, both of Wolgemuth et al.’s studies (2013, 2011) found that children in the ABRA intervention groups outperformed the control groups on the (Group Reading and Diagnostic Education, Level K) GRADE-K phonological awareness and early reading ability with significantly greater posttest scores, regardless of their attendance and teacher literacy instruction quality. McIntosh et al.’s (2011) intervention partly used DVD videos of Indigenous songs and stories and found significant improvements in post-intervention scores of general language skills for children in the treatment group, compared to the control group that had relatively little growth. This was assessed using the Kindergarten Language Screening Test (KLST-2), a screening tool assessing verbal abilities and overall performance. There were also significant increases in the posttest scores of children

18

in the treatment group measured by the Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test, and Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test. Second, ABRA was effective for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous children. The treatment effect was insignificant between them for most outcomes measured by the Performance Indicator in Primary Schools Baseline Assessment (PIPS-BLA); that is, Indigenous children had similar standard score gains per intervention hour. Third, ABRA appears to be especially effective for Indigenous children’s phonological awareness, phoneme-grapheme correspondence, and early literacy skills measured by the GRADE-K test. Specifically, Wolgemuth et al. (2013) found that Indigenous children had significantly greater standard score gains per intervention hour for phonological awareness and early literacy skills than their nonIndigenous peers, although they had less exposure to ABRA. It was suggested that ABRA ―accelerated the early literacy growth of these Indigenous students, to the point where they began to perform as well as their non-Indigenous counterparts in phonological awareness‖ (p. 260). The fourth major finding is that the studies measuring the effect of digital technology-based language and literacy instruction are inconclusive. The DVD videos were only one of three components in McIntosh et al.’s (2011) intervention, thus its impact on the children’s learning of language skills is unclear. The researchers also pointed out that ―the DVD was not shown in favour of more interactive activities‖ (p. 187). Wolgemuth et al. (2013, 2011) indicated that the difference between the control and treatment groups on GRADE-K word reading and the PIPS-BLA reading scale was insignificant, though with a small effect, and the evidence was unclear regarding ABRA’s direct impact on students’ learning outcomes for early reading skills, phoneme-grapheme knowledge, and phonics ability. Analyses showed that the four implementation fidelity measures (usage, exposure, literacy instruction quality, and pretest

19

scores) accounted for between 1.8% (early literacy skills) and 15% (word reading) of students’ literacy scores, indicating there was sufficient variability in ABRA implementation to affect the results (Wolgemuth et al., 2014).

4.1.4. Indigenous people’s perspectives: Using digital technology to support their language and literacy learning and practice To answer Research Question 4, ten studies investigated Indigenous people’s perspectives on researcher- or educator-developed technology-based language and literacy interventions and their self-initiated digital technology practices that potentially benefit their language and literacy development. The first strand of studies includes projects of digital storytelling, graphic novels, digital literacy, and social media-based language instruction (e.g., Kavanaugh et al., 2013; Pfeifer, 2019; Yu, 2018), while the second reports on participants’ self-initiated language and literacy practices during email, texting, and social media communications, and on digital content creation platforms for artwork and music production (Auld et al., 2012; Bussert-Webb & Diaz, 2013; Jacobs, 2019; Kral & Heath, 2013). Of these studies, five solicited the information using surveys or questionnaires, and seven used interviews, focus groups, or discussions; some studies used instruments from both categories. There are five major themes derived from the results of these studies. First, Indigenous participants believed that digital storytelling and digital narratives communicating Public Service Announcements (PSA) effectively supported their learning of multiliteracies—language, literacy, and technology skills, Indigenous knowledge and other skills required at school and work, and moreover contributed to their wellbeing and identity empowerment (Pirbhai-Illich et al., 2009; Begoray & Brown, 2018). Indigenous participants in a correctional centre reported that a work

20

readiness training program using digital storytelling improved their interpersonal and communication skills in their Indigenous languages and English, including written English. The pre- and post-training analyses also revealed that participants’ perceived computer literacy skills, measured by their knowledge, comfort levels, and perceived use of technology for future employment, were enhanced. They expressed a desire to participate in other educational programs while in incarceration and upon release. Furthermore, the creation of their digital narratives, which required personal reflection, helped these Indigenous participants understand important aspects of their Indigenous identity (Pfeifer, 2019). Most digital storytelling projects were conducted among Indigenous youth and were well-received. Students created digital historical poems and narratives to retell Indigenous Dreamtime stories, which acknowledged that transgenerational storytelling is vital to the community and should be continued to be shared, especially through digital mediums for future generations (Mills et al., 2016). This perspective is echoed by the participants in Pfeifer’s (2019) study who reported significantly higher levels of ―cultural identity clarity‖ after the completion of their personal digital stories (p. 40). Secondly, Indigenous people’s use of digital technology enhanced their exposure to and practice of basic interpersonal communication skills (Cummins, 2000) in their Indigenous languages and English. Young students in Bussert-Webb and Diaz’s (2013) study said that telephone and email communications with their families helped them maintain their L1. More and more Indigenous people use mobile phones’ voice and texting features, resulting in improvement of their communication skills (Auld et al., 2012; Kavanaugh et al., 2013). They also reported another common communication practice through digital mediums—the use of more than one language, as well as translanguaging (Auld et al., 2012; Bussert-Webb & Diaz, 2013). For example, Indigenous Latino students in Bussert-Webb and Diaz’s (2013) study

21

indicated they enjoyed Spanish-English translanguaging while reading and writing content on Facebook and through texting and gaming. For the third theme, Indigenous people reported that using visuals to communicate with others helped them with their comprehension, particularly in the areas they lacked literacy skills. Aboriginal musicians relied on symbols to navigate a piece of music production software, GarageBand (Kral & Heath, 2013). Similarly, an Indigenous artist from Jacob’s (2019) study explicitly expressed her dissatisfaction with writing as her main communication form, and instead used other literacy conventions to discuss her work, including symbols, artistic styles, and archetypes. In this way, she could develop and share her artwork, collaborate with others, and engage in social networking. The use of digital images was also reported by Indigenous students as assisting their L1 comprehension, in which they felt a lack of literacy skills (BussertWebb & Diaz, 2013). Fourthly, Indigenous participants responded positively to digital technology-based language and literacy interventions. They seemed more inclined toward technology-based curriculum activities, as opposed to paper-based. A participant in Pirbhai-Illich’s (2010) study expressed his preference for searching for information on the Internet over textbook-based reading comprehension tasks. Similarly, Bussert-Webb and Diaz’s (2013) Indigenous Latino participants expressed their interest in technology-based reading comprehension exercises for homework instead of paper-based ones, to help them prepare for the state-mandated standardized test in Texas, U.S. Lastly, mixed feedback was also reported by Indigenous people. While most Indigenous undergraduate nursing students considered their experience in an English writing class via Facebook motivating, satisfying, collaborative, helpful with their writing skill development, and

22

contributing to their achievement in the class, they became less positive that a web-based environment could replace face-to-face instruction and stimulate learning and interaction with peers after taking the course (Yu, 2018).

4.1.5. Educators’ perspectives: Using digital technology to support Indigenous people’s language and literacy learning and practice To respond to Research Question 5, ten studies investigated educators’ perspectives drawing on interviews, observations, and reflections. Three studies, all situated in Canada, examined teachers’ feedback on projects of digital storytelling and creating graphic novels as part of the language arts curriculum (Begoray & Brown, 2018; Pirbhai-Illich, 2010; Pirbhai-Illich et al., 2009). Two studies reported on teachers’ perceived and observed impacts of multimedia short stories, including ABRA, and a digital storytelling pedagogical module on primary school students’ literacy development in Australia and Malaysia (Harper et al., 2012; Thanabalan et al., 2015). Two studies reported on educators’ (and other community members’) perspectives on the effectiveness of the PLUS program on students’ learning of digital literacy skills (Doherty, 2002; Kapitzke et al., 2000). Four studies reported on teachers’ views on the training and support they received for researcher-initiated efforts, including the ABRA intervention and PLUS program (Harper et al., 2012; Kapitzke et al., 2000; Thanabalan et al., 2015; Wolgemuth et al., 2011). Finally, Eady et al. (2010) investigated literacy practitioners’ perspectives on Indigenous adult learners’ literacy needs with ICT support, and Thanabalan et al. (2014) obtained the opinions of English language educators and experts of ESL curriculum and community knowledge for the digital storytelling module design for primary school students’ learning of English as a foreign language (EFL).

23

Four themes emerged from the findings of these studies. First, teachers noticed that most students responded positively and enjoyed the interventions and projects. The creative process of digital storytelling and graphic novels enhanced student engagement with literacy learning, and a dramatic increase in student attendance was reported by some projects (Begoray & Brown, 2018; Pirbhai-Illich, 2010). The teachers attributed students’ improved engagement to the enabling of the sense of voice nurtured by these projects, encouraging students to develop digital stories with topics relating to their life, such as abuse, bullying, gangs, drugs, and mental health issues (Beogray & Brown, 2018; Pirbhai Illich, 2009; Pirbhai Illich et al., 2010). The perspectives of Eady et al.’s (2010) practitioner participants reflect on the significance of self-expression among Indigenous people. They indicated the need to support Indigenous people’s learning of literacy skills to help them ―negotiate for their community and represent the community’s stance on issues that they feel are important to the well-being of their people and society…‖ (p. 273). Secondly, according to teachers, the array of technology-based interventions and programs enabled students to practice and improve important literacy skills. Students engaged in key narrative writing skills while creating graphic novels; the complex task involved constant editing, critical thinking skills, and evaluating feedback while, for example, composing character depictions to the illustrations (Begoray & Brown, 2018). Teachers from Thanabalan et al.’s (2015) study believed that the cultural relevancy of a pedagogical module, through which Indigenous EFL students viewed digital stories, helped students’ comprehension, such as the story themes and English-L1 translations. Promisingly, teachers in Pirbhai-Illich’s (2010) study observed that through digital storytelling some students improved their literacy skills two to five grade levels; their writing ability enhanced ―from a word and sentential level to paragraphs, and finally full text‖ (p. 264).

24

Thirdly, teachers reported that digital literacy projects helped students’ learning of technological skills that fostered a sense of confidence, in addition to improving their language and literacy skills. As one principal observed, students in Kaptizke et al.’s (2000) study learned webpage construction, Internet and email skills, and overall gained a ―tremendous amount of confidence and also skill in using computers and in using technology‖ (p. 342); students who experienced such programs were informed and acquainted with ICT discourse, which became a part of their communication repertoire. They could use technical terminologies and vocabulary to precisely describe their project progress to others (Doherty, 2002; Kapitzke et al., 2000). Last of all, teachers’ perspectives, critical to implementation fidelity, addressed inadequate training and support provided to them for the researcher-initiated interventions or projects. Though a teacher in Wolgemuth et al.’s (2011) study said that the ABRA training ―helped them develop better lesson plans and identify strategies for direct instruction‖ (p. 740), some teachers commented they lacked training and experience to teach phonological awareness. Similarly, most teachers in Harper et al.’s (2012) study did not feel confident in their ability to teach phonics and phonological awareness, despite the ABRA training. Also, teachers from Kapitzke’s (2000) study reported that they were unable to provide students with appropriate support and follow-up activities during the PLUS program due to the lack of communication between the project team and the school.

5. Discussions To summarize, we identified several meaningful trends in existing research literature, which contributes to an in-depth understanding of a culturally responsive approach to develop feasible and sustainable technology-supported language and literacy teaching and learning practice in

25

Indigenous contexts. First, most of the studies included in this review were conducted with Indigenous children and youth. This is in line with the non-Indigenous population that young people are early adopters of new technologies, and educators should develop innovative language and literacy instruction using technology and encourage Indigenous students to integrate their learning of language and literacy skills with their increasing use of social media and technological devices. Second, the majority of the studies were ethnography, exploratory and participatory action research and case studies that were deeply rooted in Indigenous community culture and practice. Most importantly, most of the reported technology-supported language and literacy practices, and instructional interventions and projects focused on the development of Indigenous people’s multiliteracies—a combination of digital literacies with reading and writing skills— which in general was well received by Indigenous participants. These were achieved through mainly digital content creation—digital storytelling production social media and webpage content reading and writing. While recognizing the limitations and need to develop and implement systematic technology-assisted instruction to enhance Indigenous students’ measurable learning outcomes of language and literacy skills, the present review provides insight into two aspects as discussed in the next section. This is critical to the success of technologysupported instructional strategies and resources developed to support Indigenous people’s learning of language and literacy skills.

5.1. Culturally responsive multiliteracy framework From this review, it is clear that an applaudable effort has been made by researchers and educators to provide Indigenous people with language and literacy instruction within culturally

26

relevant contexts, honouring Indigenous culture and knowledge and integrating training of digital literacy and other skills. This culturally responsive multiliteracy framework is exemplified by the emphasis on digital storytelling projects, digital literacy training, and art- and music-based language and literacy learning practices. On the one hand, this critical pedagogical multiliteracy approach provides scaffolds to Indigenous people, particularly youth, who may not possess the language and literacy skills needed to comprehend and convey textual messages through multimodal representations of meaning-making. On the other hand, it enables Indigenous students to have a holistic learning experience in acquiring a broad range of language, literacy, and digital technology skills within the context of a strong discourse, empowering their Indigenous identities. More importantly, Indigenous people’s creative expressions through multimodality helps them adopt an authentic voice against stereotypes and discrimination. Consideration for Indigenous students’ culture and worldview, and the value placed on their contributions, innovations, and inventions through such projects nurtures their self-esteem—a critical factor in their academic success (Toulouse, 2008). Additionally, most research projects with a focus on multiliteracies encouraged constructive knowledge building through teamwork and peer coaching that provided students with more scaffolding for their learning (Begoray & Brown, 2018).

5.2. Applicability of the use of digital technology for Indigenous people’s language and literacy development Though only four studies reported on findings related to a web-based tool, ABRA, these articles contributed insights regarding its effectiveness on early literacy development using ICT and feasibility in the classroom (Harper et al., 2012; Wolgemuth et al., 2014; Wolgemuth et al.,

27

2013; Wolgemuth et al., 2011). These findings are important to inform the design and implementation of future digital literacy tools. Moreover, a key finding among these studies was that under controlled circumstances, ABRA had positive implications for primary school students’ literacy learning, especially for Indigenous students. Research has also shown that the positive implications of digital technology-based interventions are present even among people with diverse Indigenous tribal backgrounds (Yu, 2018), which further supports the applicability of these interventions for Indigenous people. The other studies reporting on Indigenous people’s positive attitudes and perceived effectiveness of these interventions further affirm the viability and value of using digital technology to support Indigenous people’s language and literacy development. Another important contribution of the literature is the investigation of Indigenous people’s interest and use of digital technology, and the results clearly indicate that Indigenous people are keen users of digital technology in their daily lives. In particular, Indigenous youth are avid users of various digital technologies, predominantly social media, text messaging, and gaming, through which they have exposure to and opportunities to practice their bilingual or even multilingual skills and also proudly showcase their Indigenous identities. Use of these digital technologies is intrinsically self-motivated, a practice that researchers and educators can leverage to support Indigenous people’s learning of language and literacy skills effectively.

6. Conclusions 6.1. Implications of the present study This article is the first to conduct a thorough review of empirical evidence providing insight for researchers and educators on the use of digital technologies to support Indigenous people’s

28

language and literacy skills required at school and work, mostly in English. One of its strengths lies in the coding schemes we developed to systematically document the attributes and results of the studies, given their diverse methods and findings. However, there are some limitations to this review. We were unable to locate empirical studies on using digital technology to support English learning, practice and use of all Indigenous groups, for example Māori people of New Zealand—a critical gap that warrants future research. Due to the scope and focus of the present review, we excluded studies examining Indigenous language revitalization using digital technology, which may have provided extra insights. Also, owing to our inability to access and review the literature published in languages other than English, we were unable to capture greater geographical diversity, in terms of Indigenous people and target languages required at school and work, though this review does include studies from countries where English is not an official language, such as Malaysia and Taiwan.

6.2. Limitations and future research Several limitations are found across the reviewed studies. First, there is a lack of a more coherent approach to rigorous research methods and/or scientific reports of results, compromising the validity and reliability of the findings. Many studies relied heavily on anecdotal data; few investigated measurable outcomes using standardized language and literacy measures (Wolgemuth et al., 2013; Wolgemuth et al., 2011). Some articles did not report on the durations of projects or the frequency of teaching and learning activities during interventions. Much information was missing, including participant numbers, age, and their language skills. Second, no study reported on the school- and community-based groundwork that is crucial to ensure the success of instructional interventions—implementation fidelity and sustainability—

29

when working with Indigenous populations with unique cultures, traditions, and needs. Without a comprehensive understanding of individual and collective Indigenous communities and their potential compatibility with digital technology-based instruction designs, such initiatives may not be feasible or sustainable in the long term for specific Indigenous groups. Though most reviewed studies reported positive outcomes of their digital technology-based language and literacy interventions, Indigenous communities may not have the resources and infrastructure to support such programs and projects independently. The strengths and limitations of the existing studies indicate promising directions for future research to pursue, along with gaps that need to be addressed. First, studies that adopted a culturally relevant multiliteracies framework demonstrated favourable impacts on Indigenous people’s language and literacy learning, which future research should continue to substantiate with more well-documented data. More rigorous evaluation measures of these programs should be implemented, taking ecologically friendly, culturally appropriate approaches to language and literacy assessment, integrating with Indigenous literacy traditional practice. Thus, there is a need for data coding schemes that can capture the subtleties of Indigenous people’s language and literacy learning progress within a culturally responsive multiliteracy framework. Second, future research may employ large-scale workshops or surveys when possible to systematically gauge Indigenous students’ access to and interest in digital technology. Such data will provide timely information for the design and implementation of digital technology-based language and literacy interventions to engage Indigenous youth more broadly, which could be especially helpful to combat the high dropout rates in many Indigenous regions. Next, longitudinal research is needed to track Indigenous students’ engagement and progress with digital technology-based programs in the long term; this includes monitoring their language

30

and literacy development from elementary to middle school—a critical period that shapes their educational and professional aspirations. Projects of this nature will also help students build a sense of belonging with the program team, through which they can feel their efforts and contributions are being honoured and appreciated, ultimately fostering positive academic identity against challenges, such as high teacher turnover and unstable family environments. To ensure the success of longitudinal studies, a synergistic research partnership between language and literacy stakeholders—including researchers, schools, Indigenous elders and community members, and workforce representatives from the community and beyond—are required to ensure sustainability and implementation fidelity of digital technology-based language and literacy initiatives. Finally, future intervention tools should strive to incorporate more Indigenous cultural elements and consider more diverse age groups, particularly Indigenous adolescents who are attracted to mobile technology and social media. Overall, this review has demonstrated a hopeful trend toward adopting digital technologies for Indigenous people’s language and literacy learning. Future research should continue this momentum with careful consideration of the situational and contextual factors unique to Indigenous communities.

31

Appendix A Empirical studies on the digital technology use to support the development of language and literacy skills for Indigenous people (n = 25) Appendix B Indigenous languages as L1 and HL, variations of English as a home language, target language. Appendix C Research instruments for data collection. Appendix D Digital technologies and media used for language and literacy tasks and practices (n = 52) Appendix E Technology-supported language and literacy practices and instructional interventions and projects (n = 70). Acknowledgement This project was supported by an Insight Development Grant of Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), Canada, awarded to the first author and her team. The second author, Amareen Brar was supported by a Zilinsky Graduate Scholarship for new knowledge benefitting the quality of life for Indigenous children and youth. The authors would like to express gratitude to Chelsie Lalonde, Librarian at Ontario Technology University for her assistance in literature search. Declaration of interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

32

References ALA American Library Association . (n.d.). Committee on Literacy. American Library Association : http://www.ala.org/aboutala/committees/ala/ala-literacy American Association of School Librarians (AASL). (2016). Instructional role of the school librarian. American Association of School Libraries. http://www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/aaslissues/positionstatements/AAS L_Position_Statement_Instructional_Role_SL_2016-06-25.pdf Association of College and Research Libraries (a division of the American Library Association). (2001). ACRL Visual Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/visualliteracy#:~:text=Visual%20Literacy%20Defined, create%20images%20and%20visual%20media.&text=Evaluate%20images%20and%20th eir%20sources,meaningful%20images%20and%20visual%20media Auld, G. (2007). Talking books for children’s home use in a minority Indigenous Australian language context. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(1), 48-67. doi:https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1273 Auld, G., Snyder, I., & Henderson, M. (2012). Using mobile phones as placed resources for literacy learning in a remote Indigenous community in Australia. Language and Education, 26(4), 279–296. doi:10.1080/09500782.2012.691512 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013). 4727.0.55.001 - Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health survey: First results, Australia, 2012-13. https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/4727.0.55.001main+features80201213 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018). 3302.0.55.003 - Life Tables for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2015-2017. https://beta.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples/lifetables-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-australians/latest-release Ball. J. (2009). Supporting young Indigenous children’s language development in Canada: A Review of Research on Needs and Promising Practices. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(1), 19-47. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.66.1.019 Beaton, B., Burnard, T., Linden, A., & O'Donnell, S. (2015). Keewaytinook mobile: An Indigenous community-owned mobile phone service in northern Canada. In L. Dyson, S. Grant & M. Hendriks (eds.), Indigenous People and Mobile Technologies, Routledge. Sydney, Australia, 109-124.

33

Begoray, D., & Brown, A. (2018). Empowering Indigenous learners through the creation of graphic Novels. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 3, 132-151. doi:10.23860/JMLE2018-10-03-08 Brady, F., Dyson, L. E., & Asela, T. (2008). Indigenous adoption of mobile phones and oral culture . ICT And Indigenous Oral Culture, 384-398. Bussert-Webb, K., & Díaz, M. (2013). Digital literacy, language, and latinos: L1.4Word. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 1-50. Chefs Assembly on Education (2012). A portrait of First Nations and education. Available at http://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/events/fact_sheet-ccoe-3.pdf. Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297-298. doi:10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613 Closing the Gap Clearinghouse, Australian Government. (2010). School attendance and retention of Indigenous Australian students. https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=indigenous_educ ation Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire (Vol. 23). Multilingual Matters. Doherty, C. (2002). Extending horizons: Critical technological literacy for urban Aboriginal students. International Reading Association, 46(1), 50-59. www.jstor.org/stable/40017505 Government of Canada. (2016). In focus: PIAAC in Canada - What is the role of education in developing literacy and numeracy skills in the territories? Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. PIAAC in Canada. http://cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/363/InFocus_RoleOfEducatio n_August18_EN.pdf Harper, H., Helmer, J., Lea, T., Chalkiti, K., Emmett, S., & Wolgemuth, J. (2012). ABRACADABRA for magic under which conditions? Case studies of a webbased literacy intervention in the Northern Territory. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 35(1), 33-50. Hartnell-Young, E., & Vetere, F. (2008). A means of personalising learning: incorporating old and new literacies in the curriculum with mobile phones. The Curriculum Journal, 19(4), 283-292. doi:10.1080/09585170802509872

34

Eady, M., Herrington, A., & Jones, C. (2010). Literacy practitioners’ perspectives on adult learning needs and technology approaches in Indigenous communities. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 50(2). https://oculit.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01OCUL_IT/1nbm9s4/cdi_proquest_journals_749 780370 Jacobs, C. (2019). Two-Row Wampum eeimagined: Understanding the hybrid digital lives of contemporary Kanien’kehá:ka youth. Studies in Social Justice, 13(1), 59-72. doi:https://doi.org/10.26522/ssj.v13i1.1962 Johnson, G. M. (2016). Technology use among Indigenous adolescents in remote regions in Australia. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 21(2), 218-231. Jorgensen, R. (2013). Chapter 12: Using digital media to mediate learning in remote Aboriginal communities . In Pedagogies to Enhance Learning for Indigenous Students: Evidence Based Practice (pp. 193-211). Springer. Kapitzke, C., Bogitini, S., Chen, M., MacNeill, G., Mayer, D., Muirhead, B., & Renshaw, P. (2000). Weaving words with the Dreamweaver: Literacy, indigeneity, and technology. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(4), 336-345. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/40015348 Kavanaugh, A., Puckett, A., & Tatar, D. (2013). Scaffolding technology for low literacy groups: From mobile phone to desktop PC? International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 29(4), 274-288. doi:10.1080/10447318.2013.765766 Kim, P. (2009a). Action research approach on mobile learning design for the underserved. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(3), 415-435. doi:10.1007/s11423-008-9109-2 Kral, I. (2009b). The acquisition of media as culture practice: Remote Indigenous youth and new digital technologies. In L. Ormond-Parker, A. Corn, C. Fforde, K. Obata, & S. O'Sullivan (Eds.), Information Technology and Indigenous Communities (pp. 53-73). Australia: AIATSIS Research Publication. Kral, I. (2009). The literacy question in remote Indigenous Australia . Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, 1-4. Kral, I. (2014). Shifting perceptions, shifting identities: Communication technologies and the altered social, cultural and linguistic ecology in a remote indigenous context. The Australian Journal of Anthropology, 171-181. doi:10.1111/taja.12087

35

Kral, I., & Heath, S. (2013). The world with us: Sight and sound in the ―cultural flows‖ of informal learning. An Indigenous Australian case. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2(4), 227-237. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2013.07.002 McIntosh, K., Mathews, S., Gietz, C., MacKay, L. D., Pelser, J., Mah, I., & Edgecombe, J. (2011). Effects of a culturally responsive speech and language intervention for students of Indigenous and non-Indigenous heritage. Canadian Journal of Education, 34(3), 181195. Mills, K., Davis-Warra, J., Sewell, M., & Anderson, M. (2016). Indigenous ways with literacies: transgenerational, multimodal, placed, and collective. Language and Education, 30(1), 121. doi:10.1080/09500782.2015.1069836 National Assessment Program. (2019). NAPLAN Results. Australian Curruculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. https://reports.acara.edu.au/Home National Assessment Program. (2019). Achievement of year 9 Students in reading, by Indigenous status, by state and territory, 2019. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. National Institute for Literacy. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the national early literacy panel. https://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf OECD. (2014). Skills mismatch in literacy in Canada is low by international comparison: Percentage of over- and under-skilled workers. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: https://doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-can-2014-en. Oliver, R., & Nguyen, B. (2017). Translanguaging on Facebook: Exploring Australian Aboriginal multilingual competence in technology-enhanced environments and its pedagogical implications. 2017, 73(4), 463-487. doi:10.3138/cmlr.3890 Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Peterson, S.S. (2016). Research in Canada’s northern rural and indigenous communities: Supporting young children’s oral language and writing. The Reading Teacher, 70(3), 383-387. doi:10.1002/trtr.1519 Pfeifer, J. (2019). Education, technology and Indigenous prisoners: Examining the impact of a culture-specific program on work readiness, skill development and cultural identity. Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues, 31-44.

36

Pirbhai-Illich, F. (2010). Aboriginal students engaging and struggling with critical multiliteracies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(5), 257-266. doi: https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.54.4.3 Pirbhai-Illich, F., Turner, K. N., & Austin, T. Y. (2009). Using digital technologies to address Aboriginal adolescents’ education. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 3(2), 144-162. doi:10.1108/17504970910967573 Shalley, F., & Stewart, A. (2017). Aboriginal adult english language literacy and numeracy in the Northern Territory:A statistical overview. Casuarina, Northern Territory: Charles Darwin University. http://cdu.edu.au/sites/default/files/opvcil/55675_wce_statistical_report_lr_fin_r2.pdf Singleton, G., Rola-Rubzen, M. F., Muir, K., Muir, D., & McGregor, M. (2009). Youth empowerment and information and communication technologies: A case study of remote Australian Aboriginal community. GeoJournal, 74(5), 403-413. Statistics Canada. (2017). Aboriginal peoples in Canada: Key results from the 2016 census. Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/171025/dq171025aeng.htm?indid=14430-1&indgeo=0 Statistics New Zeland. (2016). National Ethnic Population Projections: 2013 (base) – 2038. http://www.stats.govt.nz Thanabalan, T. V., Alias, N., & Siraj, S. (2014). Development of a responsive pedagogy incorporating technology for the Indigenous learners in Malaysia. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(2), 44-53. Thanabalan, T. V., Siraj, S., & Alias, N. (2015). Evaluation of a digital story pedagogical module for the Indigenous learners using the stake countenance model. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 176, 907-914. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.557 The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-93. United Nations. (2017). State of the world's Indigenous People: Education. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. New York: United Nations publication. https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wpcontent/uploads/sites/19/2017/12/State-of-Worlds-Indigenous-Peoples_III_WEB2018.pdf United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). (n.d.). Definition of Youth. https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/youth/fact-sheets/youth-definition.pdf

37

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (2018). Defining Literacy. http://gaml.uis.unesco.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/12/4.6.1_07_4.6-definingliteracy.pdf Virtanen, P. K. (2015). Indigenous social media practices in southwestern Amazonia. Alternative, 11(4), 350-362. Wolgemuth, J., Savage, R., Helmer, J., Harper, H., Lea, T., Abrami, P., Kirby, K., Chalkiti, K., Morris, P., Carapetis, J., & Louden, W. (2013). ABRACADABRA aids Indigenous and non-Indigenous early literacy in Australia: Evidence from a multisite randomized controlled trial. Computers & Education, 250-264. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.002 Wolgemuth, J., Savage, R., Helmer, J., Lea, T., Harper, H., Chalkiti, K., Bottrell, C., & Abrami, P. (2011). Using computer-based instruction to improve Indigenous early literacy in Northern Australia: A quasi-experimental study. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(4), 727-750. doi:10.14742/ajet.947 Wolgemuth, J., Abrami, P., Helmer, J., Savage, R., Harper, H., & Lea, T. (2014). Examining the Impact of ABRACADABRA on early literacy in Northern Australia: An implementation fidelity analysis. The Journal of Educational Research, 299-311. doi:10.1080/00220671.2013.823369 World Health Organization . (2014 ). Recognizing adolescence. Health for the World's Adolescents. https://apps.who.int/adolescent/second-decade/section2/page1/recognizingadolescence.html Yu, W.-C. (2018). 2018. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 17-32. doi:10.4018/IJICTE.2018010102

38

Indigenous (Northern Territory & Western Australia, Australia) - 21% (Indigenous) language/literacy stakeholders (primarily Northern Territory, Australia) - 18% Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander (Queensland, Australia) - 7% 4%

4% 4%

Kunibídji (Maningrida, Northern Territory, Australia) - 7% 21%

Aboriginal (Ngaanyatjarra Lands, Western Australia, Australia) - 3%

7%

Indigenous (British Columbia, Canada) - 7%

4% 4%

First Nations & Métis (British Columbia, Canada) - 7%

3% 18%

7%

Kanien’kehá:ka (aka Mohawk) people (Canada) - 3% Latino, Indigenous (South Texas, U.S.) - 4%

7% 3%

7%

7%

Indigenous (South Central Appalachia, Virginia, U.S.) - 4% (Indigenous) language/literacy stakeholders for Temuan-Orang Asli (Peninsular Malaysia) - 7% Indigenous (Latin America) - 4% (Indigenous) language/literacy stakeholders (Latin America) -4% Aboriginal (Taiwan) - 4%

Fig. 1. Studies by Indigenous participant identities and geographical locations (n = 25). Note: 1. Participants in four studies are coded in two categories: ―Indigenous (Northern Territory & Western Australia)‖ and ―(Indigenous) language/literacy stakeholders (primarily Northern Territory, Australia)‖; these include Harper et al. (2012), Wolgemuth et al. (2014), Wolgemuth et al. (2013), and Wolgemuth et al. (2011). 2. Kim (2009) is coded for both ―Indigenous (Latin America)‖ and ―(Indigenous) language/literacy stakeholders (Latin America)‖ categories. 3. Yu’s (2018) participants from six tribes in Taiwan, including Amis, Atayal, Bunun, Paiwan, Puyuma, and Saisyiat, are coded as ―Aboriginal (Taiwan).‖ 4. Non-Indigenous participants, who were part of participants in some studies, are excluded from this figure (Begoray & Brown, 2018; Harper et al., 2012; McIntosh et al., 2011; Wolgemuth et al., 2014; Wolgemuth et al., 2013; Wolgemuth et al., 2011).

39

Fig. 2. Age distribution of participants (n = 19). Note: 1. To limit skewness, McIntosh et al.’s (2011) kindergarten participants (n = 774) and Wolgemuth et al.’s (2013) primary school participants (n = 312) are excluded from this figure. 2. Kim’s (2009) study included over 250 children and adolescent participants, so only 250 participants are accounted in this figure. 3. Pirbhai-Illich (2010) did not specify the exact number of participants but indicated that one grade 7 and one grade 8 classes participated, and each class had up to 12 students. Thus, we estimate a total of 24 participants.

40

Table 1 Literature inclusion criteria. Literature Type Empirical studies collecting data using qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods Publication Source

Articles published in peer-reviewed English journals

Participants

Indigenous people of any age, gender, geographical location, cultural and language background, and socioeconomic status, non-Indigenous participants as part of the research, and language and literacy stakeholders for Indigenous people

Digital Technology

Studies focusing on at least one type of digital technology (e.g., social media, mobile phones, multimedia software applications)

Language and/or Literacy

Studies investigating the use of digital technology by and for Indigenous people, to support learning of (second or additional) language and literacy skills required in school or workforce* Note: Two studies had a cross-linguistic perspective of L1 competence supporting the development of English language and literacy skills: Auld’s (2007) Kunibídji child participants learning Ndjébbana as part of the Ndjébbana Two Way Learning Program when they first entered school, and Bussert-Webb & Diaz’s (2013) native Spanish speaker students’ learning Spanish.

41

Appendix A Empirical studies on the digital technology use to support the development of language and literacy skills for Indigenous people (n = 25) Author(s) Publication Year Journals 1. Auld (2007) Australasian Journal of Educational Technology

2. Auld et al. (2012) Language and Education

3. Begoray and Brown (2018) Journal of Media Literacy Education

4. Bussert-Webb and Diaz (2013) Journal of Literacy and

Participants and Location

Research Objectives

Research Instruments (qualitative or quantitative)

Key Findings

•Kunibídji (Indigenous Australian) primary school children from Maningrida, a remote community of 200 members, Northern Territory, Australia

To report on Kunibídji children’s interactions with Ndjébbana Talking Books (NTB), accessed at home via researcher-given touch screen computers

Qualitative: •Video recordings of the children’s interactions with the touch screen computers over 6 months •Recording of the number of taps on each of 3 touch screens in the community

•95 Kunibídji (Indigenous Australian) people from Maningrida, a remote linguistically diverse community, Northern Territory, Australia (at all age/mixed age)

To report on how mobile phones are placed resources for the Kunibídji people, and ways they can be used for everyday literacy practices

Quantitative: •A 45-question survey asked to participants through interviews.

•27 adolescents in gr. 1012 (19 Indigenous and 8 non-Indigenous) from 2 different schools, British Columbia, Canada (urban)

To address the impact of participant-created multimedia graphic novels of their choice on students’ under-standing in health and literacy in English Language Arts class To examine language opportunities and practices in relation to digital literacies

Qualitative: •15-20 min. individual interviews •Multimedia graphic novels •2 non-Indigenous teacher interviews, approx. 45 mins. each

•Cumulatively, the 3 touch screens available to the participants for 80 days led to 112,480 taps. The author suggested the large number of taps was indicative of children’s desire to access L1 texts at home using technology that makes narratives understandable. •Though only a small number of children can read Ndjébbana text, they were able to decode the stories’ texts with audio and visual narration of NTBs quickly accepted by children. •The children exchanged discourse in Ndjébbana as they decided which stories to view next using keywords from the stories. •No participant had a computer at home. •44% participants without their own mobile phones borrowed one from friends and family. •56% owned phones and shared them. •Females and 16-35 y/o were more likely to possess a phone. •Texting was not a common practice, suggesting due to low print literacy levels and the cost of texting. Of those who texted, 63% used English; 26% used mixed English and another language; 12% did not use English. •All participants owning a phone used the Internet, largely for entertainment. •Participants spoke 8 languages on the phone with almost half of them using more than one language (63% in Ndjébbana, followed by 31% in Burarra and English). •All the Indigenous student writers were able to demonstrate their understanding of critical media health literacy in their narratives. •According to teachers, the project (a) helped students find a way to express their unique messages, (b) develop narrative writing skills by constant editing, feedback and choice of visuals, (c) required critical thinking, especially for depiction of characters, (d) was an enjoyable student experience. In-school contexts: •Participants lacked technology-based experiences in school and for homework. •Some expressed desire for ―technology-based reading passages with comprehension questions to prepare them for the state-

•29 Latino (Indigenous) gr. 1-7 students (6-14 y/o) from a South Texas colonia, the U.S.

Qualitative: •Open-ended, 24-hr literacy logs •3 sets of semistructured and structured interviews, spoken in English-

42

Spanish combinations •Participant observations

Technology

(regional and remote rural)

5. Doherty (2002)

•Upper primary and lower secondary school Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, South East Queensland, Australia (urban)

To help participants develop critical literacy skills needed in technological settings, using the Positive Links between University and Schools program (re. use the computer, read emails, Internet search etc.)

Qualitative: •Researcher observation •Students’ discussion with the teaching team

•Literacy practitioners who work with Indigenous adult literacy learners across Australia

To examine literacy practitioners’ perspectives of Indigenous learners’ literacy needs with the ICT support

Qualitative: Online focus group interviews using the synchronous platform, iVocalize

Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy

6. Eady et al. (2010) Australian Journal of Adult Learning

mandated standardized test‖ (p. 13) instead of paper-based work. •They reported receiving little L1 instruction; the curriculum is mainly English. •28 participants preferred to read and write in English, as they lacked skills and confidence in L1. Out-of-school contexts: •Most had computers and Internet at home for non-academic purposes. •All reported playing games with computers, DSs, PSPs, Xboxes, and cellphones mostly in English. •Most communicated with friends via Facebook, Myspace, and texting (1-3 graders did not text) in both English and Spanish •Participants reported SpanishEnglish translanguaging while reading and writing digital texts. •Language choice depended on interlocutor preferences and family influences. •Maintaining familial communications via digital technology helped maintain L1. •Digital features, i.e. images and auto correct, assist participants with L1 comprehension. •Participants reported feeling ―fine‖ with not using more L1 in digital contexts. •Students learned and actively engaged with novel technical vocabularies by regularly e-mailing principals with a description of their project progress. •The program facilitated independent learning and problem-solving by encouraging a 4-step learner-centred trouble-shooting process (read the screen, read your notes, ask a friend, and ask a tutor). •Students e-mailed to communicate with the teaching team and with ―e-pals‖ outside of the community. •Students created the hypertext and multimedia products moreover became competent in ICT and took a more critical role engaging with texts. •Practitioners suggested 4 key Indigenous literacy needs: a) understand the complexities of learners’ language and their negative educational experiences, b) improve all literacy skills, incl. everyday tasks (e.g. filling out forms) and digital literacies for employment and educational opportunities, c) support Indigenous children through adult learners’ educational experiences, d) enable the community to articulate and represent their stance by enhancing their literacy in English and Westernised terminology. •To meet the needs, culturally relevant approaches are required (e.g. read-aloud and storytelling, music, Elders’ advice), in

43

7. Harper et al. (2012) Australian Journal of Language and Literacy

8. Hartnell-Young & Vetere (2008) The Curriculum Journal

•Principals, teachers, assistant teachers, tutors, and Indigenous and nonIndigenous students (4-8 y/o) from 4 primary schools, Northern Territory, Australia (urban and remote)

To examine the use of ABRACADABRA (ABRA), a free computer-based tool, for supporting early literacy instruction

Qualitative: •Semi-structured classroom observations of the teachers’ ABRA literacy lessons •Field notes •Semi-structured interviews of all participants

•4 Indigenous secondary school male students, Northern Territory, Australia (urban and remote)

To explore the possibility of using a mobile camera phone activity to enrich Indigenous students’ curriculum through new literacy practices

Qualitative: •Project: Participants created digital content on the phones to share with the teacher and researchers. Participants were given mobile camera phones with Lifeblog software that automatically stored text, images, and videos, and they used the phones as they wished. •Student conversations about their experiences.

addition to a community development focus and mentorship program, •Practitioners reported using various technology (e.g. computers and digital cameras) and applications (e.g. social media, PPT, online games, and Movie Maker) that improved learners’ reading, writing, oral presentation, communication and word processing skills. •Practitioners believed ICT helps Indigenous learners feel more confident by learning literacy in their own comfortable space and gain more access to higher education, job training and social networking and communication opportunities. •Most teachers were not confident in phonics and phonological awareness even after the ABRA training. •Some felt that the addition of ABRA in their lessons caused children’s confusion. •Teachers reported behavioural issues that disrupted ABRA lessons. •A school leader expressed concern regarding the disruption of ABRA implementation due to teacher turnover. •Teachers reported technological issues of ABRA, i.e. games freezing, and sound bugs. •Observation and interviews indicated children seemed to enjoy ABRA, suggested by authors, for its child-friendly iconography and game-based design. •Teachers liked the Canadian-based tool with relevant cultural elements providing children learning opportunities. •The teacher met with the students regularly coaching them using texting features to improve their writing skills. •Student A’s text messages were mostly about football, and his text notes tended to be simple descriptors of his videos. •Student B had created a timeline of videos, however, there were very little text, so the teacher encouraged him to write simple descriptors. •Student C took videos of his family, daily life, and oral and visual Indigenous stories, and verbally recounted the videos to the researchers in English. The teacher encouraged him to write the stories to improve writing literacy as the goal of the curriculum. •Though authors reported no evidence of improved writing skills, various forms of storytelling, i.e. using video to capture oral stories, supports new literacy learning.

44

9. Jacobs (2019)

Studies in Social Justice

10. Kapitzke et al. (2000) Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy

11. Kavanaugh et al. (2013) International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction

•Kanien’kehá:ka (Mohawk) youth (13-17 y/o), Canada (urban) •The main participant (13 y/o) is a self-taught artist, Maren, specializing in character drawings using traditional method digital media

To explore Indigenous youth participants’ digital life and experience with multiliteracies through a digital storytelling project

Qualitative: •The researcher teamparticipants informal working sessions, discussing of creating digital stories and digital practices.

•20 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary and secondary school students (gr. 6-9), Queensland, Australia

To enhance the literacy and numeracy skills of participants through the Positive Links between Universities and Schools project, an afterschool program that trained students to design and construct their own web pages using computers

Qualitative: •Literacy outcomes were assessed through studentscreated web pages •Informal interviews with principals, teachers, students, parents, and community members •Student surveys re. levels of computer use and access to computers at school and home

•60 adults of low socioeconomic status (SES) (mostly Indigenous to rural South-Central Appalachia, Virginia, the U.S.), who worked as housekeepers or maintenance staff at Virginia Tech University. Participants voluntarily enrolled in the ―Basic Computer Training‖ or ―Basic

To explore the effectiveness of ―Basic Computer Training‖ or ―Basic Internet‖ courses, for adults with low SES and low computer literacy skills, in learning basic computing skills and knowledge using their cell phones

Quantitative: 2 short questionnaires pre- and post-course regarding cell phone, computer, and Internet experiences Qualitative: Small, semistructured, post-course focus group interviews •Class observation

•Maren preferred visual representation and oral communication over writing, as seen through her digital art using various platforms (i.e. Deviant Art, Aggie.io, Frame Cast, Instagram, YouTube, and Discord) to develop and share her art, collaborate with others, and engage in social networking. •Through her digital activities, Maren learned skills and developed literacies independently. •―Although Maren explicitly rejects writing as her preferred means of communicating, she is using language and literacy conventions [e.g. artistic styles, symbols, archetypes, etc.] to discuss her work.‖ (p. 69) •Students had limited access to computers and the Internet at home and in school. •According to the authors, all participants through the project achieved proficiency in several technological literacy skills, incl. web page construction, Internet skills, and e-mail skills. •Participants were able to tutor each other successfully; most of them engaged with email communications using Dreamweaver, a digital help tool managed by the older participants. •Two students expressed a positive change in their attitudes toward technology and computers after the project. •A principal stated after the project the students began assisting others with computer problems in the classroom. •Parents and community members reported participants seemed more confident in their technological skills and use of technological language after the project. •Participants’ speech patterns in interviews revealed that many of them had low reading skills. •Pre-questionnaire (n = 60) showed a) 90% used a cell phone at some point, 77% owned one, 14% of non-owners usually had access to a cell phone. b) Cell phone use were to talk (80%), save a number (52%), take a picture (45%), receive a text (40%). •Postquestionnaire (n = 17) showed, prior cell phone use helped participants’ ability to use a computer. •Follow-up interviews (n = 9) reported a) an increase in cellphone ownership or use of phone features, b) using the web to find info. about activities of their interest, c) not having adequate literacy competency for computers, d) cell phones, like a computer with a keyboard and Internet access but not as daunting as computers for its voice communications and text messages,

45

12. Kim (2009) Education Technology and Research Development (IF: 1.79)

13. Kral and Heath (2013) Learning, Culture and Social Interactions

Internet‖ courses offered by the university. •Over 250 migrant Indigenous children (313 y/o) •20 parents •9 local and regional representatives •4 government officials •5 technology corporate leaders •6 support staff for the investigator from 5 villages (rural), Latin America

•Aboriginal musicians (mid-teen–mid 20 y/o) from Ngaanyatjarra Lands, Central Australia (remote) •2 main participants (mid-20 y/o)

providing extra help even if encountering reading problems. To develop a mobile learning model of literacy development for underserved migrant Indigenous children by pilot-testing various mobile devices (the mobiles encompassed multimedia short stories of different reading levels)

Qualitative: •Individual and group interviews with the children •Field notes (observation diaries, documents, audio recordings, photo, and video recordings) •Meetings with corporate representatives, government agency officers, local NGO leaders, university partners, and other constituencies relevant to the project

To investigate Indigenous youth musicians’ learning of literacy skills and digital media technology, particularly through their interactions with a music production software, GarageBand

Qualitative: •Observation •Field notes •Interviews •Audio-visual recordings of GarageBand •Reflective discussions with participants

•All but one village did not have TVs, radios, or other electric appliances for limited or no electricity. •Most children did not own a single book. •Initially, most children learned to use mobile devices within minutes. •The older the child, the more s/he interacted with the mobile interface (i.e. younger children responded primarily to the audio stimuli, 69 y/o responded to audio and visual stimuli and learned to browse stories, and 9-13 y/o further explored the devices). •Children 11 y/o or older with extremely limited literacy preferred to spend more time with alphabet animations than short stories. •Children with more literacy skills wanted to read to others and welcomed questions about the stories from interviewers. •The mobile phones provided audio narration of the stories, so children with minimal spoken language skill in Spanish were able to understand. •2-min stories seemed to be appropriate for children’s short attention span. •Authors suggested the 2 main participants with incomplete secondary education had varying levels of literacy competence in L1 and L2. •Their songs were usually composed in L1. •These ―youngfellas‖ learned primarily by observation, trial and error experiments, peer teaching, and brief teaching episodes by experts from outside the community. •According to the authors, using GarageBand is not depending on participants’ prior literacy or technological skills but on their perceived need to read symbols on the computer to record their own song. •One main participant indicated they (main participants) first wrote song lyrics on paper then created and remembered the lyrics in their heads and their songs that address contemporary issues, i.e., drinking and driving using lyrics that incorporate codeswitching between L1 and L2.

46

14. McIntosh et al. (2011)

Canadian Journal of Education

15. Mills et al. (2016) Language and Education

16. Oliver and Nguyen (2017)

•774 kindergarten students, British Columbia, Canada (rural): 77 screened as ―at-risk‖ and received the intervention (29% Indigenous) and 697 in control group participated in regular curriculum (9% Indigenous)

To explore the effectiveness of a culturally responsive intervention on the early language skills development for Indigenous and nonIndigenous kindergarten students

Quantitative: •General language skills (Kindergarten Language Screening Test, 2nd ed., KSLT-2, a screening tool assessing verbal abilities and one overall performance (e.g. attention, communicativeness, response rate) • Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test, ROWPVT •Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test, EOWPVT

•17 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in gr. 4-7 (8.512.5 y/o) in South East Queensland, Australia

To examine Indigenous students multiliteracies learning through ―valued discourses‖- Indigenous knowledge and English curriculum tasks

Qualitative Instruments: •Multimodal text artefacts produced by participants •Semistructured interviews with participants (n = 17) about their multimodal texts and practices

•7 Aboriginal youth (1825 y/o), Western Australia

To explore Aboriginal multilingual youth’s translanguaging practices use in technology-enhanced environments (i.e. Facebook) To assess participants’ work readiness (incl. Indigenous and English literacy and computer skills) after an iTalk Training Program in creating their personal digital narratives

Qualitative: •Facebook posts written by participants (mainly status posts) accessed through the first author’s Facebook page

The Canadian Modern Language Review

17. Pfeifer (2019) Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues

•47 Indigenous males (20-47 y/o) incarcerated in a correctional centre in Northern Territory, Australia

Quantitative: •Researcherdeveloped pre- and post-training questionnaires to assess the program effectiveness

•One of three components of the intervention included DVD videos of elders and other members of a First Nation community, Nuu-Chah-Nulth, sharing their songs, stories, culture, language, and history. Each segment of these videos was paired with an additional activity (e.g., arts and crafts), providing the opportunity to learn important concepts (e.g., positional vocab.) and exposes students to the Indigenous history and culture. •KSLT-2 posttest scores for intervention students showed significant improvements in general language skills (large effect), compared to the control group with relatively little growth. •There were also significant posttest score increases in ROWPVT (small effect) and EOWPVT (medium effect) for the intervention students. •However, ―the DVD was not shown in favour of more interactive activities‖ (p. 187) •These students acknowledged that their Dreamtime narratives came from the generational flow of storytelling that is vital to the community •These stories shall be shared continuously especially through technology. •Gr. 4-5 students created historic narrative poems supplemented with animated digital characters and backgrounds using the iPad application, Tellagami. •Gr. 6-7 students create digital narratives to retell an Indigenous Dreamtime story using iMovie and iPad. •Facebook offered youth a virtual space to experiment with language and showcase their multilingual identity (e.g. translanguaging). •Authors suggested translanguaging on social media helps youth develop SAE proficiency. •Participants used language on Facebook to innovatively express their humour and creativity (e.g. word manipulation, visual/graphical signs). •Statistical analyses revealed the training program had a positive impact on participants’ a) abilities to communicate in their primary Indigenous language and English, b) motivation to engage in other educational programs while incarcerated and upon release, c) computer literacy (measured by pre/post analysis of participant knowledge, comfort levels, perceived use of technology for future employment), and d) interpersonal skills.

47

18. Pirbhai-Illich (2010) Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy

19. Pirbhai-Illich et al. (2009) Multicultural Education and Technology Journal

20. Thanabalan et al. (2015) The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

•Approx. 24 First Nations and Métis students (gr. 7-8, 12-14 y/o) at an alternative school, Canada (urban) •Their English Language Arts teacher of Métis background

To engage students in digital storytelling (DS) using multiliteracies

Qualitative: •Student interviews •Teacher and researcher observations, •Posttests using an informal reading inventory to assess students’ literacy levels

•8 First Nations and Métis students (gr. 7-9, 12-16 y/o) at an alternative school in Canada (urban) •Their English Language Arts teacher of Métis background

To examine how multiliteracies engage students for both academic and digital literacies development through a digital narrative project on Public Service Announcement (PSA) To investigate teachers’ perspectives of a community and expertinformed digital storytelling (DS) pedagogical module to facilitate students’ reading comprehension

Qualitative: •Archival data •Teacher and researcher’s observations and reflections •Student-produced artifacts

•10 English language teachers from 2 schools in Peninsular Malaysia who teach Temuan (Orang Asli) primary school students

Qualitative: •Teacher interviews

•All except one student reported school provided them only access to computers. •The teacher and researcher noticed students wanted to use school computers at every opportunity. •Through this project, students learned to write print-based instructional texts and narratives, engaged in peer-review, created digital instructional diagrams, learned note-taking skills, and located info. from books, magazines, and the Internet. •Students created narratives, completed a storyboard, wrote a script, acted, filmed a scene (while considering props, lighting, sound, dialogue, actions), edited videos (e.g. background music and special effects), and collaboratively wrote a 6-page report. •Interviews showed the project is well received, student attendance improved dramatically, and literacy levels improved from 2 to 5 grade levels. •The students' writing ability improved from a word and sentential level to paragraphs and finally to full text. •Students expressed a desire to produce PSA videos about drugs, gangs and weapons. •Through this project, students learned to write procedural and informational texts, skim information on the Internet, use video equipment, collect info. online, compose digital music and edit videos using diverse software programs. •The teacher noticed students’ fascination with special effects using digital tools, increased engagement in literacy learning, and improved academic performance. Teachers’ perspectives: •DS text was interesting and relevant to students. •Content was realistic, enabled students to build connection with text, used cultural elements to help their understanding. •Language is simple with L1 translations improving comprehension. •Reading comprehension strategy used repetitive content helping students remember stories well. •Reading comprehension task were more engaging, compared to regular lessons for its interactive, clear, and relevant activities. •Teaching and learning instructions was clear, easy to follow with completed lesson plans and comprehension activities. Author’s conclusion: Based on teachers’ views, students responded positively to this module, as they were able to comprehend the stories with active engagement. Culturally responsive pedagogy is critical for Indigenous learners.

48

21. Thanabalan et al. (2014) The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology

22. Wolgemuth et al. (2014) The Journal of Educational Research

23. Wolgemuth et al. (2013) Computers and Education

•12 experts in various fields, i.e. English language teaching, ESL, curriculum development, and expert knowledge base of the Orang Asli community, Peninsular Malaysia

To design a community and expert-informed the digital storytelling (DS) pedagogical module to facilitate students’ reading comprehension

Qualitative: •Interviews with experts •Observations of daily events in the community Note: The digital storytelling module was designed following these experts’ opinions, and its implementation was evaluated and reported in Thanabalan et al. (2015).

•163 intervention (36 Indigenous) and 145 control (44 Indigenous) primary school students (K-gr. 2, 4-8 y/o) across 6 primary schools, Northern Territory, Australia (remote) •22 teachers

To examine the implementation fidelity of a computer-based literacy tool, ABRACADABRA (ABRA), and the impact of implementation fidelity on student literacy learning outcomes.

•164 participants (Kgr.2) intervention and 148 control (28% Indigenous) in 6 primary schools, Northern Territory, Australia (urban and remote) •23 teachers

To evaluate the effectiveness of a free web-based reading tool, ABRA, on students’ reading, letter knowledge, and phonological awareness over one semester (16 weeks)

Quantitative: •Instruction quality assessed using ABRA Program Fidelity Observation Record (APFOR) •Literacy instruction quality assessed using revised Classroom Literacy Observation Survey (CLOS) •Total time students logged into ABRA and their attendance •Student literacy: Pre- and post-test scores in Group Reading and Diagnostic Education Level K (GRADE-K), Performance Indicator in Primary Schools Baseline Assessment (PIPS-BLA) Quantitative: •Student literacy was assessed pre- and postintervention using the GRADE-K and PIPS-BLA •See the ABRA implementation fidelity in Wolgemuth et al. (2014)

•Experts suggested that the module should: a) use culturally responsive content for the theme (e.g. nature, animals), plot (e.g. experiences in nature or music), setting (i.e. Orang Asli context), characters (i.e. community members), and language (i.e. simple, context-based, translations into L1), b) use repetition and oral practice of drilling and provide support structures, i.e., illustrations and narration, c) include tasks/activities that are content-specific, hands-on, artistic, song-based, online, and interactive, and d) include simple and behavioural classroom instructions for teacher use. Implementation fidelity: •APFOR scores showed that all implementation teachers were, at least, competent with using ABRA, monitored students, and adjusted instruction as needed •CLOS ratings showed that both intervention and control students received high quality literacy lessons; however, on average, ABRA teachers delivered marginally higher quality lessons than control teachers. Impact on student outcomes: Analyses showed that the 4 implementation fidelity measures (usage, exposure, literacy instruction quality, and pretest scores) accounted for between 1.8% (early literacy skills) and 15% (word reading) of students’ literacy scores, indicating there was sufficient variability in implementation to affect the results. •Intervention group outperformed control group on the GRADE-K phonological awareness and reading ability. •The difference between the two groups on GRADE-K word reading and the PIPS reading scale was insignificant. •Indigenous students had similar standard score gains per intervention hour for most outcomes (e.g. PIPS reading), and significantly greater standard score gains per intervention hour for phonological awareness and early literacy skills, though they had less exposure to ABRA than nonIndigenous peers. •The treatment effect was insignificant between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students for most outcomes; but ABRA appears to be especially effective for Indigenous students’ phonological awareness, phonemegrapheme correspondence, and early literacy skills. •It was suggested ABRA ―accelerated the early literacy growth of these Indigenous students, to the point where they began to

49

perform as well as their non-Indigenous counterparts in phonological awareness‖ (p. 260). 24. Wolgemuth et al. •118 participants (KTo evaluate the Quantitative: •Pre- and post-tests •ABRA students had significantly greater posttest scores (2011) gr.2) intervention (56.8% effectiveness of a free using GRADE level K and PIPSthan control students on the GRADE K Phonological Indigenous) and 48 web-based reading BLA •Structured observations to Awareness, regardless of student attendance and literacy Australasian Journal of control (60.4% support tool, ABRA, to assess instruction quality using instruction quality. •ABRA was effective for both Educational Indigenous) in 6 primary improve the literacy CLOS with a modified scale Indigenous and non-Indigenous students. •Evidence was Technology schools, Northern outcomes of students •Student attendance unclear regarding direct impact on students’ learning Territory, Australia (2 over one semester Qualitative: Focus groups on outcomes for early reading skills (PIPS-BLA), phonemeprovincial, 2 remote, 2 phone to gather teachers’ feedback grapheme knowledge (GRADE K), and phonics ability very remote) •16 on ABRA (PIPS-BLA). •Though teachers reported lacking training and teachers experience to teach literacy, especially, phonological awareness, they also reported ABRA helped them develop lesson plans and identify direct instructional strategies. 25. Yu (2018) •162 Aboriginal (fullTo examine Aboriginal Quantitative: •Researcher•Pre-survey showed over 70% participants with little to no time undergraduate students’ perceptions of developed a five-point Likert scale experience with social networking and web-based International Journal of students at a nursing using Facebook, for survey with 13 questions, environments, agreed or strongly agreed with 8 of 13 survey Information and college, southern Taiwan completion of an English administered before and after items, suggesting positive attitude toward this web-based Communication (18-23 y/o) from six writing class course course. •Post-survey showed over 70% agreed or strongly Technology Education tribes, incl. Amis, agreed with 8 of 13 survey items, suggesting this experience Atayal, Bunun, Paiwan, was motivating, satisfying, collaborative, helped with skill Puyuma, and Saisyiat development, and contributed to their achievement in the class. •However, compared to pre-survey results, participants were less positive if a web-based environment could replace face-to-face classes and stimulate learning and interaction with peers. •Tribal membership had no significant impact on perceptions of taking a class via a web-based environment. *Notes: 1. Research instruments that did not report related data analysis and results are not included in this table (e.g., Yu’s (2018) Writing Performance Grading Rubric). 2. Research designs, which were not explicitly reported but annotated by the authors of this review, are italicized. The un-italicized research designs listed in this table are labelled exactly as reported in the articles themselves. 4. The DVD component of McIntosh et al.’s (2011) intervention was one of three components, with the other two being non-technological.

50

Appendix B Indigenous languages as L1 and HL, variations of English as a home language, target language. Languages Studies 1. Auld (2007) 2. Auld et al. (2012) 3. Begoray & Brown (2018) 4. Bussert-Webb & Diaz (2013) 5. Doherty (2002) 6. Eady et al. (2010) 7. Harper et al. (2012) 8. Hartnell-Young & Vetere (2008) 9. Jacobs (2019) 10. Kapitzke et al. (2000) 11. Kavanaugh et al. (2013) 12. Kim (2009) 13. Kral & Heath (2013) 14. McIntosh et al. (2011) 15. Mills et al. (2016) 16. Oliver & Nguyen (2017) 17. Pfeifer (2019) 18. Pirbhai-Illich (2010) 19. Pirbhai-Illich et al. (2009) 20. Thanabalan et al. (2015) 21. Thanabalan et al. (2014) 22. Wolgemuth et al. (2014) 23. Wolgemuth et al. (2013) 24. Wolgemuth et al. (2011) 25. Yu (2018)

Indigenous language as L1 or HL/ variation of English as a home language

Target languages

Ndjébbana Multilingual: Ndjébbana, Burarra, Kunjingku, Djinang, Muang, Yolngu Matha, & Tiwi N/A Spanish Aboriginal English or English with Islander dialect Indigenous language(s) unspecified Indigenous language(s) unspecified Indigenous language(s) unspecified Indigenous language(s) unspecified Primarily Aboriginal English N/A Indigenous language(s) unspecified Western Desert dialects of Ngaanyatjarra or Pitjantjatjara Indigenous language(s) unspecified Yuggera, Jagera, & Ugarapul Indigenous language(s) unspecified Indigenous language(s) unspecified No Indigenous language(s) skills N/A Temuan & Bahasa Melayu Temuan Indigenous language(s) unspecified Indigenous language(s) unspecified Indigenous language(s) unspecified Indigenous language(s) unspecified

Ndjébbana English English Spanish English English English English English English English Spanish English English English English & Aboriginal English Indigenous languages & English English English English English English English English English

Notes: 1. ―N/A‖ refers to studies that have not provided any information regarding their participants’ Indigenous language knowledge either as the first language (L1) or as heritage language (HL). 2. ―Indigenous language unspecified‖ refers to Indigenous participants who spoke an Indigenous language as their L1, but the L1 name was not specified in the study. 3. According to literacy practitioner participants in Eady et al.’s (2010) study, many Indigenous people in Australia spoke different dialects of their L1, including traditional languages, creoles, mixed languages, and/or nonstandard English before standard English is introduced (p. 270). 4. Participants’ L1s in Harper et al.’s (2012) study can include traditional Indigenous languages, Kriol, Aboriginal English, and immigrant languages. 5. Mills et al.’s (2016) participants were from the Yuggera, Jagera, and Ugarapul language regions of Southeast Queensland. 6. Yu’s (2018) Indigenous participants spoke Mandarin Chinese, but their Indigenous language skills were not unspecified.

51

Appendix C Research instruments for data collection.

Track records of student exposure to and usage of literacy intervention (via total numbers of logins and attendance, number of touch screen taps) Content of social media-based language & literacy practice (status posts via Facebook) Participant literacy logs Researcher/teacher written journal reflections Language and literacy skill measures Structured & semi-structured observation measures assessing literacy instruction quality Surveys/questionnaires (incl. pre- and postproject/intervention /course) Participant-created physical and digital artifacts (e.g., digital artwork, mobile phone content, graphic novels, webpages, text)

15. Mills et al. (2016)

Researcher/teacher observations (incl. audio, photo & video recordings of participants or communities, observational field notes and diaries)

 

Formal and informal discussions, conversations or meetings



     

      

  

         

       

Focus group interviews (incl. group interviews by phone, online, & face-to-face)

Research Instruments

Individual face-to-face interviews (structured, semistructured & open-ended)

Studies

  

  





1. Auld (2007) 2. Auld et al. (2012) 3. Begoray & Brown (2018) 4. Bussert-Webb & Diaz (2013) 5. Doherty (2002) 6. Eady et al. (2010) 7. Harper et al. (2012) 8. Hartnell-Young & Vetere (2008) 9. Jacobs (2019) 10. Kapitzke et al. (2000) 11. Kavanaugh et al. (2013) 12. Kim (2009) 13. Kral & Heath (2013) 14. McIntosh et al. (2011)

Intervention case study Survey study Case study Participatory action research Action research Case study Multiple-case study Participatory action research Participatory action research Participatory research Exploratory study Action research Ethnography and case study Pre- and post-test quasiexperimental study Participatory research



Research Instruments

52

16. Oliver & Nguyen (2017) 17. Pfeifer (2019) 18. Pirbhai-Illich (2010)

19. Pirbhai-Illich et al. (2009) 20. Thanabalan et al. (2015) 21. Thanabalan et al. (2014) 22. Wolgemuth et al. (2014)

23. Wolgemuth et al. (2013) 24. Wolgemuth et al. (2011) 25. Yu (2018) Total:

Case study Participatory research Ethnography and participatory action research (sub-study) Ethnography and exploratory action research Intervention case study Case study Pretest, posttest parallel group, single blind multisite randomized controlled trial Multisite single-blind randomized controlled trial Quasi-experimental pre-posttest control group Survey study





 

 























10

4

5

10

6

 5













4

4









 



3

1

1

3

Note: 1. Research designs, which were not explicitly reported but annotated by the authors of this review, are italicized. The un-italicized research designs listed in this table are labelled exactly as reported in the reviewed articles. 2. Harper et al.’s (2012) study reported the use of semi-structured observation to measure the fidelity for the ABRA implementation but results were not reported in the article. 3. PirbhaiIllich’s (2010) study also collected archival data and used an informal reading inventory to assess students’ literacy levels.

53

Appendix D Digital technologies and media used for language and literacy tasks and practices (n = 52)

(Online) gaming via phone, computer, gaming consoles

Web-based early literacy instruction tool via computer (ABRA)

E-mail

 

 



Skype/Elluminate Texting (incl. for assessment purposes) Blogging Myspace YouTube Instagram Facebook DVD videos of traditional stories, songs, language, history, etc. Reading/listening to multimedia stories via touchscreen computers/mobile devices Digital storytelling module Computer/Internet projects/ training Internet behaviors (searching info., downloading music, viewing photos and videos) Webpage construction Presentation app/software (PPT, Publisher) Music production software (e.g., GarageBand via computer)

      

 

 

 

  



      

Digital artwork (DeviantArt, Aggie.io, FrameCast) & digital characters (Tellagami via iPad) Multimedia graphic novel and digital storytelling production (using video, photo, audio, Movie Maker, Photo Story, iMovie) via phone, iPad, computer





 1. Auld (2007) 2. Auld et al. (2012) 3. Begoray & Brown (2018) 4. Bussert-Webb & Diaz (2013) 5. Doherty (2002) 6. Eady et al. (2010) 7. Harper et al. (2012) 8. Hartnell-Young & Vetere (2008) 9. Jacobs (2019) 10. Kapitzke et al. (2000) 11. Kavanaugh et al. (2013)





   

     



Digital content creation





Studies

ICT communication tools Social media Digital multimedia Internet practices

Digital technologies & media

54

12. Kim (2009) 13. Kral & Heath (2013) 14. McIntosh et al. (2011) 15. Mills et al. (2016) 16. Oliver & Nguyen (2017) 17. Pfeifer (2019) 18. Pirbhai-Illich (2010) 19. Pirbhai-Illich et al. (2009) 20. Thanabalan et al. (2015) 21. Thanabalan et al. (2014) 22. Wolgemuth et al. (2014) 23. Wolgemuth et al. (2013) 24. Wolgemuth et al. (2011) 25. Yu (2018) Total = 52 Notes: 1.  indicates digital

   

 

  

 



     8

11

11

2

1

2

5

2

2

1

 22

1

1

1

1

13

1

41

12

4

technology use in researcher- and educators-developed instructional interventions, programs, projects, training courses or sessions; indicates Indigenous participants’ self-initiated digital technology practices. 2. Eady et al. (2010) where literacy practitioners are the participants was also coded with a red check mark (). 3. The mobile camera phone activity using Lifeblog software, as described by Hartnell-Young & Vetere (2008) as digital storytelling.

55

ppendix E echnology-supported language and literacy practices and instructional interventions and projects (n = 70).

Improved BICS (specifically oral communication skills)

56

Vocabulary (expressive & receptive) Reading comprehension (incl. reported needs) Listening comprehension (talking books, short stories, storytelling DVDs) Instructional/informational/procedural text writing and peer review



  

Improved writing skills and writing instruction via Facebook

   

Song lyrics (incl. code-switching) Text messaging (to assess writing skills) Photo descriptors (to assess writing skills) Narrative writing Teacher feedback on implementation of a literacy instructional tool Vocabulary (expressive & receptive) Verbal skills Word reading Early literacy skills* Phoneme-grapheme correspondence Phonological awareness

  

Phoneme awareness Phonics Sentence decoding with multimedia support Visual literacy/processing* Need for digital literacy (literacy educator perspectives) Multimedia graphic novel production Digital storytelling production or viewing projects Digital literacy w. reading/writing (e.g., webpage content writing) BICS via phone call Writing and BICS via e-mail BICS in L1 & TL (incl. translanguaging) on social media Digital literacy--gaming Digital literacy--artwork creation

 

 

      

          

 

. Auld (2007) . Auld et al. (2012) . Begoray & Brown (2018) . Bussert-Webb & Diaz (2013) . Doherty (2002) . Eady et al. (2010) . Harper et al. (2012) . Hartnell-Young & Vetere (2008)

Digital literacy--Internet search BICS in L1 & TL (incl. translanguaging) via texting

tudies

Writing skills (observations, reflections, & perspectives) Early literacy skills (language and literacy testing and interviews) Multiliteracies (observations, perspectives, & reported behaviour) ICT-based language & literacy practices (reported behaviours via survey, interviews, & discussions)

Language & literacy practices, interventions & projects (categories) (n = 32)

. Jacobs (2019) 0. Kapitzke et al. (2000) 1. Kavanaugh et al. (2013) 2. Kim (2009) 3. Kral & Heath (2013) 4. McIntosh et al. (2011) 5. Mills et al. (2016) 6. Oliver & Nguyen (2017) 7. Pfeifer (2019) 8. Pirbhai-Illich (2010) 9. Pirbhai-Illich et al. (2009) 0. Thanabalan et al. (2015) 1. Thanabalan et al. (2014) 2. Wolgemuth et al. (2014) 3. Wolgemuth et al. (2013) 4. Wolgemuth et al. (2011) 5. Yu (2018) Total





  



  







 

 





   

    

    

  3

1

1

1 1

1 3

1

1

5 2

10

1

1

2

1

3

1

  

  

  

  

3

3

3

3



 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

 2

2

3

otes: 1. indicates researcher- or educators-developed language and literacy intervention and projects for Indigenous people, or educators’ erspectives on the related issues; indicates Indigenous people’s self-initiated technology-supported language and literacy practices, or their erspectives on the practices. 2. ―Early literacy skills‖ refers to print awareness, letter recognition, and the ability to recognize same and different ords (Wolgemuth et al., 2014; Wolgemuth et al., 2013, Wolgemuth et al., 2011). 3. The ―Vocabulary (expressive & receptive)‖ category includes chnological and technical terminologies. 4. Doherty’s (2002) PLUS program utilized language instruction strategies, specifically cognitive and ocial strategies (Oxford, 1990) by facilitating independent learning and problem-solving with a 4-step learner-centred trouble-shooting process ead the screen, read your notes, ask a friend, and ask a tutor), which has not been coded in this table. 5. Harper et al.’s (2011) study investigates achers’ feedback on the ABRA intervention, focusing on phonics and phoneme awareness.

57

1 1

2

1