Literacy Matters - Vol 21 - Winter 2021

Technology Technology use was a large part of this cross-institutional partnership, not only due to the design of the preservice teachers’ digital literacies projects, but also because communication occurred across states. Some participants mentioned how the live class session enhanced the cross-institutional partnership, and was very helpful. As one preservice teacher explained,“My favorite part was the virtual meeting. I loved hearing other people’s thoughts and ideas.” Conversely, others found the synchronous class to be unhelpful and inundated with technical difficulties. Preservice teachers described how,“sometimes there was no sound,”and,“it was hard to hear the instructor from the other school.”The distance learning preservice teachers attended the meeting via individual computers, along with their instructor on her own computer, while the face-to-face cohort was in a campus classroomwith their instructor, and attended through one computer. The varied internet connections utilized by the distance learning preservice teachers and the setup of the audio in the face-to-face classroom likely contributed to technology issues. Some preservice teachers used innovative technologies to develop their digital literacies projects, which is ideal in terms of learning and growth in technological pedagogical content knowledge. Unfortunately, this sometimes led to difficulties sharing projects with their partners. As one preservice teacher described, “I was dissatisfied with the feedback because my partner couldn’t see or hear my presentation because she didn’t have a smart notebook.”As issues sharing the projects came to the attention of instructors, resources were provided to aid preservice teachers in sharing (e.g., web platforms that convert files, storage and transfer solutions for large files, and instructions for compressing files). Conclusions In this study, early childhood preservice teachers from both programs found value in designing interactive digital literacies lessons, and believed the sharing of diverse perspectives was mutually beneficial to their design process. Most of the distance education participants were employed as teaching assistants or lead preschool teachers and brought diverse perspectives based on their prior and current teaching experiences. Their knowledge of classroom settings and children’s literacy development was beneficial to preservice teachers in the more traditional program. The face-to-face cohort brought less teaching experience, but contributed more research-based technology literacies knowledge to the partnership (Barrett-Tatum & Caudle, 2018). The experience offered participants varying perspectives related to incorporating local culture within their own instructional design (Bozalek & Matthews, 2009), and learning about different pedagogical approaches in other programs (Lynch et al., 2012). These findings offer specific areas of consideration when implementing a critical peer review process to literacy learners at any age. Teachers and instructors should provide multiple opportunities to explicitly teach, model, and scaffold how to provide and receive critical feedback (Gielen & DeWever, 2015).

They should create low-stakes opportunities to scaffold students in their attempts to offer critical peer feedback prior to students’ independently critiquing the work of others. Our study furthers research that indicates peer feedback is of high quality when students use structured templates, which could range from pictorial representations to fully detailed rubric templates. Further investigations should consider when, and how, these templates should be incorporated into peer learning contexts, based on the goals of the peer reviews. To increase student motivation for providing high quality feedback, instructors should consider an accountability system to improve quality and quantity of feedback. Teacher preparation programs must consider the ongoing struggles of the digital divide, how best to prepare teachers to provide equitable access to learning given students’varying levels of personal experiences and access to digital resources and connectivity (Mucetti, 2017). In this study, despite testing the synchronous software, once all remote users from rural settings logged in, connectivity issues persisted. Further consideration for students’access to connectivity and platforms for digital learning and peer feedback is needed, particularly with the recent shift to more virtual learning experiences. For the digital literacy projects in this study, preservice teachers were encouraged to choose a technology platform that best supported pedagogical design; this led to the limitation that not all peers could correctly access their partner’s work. Pairing students based on technology knowledge and access should be considered. Overall, technology access was a limitation of this study as the face-to-face preservice teachers had used prior technology in education courses, met in one space, and had more connectivity and digital access. In a time of online literacy learning, educators must strive to find equitable and pedagogically sound practices that engage students in collaborative work through digital media. References Barrett-Tatum, J. & Caudle, L. (2018). Implementing new literacies instruction and design through a cross-institutional peer review process with pre-service early childhood educators. The Journal of New Horizons in Education , 8 (3), 92-108. Beaver, C., & Beaver, S. (2011). The effect of peer-assessment on the attitudes of pre-service elementary and middle school teachers about writing and assessing mathematics. IUMPST : The Journal , 5(December). Boase-Jelinek, D., Parker, J., & Herrington, J. (2013). Student reflection and learning through peer reviews. In Special issue: Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Western Australia’s TL Forum. Issues in Educational Research, 23 (2), 119-131. Bozalek, V., & Matthews, L. (2009). E-learning: A cross-institutional forum for sharing socio-cultural Influences on personal and professional identity. International Social Work , 52 (2) , 235-246. https://doi. org/10.1177/0020872808099733

Reading Matters Writing Matters

| 62 | Literacy Matters | Volume 21 • Winter 2021

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS