Reading Online - Electronic Classroom: Recognizing the Expanding Boundaries of Lliteracy

The Importance of Recognizing the Expanding Boundaries of Literacy

For a printer-ready version of this article, click here. Use your “back” button to return to the main Reading Online site.

As we conclude this volume year of Reading Online, the last in my term as editor of the Electronic Classroom department, it seems fitting to remind ourselves of the importance of recognizing the shifting demands, definitions, and realities of literacy in our changing world. More than ever, we, as teachers, need to be mindful of literacy uses in practice as we educate children to take their place as literate individuals in society.

Part of what teachers confront has to do with understanding what counts as literacy in children’s lives and in the world around them. While what we might call the “traditional” forms of literacy -- reading and writing alphabetic characters -- are and will continue to be a part of everyday life, they are now being enacted within an electronic world rather than a world of paper and pencil. This electronic world is changing the way in which alphabetic literacy is used, and it also places new demands on children as they become literate.

The following example, taken from Kinzer and Leander (2003), illustrates the demands and functions of literacy that teachers must understand and teach. As you read the example, consider the literacy behaviors and skills that are required of the children described.

Imagine “Tara,” a middle school student working on a classroom assignment in which she is to create a presentation for the class on “some aspect of science in everyday life.” Imagine further that this assignment is integrated across science, social studies and language arts, where demands of what have been historically categorized as content area reading and writing occur in all three areas, though the language arts teacher is additionally asking for a story based on Tara’s thoughts about her search process on the Web. For her research, Tara is to make use of the web as much as possible (given the limitations of sharing access with other students). For her final presentation, Tara is to create a set of PowerPoint slides.

Tara’s teachers have given her guidance on how to get started, including some focal web addresses that might be promising for the assignment. One of those in the list is the Exploratorium in San Francisco, and she selects it. As luck would have it, early in her search of the Exploratorium pages she comes across a link to Skateboard Science, which looks promising for her presentation. She clicks on the link and it brings up the home page for Skateboard Science:

The page has a large graphic of a skateboarder and a background street scene. The skateboarder is circled by the stylized “O” in explOratorium. Why did they circle the skateboarder? What is the relation between the Exploratorium and skateboarders? Is it just a nice background scene? There are other graphics, a tiny photo, and different fonts on the page. What catches Tara’s eye, however, is the brand name Thrasher -- a bold, stylized red logo. She’s seen Thrasher magazine before. Could she read it on the web? She tries clicking on the black words “Thrasher Magazine,” above the red logo, because she’d most like to see the magazine. Nothing happens. Next, a bit of experience has taught her to try clicking on different words and pictures, so she clicks the large red Thrasher logo. That worked -- now she has been transported to a page that includes a picture of the magazine cover and several bold black words to the side of the cover (“SCENE,” “TRICK,” “TRASH”). She decides she would like to see the magazine better. Will the cover graphic get bigger if she clicks on it, like some graphics do? Not this time -- clicking on the cover takes her to the following page:

screen shot of Thrasher subscription information page

Could she order the magazine here, in class? She tries clicking on one of the boxes -- just the magazine, $8.95 -- but nothing happens. (In order to properly purchase online, she’ll need to learn about filling in the “Qty” box next to her item, and to recognize the common parlance of “Add to Cart” for online shopping.) However, her main problem now is not ordering, but that the teacher is circulating in the room and helping students with their science projects. She knows that being at the Thrasher website won’t go over very well with the teacher. Plus, class time is about up, and she isn’t sure how to get back to the Skateboarding Science page. But, scanning the top of the screen her eye catches the “Back” button/icon. Remembering that she was only one click away from where she started, she tries that button and returns to the Skateboard Science homepage. How will she find this page tomorrow, if she gets more computer time?

Tara remembers the next day to start from the Exploratorium again, and she makes her way back to the Skateboard Science homepage. What catches Tara’s eye this time are the four ovals in the middle of the page, and in particular, the one with the word “webcast.” She clicks on it, and the webcast “button” takes her to the following page:

The top image shows a side shot of a young man in air jumping off of a ramp with his skateboard, while the bottom photo is a high angle, distant shot of the same young man coming off of the ramp. Why did they choose these two pictures? How do they relate to the webcast? Some text separates the two photos. Text to the left side of the images proclaims what the observer can “see”: “See skateboarding Pro’s Wade Speyer, Dustin Dollin, Matt Fields, Mikey Reyes.... See an interview with Tim Piumarta.” If it was “live” on June 12th, does that mean she missed it? In case it’s still there, she clicks on the bottom picture. Nothing happens. She clicks on the top picture. Fortunately, the media specialist at the school had recently downloaded a later version of RealPlayer, a program that allows her web browser to receive a streaming video and audio signal. Thus, shortly after she clicks on the top photograph a video starts playing in a tiny screen within a new window. The video is a little confusing at the beginning: a head shot of a man who is walking, while a different off-camera voice narrates. The camera zooms out and a few skateboarders can be seen in the background. Finally, the camera moves to another man, seated, who is giving the narration: “These kids right here are defying gravity. Know what that means? Gravity? Gravity Rules.”

Tara wonders if she could use the video for her PowerPoint presentation. How would she get it off the web? She has never developed a set of PowerPoint slides before, but she has seen her social studies teacher present some lessons with PowerPoint. Her teacher’s slides had small segments of text and some images in them -- much like overhead transparencies. As Tara searches, therefore, she tries to imagine what pieces of media could readily be made into a slide. Right now, this work feels more like creating a collection -- looking for material that fits a page -- than writing a report or other paper for school. How much does she have to change the information to use it in her PowerPoint presentation and in the story assignment from her language arts teacher? Can she just paste it in? If she does change it, how can she change the graphics?

Tara remembers that one of the other buttons on the Skateboard Science page was called “trick science,” and thinks that might be a good match for her assignment. She returns to the home page and clicks that button. This takes her to the following page:

The page looks fairly standard by most measures. However, it does have a different background color (burnt orange in her browser) than the Skateboard Science page. Is it part of the same website? The authors are listed at the top of the page as Pearl Tesler and Paul Doherty. She doesn’t recall their names on the other parts of the site -- who are they? Do they work at the Exploratorium? Tara tries clicking on their names, but nothing happens. Next, she notices that the pictures in the articles are courtesy of Thrasher magazine. (Maybe the authors work for Thrasher?) As she reads the short article, her focus is pulled to the pictures that the article wraps around. In particular, she is interested in the time-lapsed action shot of a skateboarder jumping across some stairs. It would make a good slide for her presentation. Does it get any bigger?

Tara clicks on the image but nothing happens, and so her eyes just fix on it for a while. How do they take time-lapsed pictures like that? What does that writing say on the concrete wall? After a few minutes, Tara reads part of the article, and her eyes stop on the word “ollie,” which is underlined and the text appears white. She infers that “ollie” must be a link, and clicking on the word indeed takes her to a different page full of text. It’s hard for Tara to understand exactly why she is on this particular page. There is a bold white heading in the middle that reads “types of skateboarding.” “Street skating” and “vert skating” along with other terms are defined underneath this heading, but she cannot find “ollie,” not realizing that the link was created so that the term would appear at the very top of the page, listed as one of many terms in the glossary below a main heading invisible on this page (because of the size of her monitor, only a part of each page is on the screen -- to see the rest the scroll bar must be used). However, she does find a link to a “QuickTime 3 movie 450k.” Another movie -- this time it will be on the “50-50 grind by Diego Bucchierii.” She clicks on the link. After a pause, a large “Q” logo appears on her screen. Next, a small movie screen appears and a short movie begins of a skateboarder going up a ramp. Why can’t she hear the movie? Why is this movie in a different format than the last one?

During the course of the following week, as Tara identifies key media segments -- including images, text, and a video file from the Skateboard Science website -- she learns how to copy and save these media segments. To have one holding place for the text and images, Tara pastes them all into a word processing file, leaving the video saved file on her desktop. Some notes she has taken from a physical science textbook also appear in this file, as do notes from a few other sources (including a hard copy of Thrasher that a friend loaned to her). From this word processing file, Tara begins to select, cut and paste segments of other authors’ texts, other artists images, and other photographers’ photos into a developing PowerPoint presentation. How much of the text can she borrow without getting in trouble for plagiarism? Tara selects a photo of a skateboarder and a scientific graphic representing motion and force that seem to fit together very well as she assembles and composes her multimedia presentation. Yet, she decides that these bits of media need some explanation. Tara begins to write out this explanation on a PowerPoint slide, but it quickly gets too long, and she remembers that she needs to make the font larger anyway, so the whole class could read it off of the screen when she presents. Wait -- maybe she should make a list instead of writing in sentences? A list with bullets? Her teacher did that sometimes....

This example includes many aspects of literacy that children use and need to learn: keyboarding; layout and design skills for creating presentations and webpages; critical thinking about video, still images, audio, text, their interrelationships, and how they jointly convey intended and unintended messages; skill in using software of various types; information gathering, retrieval, and copying into presentation formats; scaling images; and so on. What is not shown in the example are the many uses and applications of literacy used by children outside of school: instant messaging to communicate (and the attendant skills in making decisions about buddy list management, holding multiple conversations online, and learning and using new “IM” vocabulary), text messaging, wireless technology use for accessing networks, and so on. All of these are skills and abilities that some children acquire through immersion; other children must learn them in school to avoid falling behind their more privileged peers. In all cases, teachers need to maximize teaching and learning with and about technology. And, because technology use is predominately about communication and critical thinking, this task falls to teachers of literacy.

Several people have called for integrating technology into reading instruction and for redefining literacy (see, for example, Leu, 2000; Reinking, 1995). The need to integrate technology into our literacy instruction is supported by arguments that technology can address instructional issues in ways not easily done without it. And it is clear that teachers who want to be viewed by their students as relevant and knowledgeable about the world need to demonstrate awareness of everyday literacy practices -- awareness of the literacies that are important to students outside as well as inside the classroom. In what follows, I briefly discuss these issues in order to argue for teachers’ need to merge technology into their literacy teaching.

Technology as a Facilitator of Effective Instructional Practice Based in Sound Theory

Teachers draw on theoretical notions that have stood the test of time. For example, we know that literacy learning has a social dimension, that practice is important to developing fluency, and that learning in context is more effective than learning isolated facts. In instructional practice, various small group activities try to take advantage of the collaborative and social aspects of learning. Various activities have been designed to develop fluency, and in today’s classrooms, skills and content are often presented in large units that provide a context for teaching and learning.

However, grounding concepts contextually in authentic situations or tasks, while at the same time establishing meaningful communication and social interactions for learning, continues to be a challenging aspect of classroom instruction. Technology addresses this challenge by allowing effective incorporation of project-based learning in individual classrooms and in communities globally. It allows us to provide a vehicle for meaningful and authentic peer collaboration, for communication with experts, and for critique and interaction. Concepts can be contextualized through multimedia examples, or even through the use of actual documents and data. Such applications are facilitated through sites such as the Global Schoolhouse Project registry, where teachers can work with colleagues around the world on projects that provide children with opportunities to participate in authentic tasks and to enhance learning through collaboration and communication. The Global Schoolhouse site also provides lists of cyberexpeditions, where students can follow real time explorations and interact with scientists and others in their work. For example, in February 2003, children could read field dispatches and dialogue to follow along as adventurers Conrad Anker, Bob Wallace, and Dave German “boat, trek, and climb their way from the Antarctic Peninsula to the Falkland Islands." They could also “view the latest digital photos, learn about leadership, wildlife, and read about the fascinating history of the original Shackleton expedition” (description retrieved April 12, 2003, from www.globalschoolhouse.org/expeditions/).

Contexts such as these allow students to collect data that are used by scientists in their experiments, and to develop their communication skills as they work with peers in their own or partner classrooms to solve problems, collaborate, and discuss and critique their findings. In brief, I believe that technology is not useful for its own sake, but instead affords us the opportunity to operate within accepted instructional theories in ways not possible previously. Thinking about technology as a set of tools that allows educational goals to be met more effectively supports arguments that teachers, administrators, researchers, and policymakers need to be aware of what these tools offer to enhance teaching and learning.

Teachers as Relevant in Students’ Eyes

Alvermann’s (2002) book Adolescents and Literacies in a Digital World (especially the chapters by Hagood, Stevens, & Reinking, 2002, and Lewis & Finders, 2002) points out that adolescents frequently disassociate what counts as literacy in school from what counts as literacy in their everyday lives (see also Cammack, 2002, for a discussion of teenaged girls’ online practices). This potential disconnect between what children do and what they perceive to be valued in the classroom can cause problems when teachers want to connect with their students. Teachers who want to signify acceptance and valuing of their students’ everyday literacy practices are best able to do so by demonstrating an understanding of the literacies that form an important part of students’ lives. Lack of knowledge about IM, avatars, activeworlds, text messaging, MP3 downloads, and the like distances teachers from the students they want to reach. And not knowing how to use the Internet to facilitate learning makes one less of a professional than one could be. That is why it’s so important to become aware of the potentials and possibilities of technology for teaching and learning and to read publications, from the International Reading Association (publisher of this e-journal) and elsewhere, that speak about effective and necessary technology uses in classrooms.

Some Directions and Suggestions

I would like to conclude this short essay with the following questions, which reflect what I hear from teachers around the world. Given that technology has a role to play in our classrooms, and given that there are increasing calls to expand the definition of literacy (see, for example, Kinzer & Leander, 2003; Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, in press), how can teachers integrate the teaching of current literacy demands into their classrooms? How should teachers ensure that their students know how to navigate, link, and create presentations, and understand the various support structure that authors build into their online writing? Where can teachers find information about creating online collaborative projects, and what kind of instruction leads to strategic use of the Internet? How should teachers ensure that children are protected in their online explorations while they learn to think critically about the multimodal texts they are reading?

Some of the answers to these questions are available in previous issues of Reading Online (ROL). A pioneering publication in the literacy field, this e-journal offers teachers, researchers, parents, students, and others ideas, support, and outlets for sharing their experiences and views. The vision of ROL’s first editor, Martha Dillner, has expanded over the past three years under the guidance and editorship of Bridget Dalton and Dana Grisham, and the site now averages more than 400,000 page views per month, reaching a readership that most traditional, paper journals do not match. By using the indexes and search functions, you can find, for example, numerous outstanding Web Watches by Denise Johnson, which provide resources and suggestions for using technology in literacy teaching and learning. Articles provide models for inservice development and discuss issues of teacher knowledge in technology use (e.g., Tracey, Heath, & Truss, 2002, online document), ideas and support for integrating laptops into elementary classrooms (e.g., Colburn, 2002, online document), and ways to use technology in interdisciplinary instruction within commonly accepted procedures (e.g., Karchmer, 2000, online document; Kuhn, 2001, online document; Labbo, Eakle, & Montero, 2002, online document). Reprints from the print journals The Reading Teacher and Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy provide specific ways to use technology to support children’s literacy development (e.g., Bruce & Bishop, 2002, online document; Coiro, 2003, online document).

Most journals in literacy include columns that provide ideas and updates for teachers interested in technology. Learning about Internet projects, Internet workshops, and Internet inquiry (Leu & Leu, 2000) and about WebQuests will provide ideas and support for technology integration. Online professional resources (see Kuhn, 2001, for a listing), including listservs and teacher-targeted chat communities, are an excellent way to ask questions and to find peers who are interested in issues of technology and literacy instruction (see, for example, the RTEACHER list).

Finally, we must support professional organizations that go beyond merely talking about the need to support teachers who try to integrate technology into their literacy instruction by making online resources available to their members. Organizations that do not model technology as important to their members’ literacy practices are in danger of becoming disconnected from their knowledgeable teacher audience -- perhaps in ways similar to those experienced by students who feel that some of their teachers are disconnected from the literacy practices in their lives.

I am encouraged by the innovative teaching that occurs when technology is used in meaningful, effective ways to enhance literacy learning at all grade levels. I know that this will continue and accelerate. I encourage all of you to share your ideas and experiences and to let your students know that literacy includes, but goes beyond, reading and writing in traditional forms.

References

Alvermann, D. (Ed.). (2002). Adolescents and literacies in a digital world. New York: Peter Lang. [Note: This book is reviewed elsewhere in this journal.]
Back

Bruce, B.C., & Bishop, A.P. (2002, May). Using the Web to support inquiry-based literacy development. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(8), 706-714. Available: www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=/electronic/jaal/5-02_Column/
Back

Cammack, D. (2002) Literacy, technology, and a room of her own: Analyzing adolescent girls’ online conversations from historical and technological literacy perspectives. In D. Shallert, C. Fairbanks, J. Worthy, B. Maloch, & J. Hoffman (Eds.), 51st yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 129-141). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.
Back

Coiro, J. (2003, February). Reading comprehension on the Internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies [Exploring Literacy on the Internet department]. The Reading Teacher, 56(6), 458-464. Available: www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=/electronic/rt/2-03_column/
Back

Colburn, L.K. (2002, February). Integrating laptops into multiple subject areas: Thoughts from teachers and students. Reading Online, 5(6). Available: www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=/electronic/colburn2/
Back

Hagood, M.C., Stevens, L.P., & Reinking, D. (2002). What do THEY have to teach US? Talkin’ ’cross generations! In D. Alvermann (Ed.), Adolescents and literacies in a digital world (pp. 68-83). New York: Peter Lang.
Back

Karchmer, R.A. (2000, September). Using the Internet and children’s literature to support interdisciplinary instruction [Exploring Literacy on the Internet department]. The Reading Teacher, 54(1). Available: www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=/electronic/RT/9-00_Column.html
Back

Kinzer, C.K., & Leander, K. (2003). Technology and the language arts: Implications of an expanded definition of literacy. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J.R. Squire, & J.M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research and teaching the English language arts (pp. 546-566). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Back

Kuhn, M. (2001, April). Taking computers out of the corner: Making technology work in the classroom. Reading Online, 4(9). Available: www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=/electronic/kuhn/
Back

Labbo, L.D., Eakle, A.J., & Montero, M.K. (2002, May). Digital Language Experience Approach: Using digital photographs and software as a Language Experience Approach innovation. Reading Online, 5(8). Available: www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=labbo2/
Back

Leu, D.J., Jr. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education in an information age. In M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (vol. 3, pp. 743-770). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Back

Leu, D.J., Jr., Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D.W. (in press). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies (ICT). In R. Ruddell & N. Unrau, Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Back

Leu, D.J., Jr., & Leu, D.D. (2000). Teaching with the Internet: Lessons from the classroom (4th ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Back

Lewis, C., & Finders, M. (2002). Implied adolescents and implied teachers: A generation gap for new times. In D. Alvermann (Ed.), Adolescents and literacies in a digital world (pp. 101-113). New York: Peter Lang.
Back

Reinking, D. (1995). Reading and writing with computers: Literacy research in a post-typographic world. In K.A. Hinchman, D.J. Leu, Jr., & C.K. Kinzer (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy research and practice (pp. 17-33). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Back

Tracey, D.H., Heath, M., & Truss, J. (2002, September). “Side-by-Side”: A technology education model for preservice and inservice teachers. Reading Online, 6(2). Available: www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=tracey/index.html
Back

Note: Images from the Exploratorium website are copyright © Exploratorium, www.exploratorium.edu, and are reproduced here by permission. The excerpt from Kinzer & Leander, 2003, is reproduced by permission of the publisher.

For a printer-ready version of this article, click here.

Citation: Kinzer, C.K. (2003, June). The importance of recognizing the expanding boundaries of literacy. Reading Online, 6(10). Available: http://www.readingonline.org/electronic/elec_index.asp?HREF=/electronic/kinzer/index.html