An Overview of New Literacy: Some Recommendations for Policy Makers, Researchers, and Teachers

Öz

The nature of literacy as a sociocultural phenomenon has undergone regular and continuous changes. With the increase in information and communication technologies, the meaning of literacy has been extended to online reading and content creating from traditional printed material based reading and writing. These changes have brought about a rapid increase of information and communication technology usage rates. To be literate today requires new skills, strategies, practices, and dispositions as well as reading and writing skills based on traditional printed materials. In the light of these developments, the lowercase and Uppercase New Literacies Theory has emerged in order to explain and examine today’s literacy, which involves many perspectives. The purpose of the current study is to review the new literacy theoretical framework, give information about recent research trends in new literacy, and make some suggestions to policy-makers, researchers and teachers. In accordance with this purpose, i) the dual-level new literacy theory is examined, ii) online reading and writing research in recent years is looked at, iii) information about technology integration in literacy education is given, iv) the concept of the digital divide is discussed and finally v) various research and practice recommendations are introduced. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• dual-level new literacy theory
• online reading and writing
• technology integration
• digital divide

Yeni Okuryazarlığa Genel Bir Bakış: Karar Alıcılar, Araştırmacılar ve Öğretmenler İçin Bazı Öneriler*

Öz

Sosyo-kültürel bir olgu olarak okuryazarlığın doğası düzenli ve sürekli olarak değişmektedir. Artan bilgi ve iletişim teknolojileri ile birlikte okuryazarlık basılı materyallere dayalı okuma ve içerik oluşturmadan çevrim içi okuma ve anlam oluşturmaya doğru kaymaktadır.  Bu dönüşümlerle birlikte bilgi ve iletişim teknoloji kullanım oranları son yıllarda hızlı bir şekilde artmıştır. Günümüzde tam manasıyla okuryazar olabilmek için geleneksel basılı materyallere dayalı okuma yazma becerilerinin yanı sıra, yeni beceri, strateji, uygulama ve eğilimler gerekmektedir. Tüm bu gelişmeler ışığında günümüz okuryazarlığını açıklamak ve incelemek amacıyla son yıllardaki birçok bakış açısını içine alan küçük harflerle ve Büyük Harflerle yeni okuryazarlık kuramı doğmuştur. Bu araştırmanın amacı yeni okuryazarlık kuramsal bakış açısını gözden geçirmek, yeni okuryazarlık üzerine son araştırma eğilimleri hakkında bilgi vermek ve karar alıcılara, araştırmacılara ve öğretmenlere bazı öneriler getirmektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda i) iki düzeyli yeni okuryazarlık kuramı incelenmiş, ii) son yıllardaki çevrim içi okuma ve yazma araştırmaları gözden geçirilmiş, iii) okuma yazma eğitiminde teknoloji entegrasyonu hakkında bilgi verilmiş, iv) dijital bölünme kavramı ele alınmış ve son olarak v) çeşitli araştırma ve uygulama önerileri getirilmiştir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• iki düzeyli yeni okuryazarlık kuramı
• çevrim içi okuma ve yazma
• teknoloji entegrasyonu
• dijital bölünme

Kaynakça

1. Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B.Y. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp.69–90). New York, NY: Routledge.
2. Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B. Y. (2010). Determining and describing reading strategies: Internet and traditional forms of reading. In H. S. Waters & W. Schneider (Eds.), Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction (pp. 201–225). New York, NY: Guilford.
3. Anwaruddin, S. M. (2015). ICTs in language and literacy education in Bangladesh: A critical review. Current Issues in Education, 18(1), 1–13.
4. Baker, E. A., Pearson, P. D., & Rozendal, M. S. (2010). Theoretical perspectives and literacy studies an exploration of roles and insights. In E. A. Baker (Eds.), New literacies: Multiple perspectives on research and practice (pp. 1–22). New York: Guilford.
5. Beach, R. (2012). Use of digital tools and literacies in the English Language Arts classroom. Research in the Schools, 19(1), 45–59.
6. Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R. D., Begay, K., Coleman, K. B., Curtin, G., ... & Graham, S. (2002). Teaching spelling and composition alone and together: Implications for the simple view of writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 291-304.
7. Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Augsburger, A., & Garcia, N. (2009). Comparison of pen and keyboard transcription modes in children with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(3), 123-141.
8. Bogard, J. M., & McMackin, M. C. (2012). Combining traditional and new literacies ın a 21st‐century writing workshop. The Reading Teacher, 65(5), 313-323.

9. Castek , J. , Zawilinski , L. , McVerry , G. , O ’ Byrne , I. , & Leu , D.J. ( 2011 ). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: New opportunities and challenges for students with learning difficulties. In C. Wyatt-Smith , J. Elkins , & S. Gunn (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on difficulties in learning literacy and numeracy (pp.91 – 110 ). New York, NY : Springer.
10. Castek, J. M. (2008). How do 4 and 5 grade students acquire the new literacies of online reading comprehension? Exploring the contexts that facilitate learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Storrs.
11. Chen, C. M., & Chen, F. Y. (2014). Enhancing digital reading performance with a collaborative reading annotation system. Computers and Education, 77, 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.010
12. Coiro, J., Sekeres, D. C., Castek, J., & Guzniczak, L. (2014). Comparing the quality of third, fourth, and fifth graders' social interactions and cognitive strategy use during structured online ınquiry. Journal of Education, 194(2), 1-15.
13. Coiro, J. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the internet: contributions of offline reading skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research: A Publication of the Literacy Research Association, 43(4), 352–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X11421979
14. Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214–257. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.42.2.2
15. Connelly, V., Gee, D., & Walsh, E. (2007). A comparison of keyboarded and handwritten compositions and the relationship with transcription speed. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 479-492.
16. Cordero, K., Nussbaum, M., Ibaseta, V., Otaíza, M. J., Gleisner, S., González, S., ... & Chiuminatto, P. (2015). Read Create Share (RCS): A new digital tool for interactive reading and writing. Computers & Education, 82, 486-496.
17. Crook, C., & Bennett, L. (2007). Does using a computer disturb the organization of children's writing?. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25(2), 313-321.
18. Esmer, B., & Ulusoy, M. (2015). Sınıf öğretmen adaylarının elektronik ortamlarda okuma becerilerinin değerlendirilmesi. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 8(37), 734-746.
19. Engstrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engstrom, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
20. Forzani, E., & Maykel, C. (2013). Evaluating a representative state sample of connecticut seventh-grade students’ ability to critically evaluate online ınformation (ORCA Report 6) Retrived from http://www.orca.uconn.edu/orca/assets/File/Research%20Reports/PROJECT%20REPORT%20%236%20Forzani%26Maykel.pdf Gee, J. & Handford, M. (2013). The routledge handbook of discourse analysis. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.
21. Handsfield, L. J., Dean, T. R., & Cielocha, K. M. (2009). Becoming critical consumers and producers of text: Teaching literacy with Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. The Reading Teacher, 63(1), 40-50.
22. Henry, L. A., Castek, J., O’Byrne, W. I., & Zawilinski, L. (2012). Using peer collaboration to support online reading, writing, and communication: An empowerment model for struggling readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 28(3), 279–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2012.676431
23. Henry, L. A.(2007). Exploring new literacies pedagogy and online reading comprehension among middle school students and teachers: Issues of social equity or social exclusion? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Storrs.
24. Howell, E. (2017). Pokémon GO: Implications for literacy in the classroom. The Reading Teacher, 70(6), 729-732.
25. Hutchison, A. (2012). Literacy teachers’ perceptions of professional development that increases integration of technology into literacy instruction. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 21(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2012.659894
26. Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt-Crawford, D. (2012). Exploring the use of the iPAD for literacy learning. Reading Teacher, 66(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01090
27. Hutchison, A., & Colwell, J. (2015). Bridging technology and literacy: Developing digital reading and writing practices in grades K–6. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
28. Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of integrating information and communication technologies into literacy instruction: A national survey in the United States. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 312–333. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.002
29. Hutchison, A., & Woodward, L. (2014). A planning cycle for integrating digital technology into literacy instruction. Reading Teacher, 67(6), 455–464. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1225
30. ICT Literacy Panel. (2002). Digital transformation: A framework for ICT literacy. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/Information_and_Communication_Technology_Literacy/ictreport.pdf
31. International Reading Association. (2009). New literacies and 21st-century technologies. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
32. Jones, J.S. & Rice, M.L. (2017). Exploring classroom microblogs to improve writing of middle school students, Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 15(1), 26-41.
33. Kiili, C., Laurinen, L., Marttunen, M., & Leu, D. J. (2012). Working on understanding during collaborative online reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(4), 448–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X12457166
34. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.
35. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Everyday practices and social learning. Berkshire, England: Open University Press. Larson, L.C. (2010). Digital readers: The next chapter in e-Book reading and response. Reading Teacher, 64(1), 15-22.
36. Lapp, D., Moss, B., & Rowsell, J. (2012). Envisioning new literacies through a lens of teaching and learning. Reading Teacher, 65(6), 367–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01055
37. Leu, D.J., Jr. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education in an information age. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp.743–770). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
38. Leu, DJ Jr, Kinzer C.K., Coiro J, & Cammack, D. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In R.B. Ruddell & N.J. Unrau (eds) Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570–1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
39. Leu, D. J. (2006). New literacies, reading research, and the challenges of change: A deictic perspective. (NRC Presidential Address). In J. Hoffman, D. Schallert, C. M. Fairbanks, J. Worthy, & B. Maloch (Eds.) The 55th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (1-20). Milwaukee, WI: National Reading Conference.
40. Leu, D.J., Everett-Cacopardo, H., Zawilinski, L., McVerry, J.G., O’Byrne, W. I. (2012). The new literacies of online reading comprehension. In C.A. Chapelle, (Ed.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. (pp. 4239-4247). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
41. Leu , D.J. , Kulikowich , J. , Sedransk , N. , & Coiro , J . ( 2009-2014 ). Assessing online reading comprehension: The ORCA Project. [Research grant funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences]. Retrieved from www.orca.uconn.edu/orca-project/project-overview
42. Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2013). New literacies: A Dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, ınstruction, and assessment. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (Sixth Edit., pp. 1150–1181). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
43. Leu , D.J. , Forzani , E. , Rhoads , C. , Maykel ,C. , Kennedy , C. , & Timbrell , N . (2014). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement gap. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(1), 37-59.
44. Leu, D. J., Slomp, D., Zawilinski, L. & Corrigan, J. (2016). Writing research from a new literacies lens. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.) Handbook of writing research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
45. Leu, D. J., & Maykel, C. (2016). Thinking in new ways and in new times about reading. Literacy Research and Instruction, 55(2), 122–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2016.1135388
46. Leu, D. J., McVerry, O’Byrne, Kiili, C., & Zawilinski, L. (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: Expanding the literacy and learning curriculum Donald. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1598/JA
47. Leu, D. J., Zawilinski, L., Forzani, E., & Timbrell, N. (2015). Best practices in teaching the new literacies of online research and comprehension. In L.B. Gambrell & L.M. Morrow (Ed.), Best practices in literacy instruction (5th ed., pp. 343–364). New York: Guilford.
48. Li, Y., & Ranieri, M. (2013). Educational and social correlates of the digital divide for rural and urban children: A study on primary school students in a provincial city of China. Computers & Education, 60(1), 197-209.
49. Liu, C. C., Liu, K. P., Chen, W. H., Lin, C. P., & Chen, G. D. (2011). Collaborative storytelling experiences in social media: Influence of peer-assistance mechanisms. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1544-1556.
50. Martin, A. (2006). Literacies for the digital age. In A. Martin & D. Madigan (Eds.), Digital literacies for learning (pp. 3-25). London, UK: Facet. McDermott, P., & Gormley, K. a. (2016). Teachers’ use of technology in elementary reading lessons. Reading Psychology, 37(1), 121–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2015.1009592
51. McGrail, E., & Davis, A. (2011). The influence of classroom blogging on elementary student writing. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 25(4), 415-437.
52. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2017). Türkçe dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi. http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=222 sayfasından erişilmiştir.
53. Merchant, G. (2009). Literacy in virtual worlds. Journal of research in reading, 32(1), 38-56.
54. New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92.
55. OECD. (2001). Understanding the digital divide. Paris: OECD. Retreived from https://www.oecd.org/sti/1888451.pdf
56. O’Neal, L. J., Gibson, P., & Cotten, S. R. (2017). Elementary school teachers’ beliefs about the role of technology in 21st-century teaching and learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and Applied Research, 34(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2017.1347443
57. Pang, S., Reinking, D., Hutchison, A., & Ramey, D. (2015). South Korean teachers ’ perceptions of integrating information and communication technologies into literacy instruction. Education Research International, 2015, 1-13.
58. Passig, D., & Maidel-Kravetsky, J. (2016). The impact of collaborative online reading on summarizing skills. Education and Information Technologies, 21(3), 531–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9337-5
59. Pifarré, M., Li, L. (2012). Teaching how to learn with a wiki in primary education: What classroom interaction can tell us. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(2), 102-113.
60. Pruden, M., Kerkhoff, S. N., Spires, H. A., & Lester, J. (2017). Enhancing writing achievement through a digital learning environment: Case studies of three struggling adolescent male writers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 33(1), 1-19.
61. Reardon, S. F., & Galindo, C. (2009). The Hispanic-White achievement gap in math and reading in the elementary grades. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 853-891.
62. Reardon, S. F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising ınequality and the uncertain life chances of low-ıncome children (pp. 91–116). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002305
63. Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8- to 18- year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
64. Sessions, L., Kang, M. O., & Womack, S. (2016). The neglected “R”: Improving writing instruction through iPad apps. TechTrends, 60(3), 218-225.
65. Schmar-Dobler, E. (2003). Reading on the Internet: The link between literacy and technology. Journal of adolescent & adult literacy, 47(1), 80-85.
66. Sormunen, E., González-Ibáñez, R., Kiili, C., Leppänen, P. T., Mikkilä-Erdmann, M., Erdmann, N., & Escobar-Macaya, M. (2018). A performance-based test for assessing students’ online ınquiry competences in schools. In S. Kurbanoğlu, et al. (Ed.), Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Literacy (ECIL). Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 810 (pp. 673–682). Cham: Springer.
67. Sylvester, R., & Greenidge, W. L. (2009). Digital storytelling: Extending the potential for struggling writers. The Reading Teacher, 63(4), 284-295.
68. Taboada, A., & Guthrie, J. (2006). Contributions of student questioning and prior knowledge to construction of knowledge from reading information text. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3801_1
69. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (2016). Hanehalkı bilişim teknolojileri kullanım araştırması. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=21779 sayfasından erişilmiştir.
70. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (2013). 06-15 yaş grubu çocuklarda bilişim teknolojileri kullanımı ve medya. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/ PreHaberBultenleri.do?id=15866 sayfasından erişilmiştir.
71. Yamaç, A., & Ulusoy, M. (2016). The effect of digital storytelling in improving the third graders' writing skills. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 9(1), 59-86.
72. Vasudevan, L., Schultz, K., & Bateman, J. (2010). Rethinking composing in a digital age: Authoring literate identities through multimodal storytelling. Written Communication, 27(4), 442-468.
73. Van Dijk, J. A. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34(4), 221-235.
74. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
75. Walsh, M. (2010). Multimodal literacy: What does it mean for classroom practice?. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 33(3), 211-239.
76. Wollscheid, S., Sjaastad, J., Tømte, C., & Løver, N. (2016). The effect of pen and paper or tablet computer on early writing–a pilot study. Computers & Education, 98, 70-80.
77. Wollscheid, S., Sjaastad, J., & Tømte, C. (2016). The impact of digital devices vs. Pen (cil) and paper on primary school students' writing skills–A research review. Computers & Education, 95, 19-35.
78. Zawilinski, L. (2012). An exploration of a collaborative blogging approach to literacy and learning: A mixed method study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Storrs.