Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 392
Appendix B Literacy in a Digital Age Digital and online media are rapidly evolving new tools that are chang- ing the ways that people communicate, read, and write. Adolescents and adults are taking up these communication technologies at an unprecedented pace and on a previously unattainable scale. Adults’ use of social network- ing, for example, increased 33 percent between 2009 and 2010 (Madden, 2010), and 72 percent of all adults were texting in 2010 (Lenhart, 2010).1 In today’s world, expectations for literacy include use of digital and online media to communicate with a wide range of other people and to produce, find, evaluate, and synthesize knowledge in innovative and cre- ative ways to meet the varied demands of education and work. Indeed, in the last decade, government, business, and education organizations have asserted in commissioned reports, position statements, and syntheses of research that certain skills are needed in the 21st century for full civic and economic participation in this increasingly networked, mobile, and globally interconnected world (see North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 2003; National Council of Teachers of English, 2008, 2009; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2010; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and Statistics Canada, 2005; Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2002, 2003, 2007, 2009). 1 The committee did not evaluate the methodology of polls used to get the usage numbers reported in this appendix. Although the methodologies generally appear to be sound, there are questions about whether the subset of the population who need literacy enhancement might be underrepresented, simply due to lesser likelihood of pollsters reaching them and lesser likeli- hood of their responding to these kinds of surveys. 392
OCR for page 393
393 APPENDIX B Researchers have begun to study the particular social practices, skills, strategies, and dispositions associated with full participation in this tech- nological and media-saturated society (Jenkins et al., 2009). An assump- tion of this research is that literacy is connected to a range of skills used in conjunction with information and communication technologies (ICT) to select, analyze, evaluate, synthesize, and share information (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2010); to think critically and creatively (Silva, 2008); to make and apply knowledge flexibly and adap- tively (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2009); to develop proficiency with tools of technology (including the design and creation of a variety of texts for multiple, global audiences, and various purposes) (National Council of Teachers of English, 2008); and to communicate and collaborate effectively (e.g., North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 2003). Many of these critical thinking and learning competencies are not new or unique, but there is a need to understand the digital and online literacy skills that are required to live in a globalized and technologically mediated society transformed by new economic, social, and political realities. Although most research on new media and literacy has focused on ado- lescents in out-of-school contexts, researchers have begun to document how adults use information and communication technologies in their everyday lives and in their pursuit of continuing education (Lenhart, 2010; Madden, 2010; Mellar and Kambouri, 2004; Smith, 2010a, 2010b; Tamassia et al., 2007). In this appendix, we report findings from 32 empirical studies con- ducted between 1995 and 2009 on the relation between new information and communication technologies and adults’ literacy practices and beliefs involving new media.2 The first section of this appendix draws from these studies and other widely cited studies to describe practices and proficiencies related to the use of new technologies that now contribute to what it means to be literate. The second section examines what the research says about 2 Our review included peer-reviewed journals from 1995 to 2010. It excluded studies that did not focus explicitly on literacy and technology. The primary search term used was “adult”; secondary search terms were “literacy,” “reading,” and “writing”; tertiary search terms (com- bined with each secondary term) were “computer,” “digital,” “ICT,” “information and com- munication technology,” “information technology,” “internet,” “multimedia,” “multimodal,” “online,” “technology,” and “web.” Databases used were ERIC, JSTOR, and Google Scholar. Four categories of journals were also searched individually: (1) general education journals (American Education Research Journal, Harvard Educational Review, International Journal of Educational Research), (2) literacy journals (Written Communication, Journal of Literacy Re- search, Reading and Writing, Reading Research Quarterly), (3) technology journals (Journal of Computer Assisted Learning; Journal of Computer Mediated Communication; International Journal of Learning and Media; Learning, Media, and Technology), and (4) adult education journals (Adult Education Quarterly, International Journal of Lifelong Education, Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal).
OCR for page 394
394 IMPROVING ADULT LITERACY INSTRUCTION how and why people engage in these literacy practices. The third section examines various instructional practices and learning environments that promote these proficiencies, especially for adult populations with differ- ent levels of literacy. The final section notes that empirical research on the role of new media in adult literacy development is scant, particularly for those adults who struggle with foundational reading and writing skills. The frameworks available in the field of digital media and learning to explain why adults need to develop proficiencies relating to these technologies to meet their learning goals can inform future studies. This issue and recom- mendations for research are discussed in Chapter 9. ADULT LITERACY PRACTICES AND PROFICIENCIES As digital reading—whether on computers or, increasingly, mobile de- vices—becomes more commonplace, a central question for literacy re- searchers is how these contexts affect reading patterns and comprehension processes (Alexander and Jetton, 2003). Research on the online reading practices of youth in educational settings has emerged as a focus (Coiro et al., 2009), as has research on the online reading practices of adults, particularly ones who struggle with reading and writing in print (Attar, 2005; Ercetin, 2003; Mackey, 2007; McEneaney et al., 2009; Zhang and Duke, 2008). Early research on online reading processes with proficient readers (both youth and adults) suggests that reading online is not isomor- phic with reading print texts (Coiro and Dobler, 2007; Zhang and Duke, 2008). Reading both online and printed texts requires the integration of prior knowledge, the use of inferential reasoning strategies, and frequent self-regulation, but online reading also demands that readers use these skills and strategies in ways that are different and may involve more complex and adaptive combinations (Coiro and Dobler, 2007; Zhang and Duke, 2008). Readers in online contexts must draw on prior knowledge not only of the topic and text structures but also of online structures such as hyperlinks, websites, and search engines (Coiro and Dobler, 2007; Miller et al., 2004; Zhang and Duke, 2008). While studies have primarily been conducted with proficient youth (Coiro and Dobler, 2007) or proficient adults (Zhang and Duke, 2008), the importance of prior knowledge to reading success suggests that struggling adult readers, particularly those with less prior knowledge about ICT structures, are likely to struggle with online read- ing, especially since traditional reading competencies are needed in more complex combinations for online comprehension (Cromley and Azevedo, 2009). In addition to drawing on more sources of prior knowledge, readers of online texts must use extended and multilayered inferential reasoning strategies. In particular, they must make more forward inferences, that is, predictions (Coiro and Dobler, 2007), as well as more flexible and adaptive
OCR for page 395
395 APPENDIX B self-regulation of reading processes, particularly across short time cycles, different reading purposes, and physical spaces (Coiro and Dobler, 2007; Zhang and Duke, 2008). Interactive media, such as the Internet, place special demands on the reader for strategic search, coordination of multiple sources, and discern- ment of relevance and credibility. Readers in such environments make implicit and explicit decisions about the level of resources to invest in particular texts and supporting multimedia materials, and about when to shift attention among them (Duggan and Payne, 2009; Pirolli, 2007; Pirolli and Card, 1999; Reader and Payne, 2007). Thus, searching for informa- tion (e.g., perusing web pages) and consuming information (e.g., reading the text on a particular web page) are separable processes, with particular cognitive underpinnings (Hills et al., in press). Individual differences in both working memory and knowledge can impact the effectiveness with which information is obtained and integrated in such interactive environments (Sharit et al., 2009). A number of studies examining the Internet search strategies of adults, including inexperienced adult computer users, have found that (1) prior knowledge about the topic, computers, and online text structures facili- tates search capabilities (both in speed and in success) and (2) navigation of online structures plays a crucial role in finding and reading informa- tion (Attar, 2005; Cromley and Azevedo, 2009; McEneaney et al., 2009; Rouet, 2006). Prior knowledge and navigation skills mattered more than age in determining whether users were successful in their tasks (Cromley and Azevedo, 2009), suggesting that as inexperienced adults become more familiar with online structures of websites and hypertext, they can develop more proficient reading practices. This conclusion is further supported by findings from the latest Program for International Student Assessment study, which found that increased familiarity with computers and the In- ternet was associated with higher test scores (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2010), although socioeconomic status might have contributed to this correlation. One of the central difficulties facing inexperienced users, either adult or youth, in navigating online reading contexts is the ability to recover from breakdowns in meaning. Proficient Internet readers have self-regulation strategies to fix up and repair breakdowns that are part of their overall reading strategies (Bilal and Kirby, 2002; Coiro and Dobler, 2007; Zhang and Duke, 2008). But inexperienced users struggle to monitor and repair breakdowns in meaning (Attar, 2005; Bilal and Kirby, 2002), having prob- lems similar to those that struggling readers encounter in reading print texts (Pearson et al., 1992). Furthermore, inexperienced adults encountered more difficulties in mapping what they know onto the new Internet context and struggled in navigating the spaces of the web pages (Attar, 2005). However,
OCR for page 396
396 IMPROVING ADULT LITERACY INSTRUCTION knowing what strategies to employ in which circumstances while planning, predicting, monitoring, and evaluating is particularly important in online reading contexts, which demand more flexible and often simultaneous deployment of strategies across even faster cycles of self-regulation (Coiro and Dobler, 2007; Zhang and Duke, 2008). Research with adult users of information and communication technolo- gies shows that such a central capacity for online reading is flexible de- ployment of appropriate strategies depending on one’s purpose and stance (Clover, 2007; Cromley and Azevedo, 2009; Mackey, 2007; McEneaney et al., 2009; Zhang and Duke, 2008). This adaptive capacity is important not only in comprehending text but also in reading multimodal texts that combine images, audio, graphics, and video in complex combinations, a kind of multiliterate meaning-making capacity enabling users to do many things at once (Clover, 2007) and to make meaning across and with mul- tiple representations. Research that looks at search strategies across dif- ferent age groups suggests that there is no single ideal hypermedia search strategy (Cromley and Azevedo, 2009) but that a variety of strategies must be deployed, sometimes simultaneously, according to people’s varied stances toward and purposes for reading and searching (McEneaney et al., 2009). Whether seeking to be entertained, to gain general knowledge, or to find specific information, readers monitor their reading processes, apply their prior knowledge, and evaluate online texts using a range of strategies flex- ibly and adaptively (Zhang and Duke, 2008). As texts increasingly point to other texts through hyperlinks and incorporate multiple and hybrid text structures and multimedia content, readers must read not only strategically but also intertextually—across modes, media, genres, and content (Mackey, 2007; Perfetti, Britt, and Georgi, 1995; Rouet, 2006). Just as adults need to develop a sophisticated strategic repertoire to navigate online contexts, so too do they need to develop a strategic and flexible composing repertoire for writing in multimodal contexts. Research on multimodal composing processes facilitated by information and com- munication technologies suggests that this involves sophisticated textual work (Brass, 2008). Writers can now reappropriate symbolic materials across a range of modes—audio, video, graphics, etc.—and take advantage of intertextual possibilities in new contexts (Ranker, 2008), drawing on prior knowledge, locally meaningful texts, and popular culture in multiple combinations. This kind of multimodal braiding of meaning from different sources, now seen as a commonplace strategy by many (Mackey, 2007), al- lows writers to compose new meanings by layering and synthesizing across a number of available modes, with the created meaning transcending the collection of its constitutive parts (Hull and Nelson, 2005; Ranker, 2008). With an expanding number of ways to create meaningful communi- cations through the orchestration of these multiple modes, the explicitly
OCR for page 397
397 APPENDIX B performative and multivoiced nature of many digital texts, and the circula- tion of these texts, readers and writers are faced with increasing textual complexity (Lewis and Fabos, 2005; Mackey, 2007; National Council of Teachers of English, 2008). Writers in complex digital contexts must be strategic in how they compose, to whom, and for what purposes (Mackey, 2007; Ranker, 2008), not least because of the potential to connect to people in new ways, across national and generational borders (Chandler-Olcott and Mahar, 2003; Lam, 2006). Multimodal composing also offers rich implications for writers’ identities, especially in inviting experimentation and playfulness (Boyd, 2008; Chandler-Olcott and Mahar, 2003; Lam, 2006). Research suggests that using computers to compose might facilitate adults’ negotiation of this textual complexity by encouraging revision and self-monitoring (Li, 2006), although the impact of composing in digital contexts has not been sufficiently explored with adults who are less familiar with ICT or traditional print literacy practices. ADULTS’ ENGAGEMENT WITH INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES Recent surveys of U.S. households point to a more connected, more participatory, and more engaged public than ever before. More people re- port getting online and using new technologies to connect to one another, with 74 percent of all adults over 18 now online3 (including 93 percent of young adults ages 18-29) (Lenhart et al., 2010a). Most of these users are taking advantage of digital connectivity by getting online via cell phones (Smith, 2010a); texting (Lenhart, 2010); watching videos online (Purcell, 2010); blogging (Lenhart et al., 2010a); reading, commenting on, or creat- ing the news (Purcell et al., 2010); and connecting on social networking sites (Madden, 2010), although it remains unclear whether the target ado- lescent and adult literacy population uses the more literacy-demanding of ICT affordances. In particular, older Americans are connecting with oth- ers online in increasing numbers, and although most still prefer email to communicate, more older adults are connecting via social networking sites (the number grew from 22 to 42 percent of all online adults over age 50 in the last year) (Madden, 2010), with 46 percent of all online adults now having at least one social networking profile (Madden and Smith, 2010). Some reports indicate that this digital connectedness is beneficial (or at least not harmful) in creating core social networks to fight social isolation, with most people who connect online reporting a broader and more diverse core social support network (Hampton et al., 2009). However, many of the same social stratification issues that affect young adults offline are 3 See footnote 1.
OCR for page 398
398 IMPROVING ADULT LITERACY INSTRUCTION replicated online, with users from a resource-rich background also reaping more benefits from their online practices (Hargittai and Hinnant, 2008). While issues of access remain a concern, more people of all income and education levels are getting online, many of whom are using mobile devices to close the participation gap (Smith, 2010a). A number of studies have explored why some adults engage with information and communication technologies and others remain nonus- ers or limited users. It appears that motivation and disposition are more important indicators than access in determining who gets online or uses computers (Attar, 2005; Selwyn, 2004; Selwyn and Gorard, 2004; Smith, 2004, 2010a, 2010b; Stanley, 2003; Vandenbroeck et al., 2008; Warren- Peace, 2008). In particular, anxiety plays an important role (Vandenbroeck et al., 2008), as some unconnected older adults report being fearful, lack- ing self-efficacy around computer use, or not imagining themselves as the kind of people who engage with such technologies (Stanley, 2003). A recent Pew Research Center report found that 21 percent of the American adults surveyed do not get online, with more than half of them saying that they do not feel comfortable or knowledgeable about it (Smith, 2010a). Charness and Boot (2009) also found both attitudinal and cognitive barriers to Internet use and recommend a combination of training and better design to enhance accessibility. Other adults report not being interested in going online (Smith, 2010a) or do not see its usefulness to their daily lives (Smith, 2010a; Selwyn, 2004). Selwyn and Kvasny (2006) both argue that use of information and communication technologies among adults is multifaceted and historical, tied less to issues of access and more to historic inequalities and relationships around technology use that people develop over time in their local, everyday communities. This issue of people’s perceptions of new technologies—which are of course mediated by people’s social, historical, and cultural backgrounds— plays a central role in whether and how adults use them (Chu and Tsai, 2009; Gorard, Selwyn, and Williams, 2000). Although most adult educa- tion programs in the United States (80 percent) offer some use of computers for instructional activities, it is unclear how these programs are addressing participants’ motivation and disposition toward using information and communication technologies, including going online (Tamassi et al., 2007). Since studies have indicated that self-efficacy and self-determination around ICT use are important to how those adults use new technologies (Chu and Tsai, 2009; Vandenbroeck et al., 2008), it seems central to know how adult basic education programs support historically underserved populations who may be disenfranchised from their use (Coryell and Chlup, 2007; Clover, 2007; Jacobson, 2008; Webb, 2006). Just as there is less research on other aspects of the adult literacy population, so also there is less clarity about their inclusion in samples from which inferences about the ubiquity of tech-
OCR for page 399
399 APPENDIX B nology use are made. Better understanding of the technology access and use patterns of the target population of this report is particularly important, given research that indicates that increased ICT use improves participants’ attitudes and motivation, including more positive attitudes about their own self-efficacy in reading and writing and a wider strategic repertoire (Chu and Tsai, 2009; Clough et al., 2007; Ercetin, 2003; Kambouri et al., 2006). INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES AND LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS Although the research on particular instructional practices with infor- mation and communication technologies that have implications for adults’ literacy practices is not extensive (see Tamassi et al., 2007), some studies do indicate that more experience and familiarity with online reading and writing have positive implications for users’ attitudes toward online literacy practices, particularly for ones that integrate technology throughout the course (Goodyear et al., 2005). For example, Attar’s (2005) longitudinal study of adult education participants in the United Kingdom indicates that explicit instruction about the structure of online interfaces helped make the logic of web pages, hypertext, and search engines more transparent. This explicit and guided instruction helped participants become more familiar with language about the Internet and increased their knowledge about (and thus comfort with) online texts and interfaces. Similarly, Warren-Peace’s small-scale study (2008) reported that structured guidance helped the two older adults in the study become more familiar with technologies over time and increased their enjoyment in engaging in them. Furthermore, in Ercetin’s (2003) study of adult participants enrolled in a program of English as a second language, practice and experience in guided reading in new media environments helped participants find reading more enjoyable, sug- gesting that offering adults opportunities to engage with information and communication technologies might increase self-efficacy. Some studies, while not specifically on the target U.S. adolescent and adult literacy learner population and often on small samples, also suggest that increased engagement and familiarity with online literacy practices have implications for literacy learning more broadly. For example, Kambouri and colleagues (2006) examined the literacy practices of 13 young adults in three UK literacy centers who played a high-quality educational game designed to engage learners who were disaffected by traditional literacy practices (but who were experienced with the video game genre). Findings indicate that users were more actively engaged in creating intertextual con- nections (especially incorporating their lived experiences into the formal educational context), innovating new literacy practices around the game, and developing their critical literacy practices (including taking control over their learning). Other work (Dede and Grotzner, 2009; Shaffer, 2006)
OCR for page 400
400 IMPROVING ADULT LITERACY INSTRUCTION has emphasized the need to access technical information (such as reading text) as it is needed in serious game environments and that mentorship is needed in order to coordinate games and academic material to achieve sci- ence learning. This underscores the challenges of integrating subject-matter content in motivating games. In a different context, a longitudinal study of adult women involved in community technologies in rural villages, Clover (2007) found that engagement with them, including resistance, increased women’s critical literacy capacities, empowering them to decide how best to adapt literacy practices involving technology to their everyday purposes. A number of studies suggest that programs that create supportive learning environments that take into account adults’ prior life experiences and offer opportunities for self-directed learning seem to set the stage for successful learning experiences. Controlling one’s learning environment is important for learners’ self-efficacy and motivation (Chu and Tsai), which may be why many youth turn to online communication contexts outside formal educational contexts for the opportunity to shape their environ- ments (Chandler-Olcott and Mahar, 2003; Lam, 2006; Lewis and Fabos, 2005) and why many adults seek out informal learning opportunities via mobile and online practices (Clough et al., 2007). In adult learning settings, successful programs are ones in which students are supported individu- ally, are given enough time to work on computers (including for personal purposes), and allow collaboration between students and between teachers and students (Coryell and Chlup, 2007). Furthermore, programs that offer structure and guidance can have an impact on how relevant adult partici- pants find information and communication technologies as well as their attitudes toward learning with them (Warren-Peace et al., 2008). However, learning environments that include top down administration, particularly involving staff members who believe that technology is neutral and who are not adequately trained, can lead to resistance, dropping out, or other problems with participant attitudes toward learning (Clover, 2007). Furthermore, the presence of technologies alone in these programs cannot overcome the social and cultural inequities that affect adults’ beliefs and attitudes toward lifelong learning and technology (Gorard, Selwyn, and Madden, 2003; Kvasny, 2006), which can also affect teachers’ integra- tion of them into adult basic education programs (Kotrlik and Redmann, 2005). After years of absence from formal learning situations or having negative earlier schooling experiences, adult students can be intimidated by overly structured, test-centered programs (Stanley, 2003). Many times these programs, full of young people, presume basic computer literacy or English proficiency, and they do not take into account how adults who have not been involved with ICT use can be intimidated and anxious about adopting these new roles in unfamiliar educational settings (Attar, 2005; Stanley, 2003). Furthermore, many of these programs have a narrow view
OCR for page 401
401 APPENDIX B of technology and literacy, prescribing constrained uses of computers and not taking into account the wide range of purposes people might have in using technology (Kvasny, 2006). This may account for why some studies examining computer-aided instruction do not necessarily find that achieve- ment scores improve, particularly when computers are used in ways with which students do not identify and without teacher support (Batchedler and Koski, 2003). When considering technology-enhanced instruction, pro- grams that allow students to work at their own pace, offer individualized instruction, have strong community ties, and support learners with myriad work and familial responsibilities have been shown to promote literacy learning through ICT use with their adult students (Clover, 2007; Coryell and Chlup, 2007; Menard-Warwick and Dabach, 2004; Silver-Pacuilla, 2006; Stanley, 2003). FUTURE RESEARCH Research, especially experiments, on how to develop literacy with new media is scant, but the available theoretical literature on new technologies for literacy can inform future studies. Specific priority areas for research are discussed in Chapter 9. REFERENCES Alexander, P.A., and Jetton, T.L. (2003). Learning from traditional and alternative texts: New conceptualizations for the information age. In A.C. Graesser, M.A. Gernsbacher, and S.R. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 199-232). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Attar, D. (2005). Dismay and disappointment: Perspectives of inexperienced adult learners on becoming web page readers. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 495-508. Barab, S.A., and Roth, W.-M. (2006). Curriculum-based ecosystems: Supporting knowing from an ecological perspective. Educational Researcher, 35(5), 3-13. Barab, S.A., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Cartreaux, R., and Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Education Technology Research and Develop- ment, 53(1), 86-107. Barton, D., and Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. London, England: Routledge. Batchedler, J.S., and Koski, D.D. (2003). Technology in the adult education classroom: Evaluating achievement on the test of adult basic education. MPAEA Journal of Adult Education, 32(2), 59-70. Bilal, D., and Kirby, J. (2002). Differences and similarities in information seeking: Children and adults as web users. Information Processing and Management, 38, 649-670. Black, R.W. (2009). Online fan fiction, global identities, and imagination. Research in the Teaching of English, 43(4), 397-425. Boyd, D. (2008). Why youth ♥ social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth, identity, and digital media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
OCR for page 402
402 IMPROVING ADULT LITERACY INSTRUCTION Brass, J.J. (2008). Local knowledge and digital movie composing in an after-school literacy program. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 51(8), 464-473. Brown, A.L., Collins, A., and Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. Chandler-Olcott, K., and Mahar, D. (2003). “Tech-savviness” meets multiliteracies: Exploring adolescent girls’ technology mediated literacy practices. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(3), 356-385. Chu, R. J.-C., and Tsai, C.-C. (2009). Self-directed learning readiness, Internet self-efficacy and preferences towards constructivist Internet-based learning environments among higher- aged adults. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 489-501. Clough, G., Jones, A.C., McAndrew, P., and Scanlon, E. (2008). Informal learning with PDAs and smartphones. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, (24), 359-371. Clover, D.E. (2007). From sea to cyberspace: Women’s leadership and learning around infor- mation and communication technologies in coastal Newfoundland. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26(1), 75-88. Coiro, J., and Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Read- ing Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214-257. Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., and Leu, D.J. (2009). Central issues in new literacies and new literacies research. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, and D.J. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 1-22). New York: Routledge. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Coryell, J.E., and Chlup, D.T. (2007). Implementing E-Learning components with adult Eng- lish language learners: Vital factors and lessons learned. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(3), 263-278. Cromley, J.C., and Azevedo, R. (2009). Locating information with extended hypermedia. Education Technology Research and Development, 57, 287-313. Duggan, G.B., and Payne, S.J. (2009). Text skimming: The process and effectiveness of forag- ing through text under time pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 228-242. Ercetin, G. (2003). Exploring ESL learners’ use of hypermedia reading glosses. CALICO Journal, 20(2), 261-283. Gee, J. P. (2009). Digital media and learning as an emerging field, part 1: How we got here. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1(2), 13-23. Goodyear, P., Jones, C., Asensio, M., Hodgson, V., and Steeples, C. (2005). Networked learning in higher education: Students’ expectations and experiences. Higher Education, 50(3), 473-508. Gorard, S., Selwyn, N., and Williams, S. (2000). Must try harder! Problems facing technologi- cal solutions to non-participation in adult learning. British Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 507-521. Gorard, S., Selwyn, N., and Madden, L. (2003). Logged on to learning: Assessing the impact of technology on participation in lifelong learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22(3), 281-296. Hampton, K.N., Sessions, L.F., Her, E.J., and Rainie, L. (2009). How the Internet and mobile phones impact Americans’ social networks. Retrieved from Pew Internet and American Life Project: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1398/internet-mobile-phones-impact- american-social-networks. Hargittai, E., and Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital inequality: Differences in young adults’ use of the Internet. Communication Research, 35(5), 602-621.
OCR for page 403
403 APPENDIX B Hills, T., Todd, P.M., and Jones, M. (2009). Optimal foraging in semantic memory. In N.A. Taatgen and H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual conference of the Cogni- tive Science Society. Amsterdam, the Netherlands, July 29-August 1. Hull, G., and Nelson, M.E. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written Communication, 22(2), 224-261. Ito, M., Horst, H., Bittanti, M., Boyd, dD., Herr-Stephenson, B., Lange, P.G., et al. (2008). Living and learning with new media: Summary of findings from the Digital Youth Proj- ect. Available: http://digitalyouth.ischool.berkeley.edu/report [Nov. 2011]. Jacobson, E. (2008). Learning and collaborating in the adult literacy education wiki. E- Learning, 5(4), 370-383. Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A.J., and Weigel, M. (2009). Confront- ing the challenge of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Avail- able: http://digitallearning.macfound.org/atf/cf/%7B7E45C7E0-A3E0-4B89-AC9C-E807 E1B0AE4E%7D/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF [Nov. 2011]. Kambouri, M., Thomas, S., and Mellar, H. (2006). Playing the literacy game: A case study in adult education. Learning, Media and Technology, 31(4), 395-410. Kotrlik, J.W., and Redmann, D.H. (2005). Extent of technology integration in instruction by adult basic education teachers. Adult Education Quarterly, 55(3), 200-219. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge. Kvasny, L. (2005). The role of habitus in shaping discourses about the digital divide. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(2). Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00242.x/full [Nov. 2011]. Lam, W.S.E. (2006). Re-envisioning language, literacy, and the immigrant subject in new mediascapes. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 1(3), 171-195. Lankshear, C., and Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Lave, J., and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. Lenhart, A. (2010). Cell phones and American adults. Available: http://pewinternet.org/ Reports/2010/Cell-Phones-and-American-Adults.aspx [Nov. 2011]. Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S., and Purcell, K. (2010a). Teens and mobile phones. Avail- able: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Teens-and-Mobile-Phones.aspx [Nov. 2011]. Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., and Zickuhr, K. (2010b). Social media and mobile Internet use among teens and young adults. Available: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Social- Media-and-Young-Adults.aspx [Nov. 2011]. Lewis, C., and Fabos, B. (2005). Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(4), 470-501. Li, J. (2006). The mediation of technology in ESL writing and its implications for writing as- sessment. Assessing Writing, 11, 5-21. Mackey, M. (2007). Slippery texts and evolving literacies. E-Learning, 4(3), 319-328. Madden, M. (2010). Older adults and social media. Available: http://pewinternet.org/Reports /2010/Older-Adults-and-Social-Media.aspx [Nov. 2011]. Madden, M., and Smith, A. (2010). Reputation management and social media. Available: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Reputation-Management.aspx [Nov. 2011]. McEneaney, J.E., Li, L., Allen, K., and Guzniczak, L. (2009). Stance, navigation, and reader response in expository hypertext. Journal of Literacy Research, 41(1), 1-45. Mellar, H., and Kambouri, M. (2005). Observing ICT use in adult literacy, numeracy, and language classrooms. Literacy and Numeracy Studies, 14(2), 61-74. Menard-Warwick, J., and Dabach, D.B. (2004). “In a little while I could be in front”: Social mobility, class, and gender in the computer practices of two Mexicano families. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47(5), 380-389.
OCR for page 404
404 IMPROVING ADULT LITERACY INSTRUCTION Miller, L.M.S., Stine-Morrow, E.A.L., Kirkorian, H. L., and Conroy, M.L. (2004). Adult age differences in knowledge-driven reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 811-821. Moje, E.B. (2009). A call for new research of new and multi-literacies. Research in the Teach- ing of English, 43(4), 348-362. National Council of Teachers of English. (2008). 21st century curriculum and assessment framework. Available: http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/21stcentframework [Nov. 2011]. National Council of Teachers of English. (2009). Writing between the lines and everywhere else. Available: http://www.ncte.org/topics/betweenlines [Nov. 2011]. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (2003). engauge 21st century skills: Literacy in the digital age. Available: http://www.ncrel.org/engauge [Nov. 2011]. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). Are the new millenium learners making the grade? Technology use and educational performance in PISA. Avail- able: http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?k=5KSCG4J39DHBandlang=en [Nov. 2011]. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and Statistics Canada. (2005). Learning a living: First results of the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey. Available: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-603-x/2005001/4071714-eng.htm [Nov. 2011]. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2002). Learning for the 21st century: A report and mile guide for 21st century skills. Available: http://www.p21.org/index.php?option=com_ contentandtask=viewandid=925andItemid=185 [Nov. 2011]. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2003). The road to 21st century learning: A policymak- er’s guide to 21st century skills. Available: http://www.p21.org/index.php?option=com_ contentandtask=viewandid=925andItemid=185 [Nov. 2011]. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2006). Results that matter: 21st century skills and high school reform. Available: http://www.p21.org/index.php?option=com_contentandtask= viewandid=204andItemid=185 [Nov. 2011]. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2007). The intellectual and policy foundations of the 21st century skills framework. Available: http://www.p21.org/index.php?option=com_ contentandtask=viewandid=925andItemid=185 [Nov. 2011]. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). P21 framework definitions. Available: http:// www.p21.org/index.php?option=com_contentandtask=viewandid=925andItemid= 185 [Nov. 2011]. Pearson, P.D., Roehler, L.R., Dole, J.A., and Duffy, G.G. (1992). Developing expertise in reading comprehension. In S.J. Samuels (Ed.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 145-199). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Pirolli, P. (2007). Information foraging theory: Adaptive interaction with information. New York: Oxford University Press. Pirolli, P., and Card, S.K. (1999). Information foraging. Psychological Review, 106, 643-675. Purcell, K. (2010). The state of online video. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports /2010/State-of-Online-Video.aspx [Nov. 2011]. Purcell, K., Rainie, L., Mitchell, A., Rosenstiel, T., and Olmstead, K. (2010). Understanding the participatory news consumer. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/ Online-News.aspx [Nov. 2011]. Ranker, J. (2008). Composing across multiple media. Written Communication, 25(2), 196-234. Reader, W.R.,and Payne, S.J. (2007). Allocating time across multiple texts: Sampling and satisficing. Human Computer Interaction, 22(3), 263-298. Rideout, V.J., Foehr, U.G., and Roberts, D.F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8-18 year olds. Available: http://www.kff.org/entmedia/mh012010pkg.cfm [Nov. 2011].
OCR for page 405
405 APPENDIX B Rouet, J-F. (2006). The skills of document use. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Selwyn, N. (2004). The information aged: A qualitative study of older adults’ use of informa- tion and communications technology. Journal of Aging Studies, 18, 369-384. Selwyn, N., and Gorard, S. (2004). Exploring the role of ICT in facilitating adult informal learning. Education, Communication and Information, 4(2), 293-310. Sharit, J., Hernandez, M., Czaja, S.J., and Pirolli, P. (2009). Investigating the roles of knowl- edge and cognitive abilities in older adult information seeking on the Web. ACM Transac- tions of Computer-Human Interaction, 15(1), 3-1-3-25. Silva, E. (2008). Measuring skills for the 21st century. Available: http://www.educationsector. org [Nov. 2011]. Silver-Pacuilla, H. (2006). Access and benefits: Assistive technology in adult literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50(2), 114-125. Smith, A. (2010a). Home broadband 2010. Available: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/ Home-Broadband-2010.aspx [Nov. 2011]. Smith, A. (2010b). Mobile access 2010. Available: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/ Mobile-Access-2010.aspx [Nov. 2011]. Smith, B.Q. (2004). Genre, medium, and learning to write: Negotiating identities, enacting school-based literacies in adulthood. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 34(2), 75-96. Stanley, L.D. (2003). Beyond access: Psychosocial barriers to computer literacy. The Informa- tion Society, 19(5), 407-416. Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Street, B. (2003). What’s “new” in new literacy studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2), 77-91. Tamassia, C., Lennon, M., Yamamoto, K., and Kirsch, I. (2007). Adult education in America: A first look at results from the adult education program and learner surveys. Available: http://www.ets.org/research/policy_research_reports/aeps-report [Nov. 2011]. Vandenbroeck, M., Verschelden, G., and Boonaert, T. (2008). E-learning in a low-status female profession: The role of motivation, anxiety and social support in the learning divide. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 181-190. Warren-Peace, P., Parrish, E., Peace, C.B., and Xu, J. (2008). Senior surfing: Computer use, aging, and formal training. AACE Journal, 16(3), 253-252. Webb, S. (2006). Can ICT reduce social exclusion? The case of an adults’ English language. British Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 481-507. White, S., and Dillow, S. (2005). Key concepts and features of the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006471 [Nov. 2011]. Yancey, K.B. (2009). Writing in the 21st century. Available: http://www.ncte.org/press/21 stcentwriting [Nov. 2011]. Yule, V. (1996). Take-home video for adult literacy. International Review of Education, 42(1), 187-203. Zhang, S., and Duke, N.K. (2008). Strategies for Internet reading with different reading purposes: A descriptive study of 12 good Internet readers. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(1), 128-162.
OCR for page 406