The influence of technological literacy on students' writing

Journal of Educational Computing Research

Volumn 41, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 253-270

  Turner, Kristen ^a   Katic, Elvira ^b  

^a FORDHAM UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b RAMAPO COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350627254     PISSN: 07356331     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2190/EC.41.3.a     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Chandler-Olcott, K., & Mahar, D. (2003). "Tech-savviness" meets multiliteracies: Exploring adolescent girls' technology-mediated literacy practices. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(3), 356-385.
2. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods, in: N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3. Cresswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
5. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21-32.
6. Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
7. Landow, G. P. (1992). Hypertext: The convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
8. Lanham, R. (1993). The electronic word: Democracy, technology, and the arts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge in the classroom. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
10. Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge.
11. Lenhart, A., Arafeh, S., Smith, A., & Macgill, A. R. (2008). Writing, technology and teens. Pew and American Life Project. [Online]. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/247/report-display.asp
12. Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. B. Ruddell and N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570-1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
13. Lewis, C., & Finders, M. (2002). Implied adolescents and implied teachers: A generation gap for new times. In D. E. Alvermann (Ed.), Adolescents and literacies in a digital world (pp. 101-113). New York: Peter Lang.
14. National Center for Education Statistics (2007). [Online]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform/res-tab14.asp
15. National Writing Project & Nagin, C. (2003). Because writing matters: Improving student writing in our schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
16. Prensky, M. (2005). Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership, December 2005/January 2006, 8-13.
17. Richardson, L. (1994). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 516-529). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Schmar-Dobler, E. (2003). Reading on the internet: The link between literacy and technology. Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 47(1), 80-85.
19. Sefton-Green, J. (2006). Youth, technology, and media cultures. Review of Research in Education, 30(1), 279-306.
20. Selfe, C. (1999). Technology and literacy in the twenty-first century: The importance of paying attention. Carbonale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
21. Selwyn, N. (2006). Exploring the 'digital disconnect' between net-savvy students and their schools. Learning, Media, and Technology, 31(1), 5-17.
22. Smagorinsky, P. (1994). Think-aloud protocol analysis: Beyond the black box. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology (pp. 3-19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23. Smith, M. W. (1991). Constructing meaning from text: An analysis of ninth-grade reader responses. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 263-271.
24. Snyder, I. (1998). Beyond the hype: Reassessing hypertext. In I. Snyder (Ed.), Page to screen: Taking literacy into the electronic age (pp. 125-161). New York: Routledge.
25. Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26. Strauss, A.,&Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. The New London Group. (2000) Apedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London: Routledge.
28. United States Census Bureau ( 2003). Computer and internet use in the United States: October 2003. [Online]. Available:
29. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30. Westby, C., & Atencio, D. J. (2002). Computers, culture, and learning. Topics in Language Disorders, 22(4), 70-87.
31. Wood, J. M. (2000). A marriage waiting to happen: Computers and process writing. Boston, MA: Education Development Center. [Online]. Available: http://www.edtechleaders.org/Resources/Readings/UpperElemLiteracy/Wood-Comp utesWriting.htm