The Changing Landscape of Text and Comprehension in the Age of New Literacies

Handbook of Research on New Literacies

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 297-324

  Dalton, Bridget ^a   Proctor, C Patrick ^b  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85145121789     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781410618894-14     Document Type: Chapter

References (69)

1. Aist, G. (2002). Helping children learn vocabulary during computer-assisted oral reading [Electronic version]. Educational Technology and Society, 5(2).
2. Alvermann, D. E. (Ed.). (2002). Adolescents and literacies in a digital world. New York:Peter Lang Publishing.
3. American Library Association. (2000). Information literacy competency standards for education. Retrieved September 30, 2006, from http://www.ala.org/ala/acrlstandards/informationlitearcycompetency. htm
4. Anderson-Inman, L., and Horney, M. A. (1998). Transforming text for at-risk readers. In D.Reinking and M. C. McKenna (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world. (pp. 15-43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Anderson-Inman, L., and Horney, M. A., Chen, D., and Lewin, L. (1994). Hypertext literacy:Observations from the electrotext project. Language Arts, 71(4), 37-45.
6. Anstey, M., and Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and learning multiliteracies: Changing times, changing literacies. Newark, DE: International Reading Association and Australian Literacy Educators’ Association.
7. Castek, J. (2005). Internet reciprocal teaching: Connecting print and new literacies in a science inquiry project. Paper presented at the 55th National Reading Conference, Miami, FL.
8. Coiro, J. (2003). Reading comprehension on the Internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56, 458-464.
9. Dalton, B., Hupert, N., Proctor, C. P., Robinson, K., and Vue, G. (2005). Scaffolding strategic reading and viewing of multimedia Websites. Paper presented at the 55th National Reading Conference, Miami, FL.
10. Dalton, B., Pisha, B., Eagleton, M., Coyne, P., and Deysher, S. (2002). Engaging the text:Reciprocal teaching and questioning strategies in a scaffolded learning environment. Final report to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. Peabody, MA: CAST.
11. Dalton, B., and Proctor, P. (2007). Reading as thinking: Integrating strategy instruction in a universally designed digital literacy environment. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies. (pp. 423-442). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Dalton, B., and Strangman, N. (2006). Improving struggling readers’ comprehension through scaffolded hypertexts and other computer-based literacy programs. In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, and R. D. Keiffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Eagleton, M. B., Guinee, K., and Langlais, K. (2003). Teaching Internet literacy strategies: The hero inquiry project. Voices from the Middle, 10(3), 28-35.
14. Edyburn, D. L. (2002, April/May). Cognitive rescaling strategies: Interventions that alter the cognitive accessibility of text. Closing the Gap, 1, 10-11, 21.
15. Edyburn, D. L. (2005). A primer on universal design in education. Retrieved September 30, 2006, from http://www.uwm.edu/~edyburn/ud.html
16. Elkind, J., Cohen, K., and Murray, C (1993). Using computer-based readers to improve reading comprehension of students with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 238-259.
17. Higgins, K., Boone, R., and Lovitt, T. (1996). Hypertext support for remedial students and students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(4), 402-412.
18. Hobbs, R. (2006). Multiple visions of multimedia literacy: Emerging areas of synthesis. In M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, R. D. Keiffer, and D. Reinking (Eds.), International handbook of literacy and technology (Vol. 2, pp. 15-28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. Horney, M. A., and Anderson-Inman, L. (1994). The ElectroText Project: Hypertext reading patterns of middle school students. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3(1), 71-91.
20. Horney, M. A., and Anderson-Inman, L. (1999). Supported text in electronic reading environments. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15(2), 127-168.
21. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997, Public Law No. 105-17, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (1997).
22. Kamil, M. L., and Lane, D. (1998). Researching the relationship between technology and literacy:An agenda for the 21st century. In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, and R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a posttypographic world (pp. 323-341). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.
24. Kuiper, E., Volman, M., and Terwel, J. (2005). The Web as an information resource in K-12 education: Strategies for supporting students in searching and processing information. Review of Educational Research, 75, 285-328.
25. Labbo, L. D., and Reinking, D. (1999). Multiple realities of technology in literacy research and instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 478-492.
26. Lankshear, C., and Knobel, M. (2003). New Literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
27. Leander, K. M. (2004). A spatial history of a classroom literacy event. In K. Leander and M. Sheehy (Eds.), Spatializing literacy research and practice (pp. 115-142). New York:Peter Lang.
28. Leong, C. K. (1995). Effects of on-line reading and simultaneous DECtalk auding in helping below-average and poor readers comprehend and summarize text. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 101-116.
29. Leu, D. J., and Kinzer, C. K. (2000). The convergence of literacy instruction with networked technologies for information and communication. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(1), 108.
30. Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., and Cammack, D. (2004). Towards a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other ICT. In R. B. Ruddell and N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp.1570-1613). Newark, DE:International Reading Association.
31. Luke, A., and Freebody, P. (2000). Literate futures: Report of the review for Queensland state schools. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia: Education Queensland.
32. Lundberg, I., and Oloffson, A. (1993). Can computer speech support reading comprehension? Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 283-293.
33. MacArthur, C. A., Ferretti, R. P., Okolo, C. M., and Cavalier, A. R. (2001). Technology applications for students with literacy problems: A critical review. The Elementary School Journal, 101(3), 273-301.
34. MacArthur, C. A., and Haynes, J. B. (1995). Student assistant for learning from text (salt): A hypermedia reading aid. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(3), 50-59.
35. MacEneaney, J. (2006). Agent-based literacy theory. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 352-371.
36. Mace, R. L. (1998). Universal design in housing. Assistive Technology, 10(1), 21-28.
37. Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1-19.
38. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
39. McKenna, M. C. (1998). Electronic texts and the transformation of beginning reading. In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, and R. D. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 45-59). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40. McKenna, M. C., Reinking, D., Labbo, L. D., and Kieffer, R. D. (1999). The electronic transformation of literacy and its implications for struggling readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 111-126.
41. McKenna, M., and Watkins, J. (1994). Computer-mediated books for beginning readers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Diego, CA.
42. McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., and Worthy, M. J. (1993). Grappling with text ideas: Questioning the author. The Reading Teacher, 46, 560-566.
43. McNamara, D. S., O’Reilly, T., Best, R., and Ozuru, Y. (2006). Improving adolescent students’ reading comprehension with iSTART. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34, 147-171.
44. Merrow, J. (2001, Spring). Double click: Threat or promise? Technology in Education. Ed., The Magazine of the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Retrieved September 30, 2006 from http://www.pbs.org/merrow/news/ed_book_excerpt.html
45. Meyer, A., and Rose, D. H. (2005). The future is in the margins: The role of technology and disability in educational reform. In D. H. Rose, A. Meyer, and C. Hitchcock (Eds.), The universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies (pp. 13-35). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
46. Mostow, J., Aist, G., Burkhead, P., Corbett, A., Cuneo, A., Eitelman, S., et al. (2003). Evaluation of an automated reading tutor that listens: Comparison to human tutoring and classroom instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(1), 61-117.
47. Nagy, W. E., and Scott, J. A. (2004). Vocabulary processes. In R. B. Ruddell and N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed. pp. 574-593). Newark, DE:International Reading Association.
48. National Center for Education Statistics; (2003). The nation’s report card: Reading. Retrieved January 22, 2004 from: nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/results2003/.
49. National Instructional Materials Standard. (2006). NIMAS Development Center and Technical Assistance Center. Retrieved September 30, 2006 from http://nimas.cast.org
50. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy.
51. O’Brien, D. (2001). “At-risk” adolescents: Redefining competence through the multiliteracies of intermediality, visual arts, and representation. Reading Online, 4(11). Retrieved September 19, 2005, from http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/lit_index.asp? HREF=/newliteracies/obrien/index.html
52. Paivio, A (1986) Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
53. Palinscar, A. S., and Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117.
54. Palincsar, A., and Dalton, B. (2005). Speaking literacy and learning to technology; Speaking technology to literacy and learning. In B. Maloch, J. Hoffman, D. Schallert, C. Fairbanks, and J. Worthy (Eds.), Invited annual research address, 54th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 83-102). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.
55. Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R., and Lipson, M. Y. (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve children’s reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1239-1252.
56. Pea, R. D. (1994). Seeing what we build together: Distributed multimedia learning environments for transformative communications. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 285-299.
57. Plass, J., Chun, D., Mayer, R., and Leutner, D. (1998). Supporting visualizer and verbalizer learning preferences in a second language multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 25-36.
58. Plass, J. L., Chun, D. M., Mayer, R. E., and Leutner, D. (2003). Cognitive load in reading a foreign language text with multimedia aids and the influence of verbal and spatial abilities. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 221-243.
59. Proctor, C. P., Dalton, B., and Grisham, D. (2007). Scaffolding English language learners and struggling readers in a universal literacy environment with embedded strategy instruction and vocabulary support. Journal of Literacy Research, 39 (1), 71-93.
60. Reinking, D., and Schreiner, R. (1985). The effects of computer-mediated text on measures of reading comprehension and reading behavior. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(5), 536-552.
61. Rose, D. H., and Dalton, B. (2002). Using technology to individualize reading instruction. In C. C. Block, L. B. Gambrell, and M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction:Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice (pp. 257-274). San Francisco:Jossey Bass Publishers.
62. Rose, D. H., and Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).
63. Salomon, G., Globerson, T., and Guterman, E. (1989). The computer as a zone of proximal development: Internalizing reading-related metacognitions from a reading partner. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 620-627.
64. Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in reading comprehension. Pittsburgh, PA: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
65. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-406.
66. Strangman, N., and Dalton, B. (2005). Technology for struggling readers: A review of the research. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, and R. Boone (Eds.), The handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 545-569). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
67. Swanson, H.L., and Trahan, M. F. (1992). Learning disabled readers’ comprehension of computer mediated text: The influence of working memory, metacognition and attribution. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 7(2), 74-86.
68. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
69. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., and Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 17(2), 89-100.